Talk:Lee–Enfield

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Lee-Enfield)
Former good article nomineeLee–Enfield was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 11, 2006WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
January 26, 2009WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
February 25, 2009WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
April 8, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
May 7, 2011WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
December 5, 2022Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 26, 2012, and January 26, 2015.
Current status: Former good article nominee

MLE photograph[edit]

on the MLE section there is a photograph of a carbine, but it is not an MLE, in fact it is not even claiming to be one; the caption is Cavalry carbine, 1865 - BL Foster 994, it is a percussion cap

this image seems a little pointless and irrelevant I think it should be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.224.178.123 (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. It should removed. --Unit2357 (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Service Periods?[edit]

I am not sure any Lee Enfield's remain in service today, at least not with the British army, especially not those in .303 (table taken directly from article)

Model/Mark In Service
Magazine Lee-Enfield 1895–1926
Charger Loading Lee-Enfield 1906–1926
Short Magazine Lee-Enfield Mk I 1904–1926
Short Magazine Lee-Enfield Mk II 1906–1927
Short Magazine Lee-Enfield Mk III/III* 1907 – present
Short Magazine Lee-Enfield Mk V 1922–1924 (trials only; 20,000 produced)
Rifle No. 1 Mk VI 1930–1933 (trials only; 1,025 produced)
Rifle No. 4 Mk I 1939 – present (officially adopted in 1941)
Rifle No. 4 Mk I* 1942 – present
Rifle No 5 Mk I "Jungle Carbine" 1944 – present
Rifle No. 4 Mk 2 1949 – present
Rifle 7.62mm 2A 1964 – present
Rifle 7.62mm 2A1 1965 – present

(Fdsdh1 (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

The Mosin Nagant is still in service with Finnish sharpshooters, and predates both the MLE and the SMLE. The Mauser 98 was still in use in Brazil, for military training, within the last decade. Mzmadmike (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian images[edit]

A minor point but surely, given the widespread use of this weapon among British Empire/Commonwealth forces, it would be slightly more fitting to include a bit more variation in the images? This seems to be a trend with quite a number of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.62.103 (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan[edit]

The Enfield .303 is no longer in use by either the military or the police in Pakistan. Thus the reference to it being used by second line troops and police in Pakistan should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolori (talk • contribs) 14:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest Serving Bolt Action[edit]

This is untrue, the Mosin-Nagant is from 1891 and still in Finnish service today (as the 7.62 Tkiv 85) Товарищ (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Lee-Enfield (well, OK, the Lee-Metford, but the only real difference is the rifling) dates from 1889, predating the M91, and the Tkiv 85 is a heavily modified M91/30, whereas there are actual WWI/WWII vintage SMLE Mk III* rifles still being used by Indian and African police services. In that respect, the Lee-Enfield is indeed the oldest and longest serving bolt-action rifle still in service. Commander Zulu (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, your claim is that one modified rifle is older than another modified rifle and therefore the modified rifle can make a claim the modified rifle cannot? Even though the modified rifle is built on receivers that predate the modified rifle?Mzmadmike (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Enfield' part of the designation actually refers to the pattern of rifling employed. Enfield rifling was designed to be more usable with the then-new smokeless powders, such as Cordite, which the Metford rifling was less suited to. So the name format used was action/rifling

In that case the Carcano would be the oldest serving bolt action, being used by the National Liberation Army in Libya and designed in 1890. And There's a chance somewhere out there there is a bolt action still technically in service older than that. I think we should be careful about making claims like that in the article. Nlesbirel (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, yet the claim remains in the article. "One of" would be accurate. "Oldest" requires documentation of issue or acquisition by a government or recognized rebel force with a logistics program.Mzmadmike (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Identification with Colonialism[edit]

Propose the following: "So closely was the weapon associated with British colonialism that in the film Breaker Morant, a group of prisoners is said to have been shot "under rule three-oh-three" (though James K. Kirschke notes that there is no evidence that any such rule actually existed."[1] There was an objection and a call for discussion. DavidOaks (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Against: For the reason that this doesn't even begin to approach the standard set by th WP:GUNS guidelines for popular culture seen here: [[1]]. In fact, it would be difficult to associate this quote with the Lee-Enfield definitively let alone establish that this particular instance had any effect on the firearm whatsoever. Seems quite obscure to me. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hearing no further discussion, I added a well-sourced indication of the weapon's cultural significance. DavidOaks (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, that is not how a consensus works. You put out some obscure reference, of which there are hundreds if not THOUSANDS referring to the Lee Enfield in movies, books, fiction, etc. You offer no evidence that it effected the firearm whatsoever. You don't even tie the RIFLE to the quote, only the .303 caliber. It could have been a Pattern 14, a Ross rifle, a Lee Meterford, or even a BREN for all anybody knows. This edit doesn't cut the mustard. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have your own ideas of wikipolicies (have a look at this thing you say about the use of edit summaries and relation to edit-warring -- that's your invention). The edit is well-sourced, relevant, drew no objection but yours. The article already acknowledges that the Lee-Enfield was regularly called the .303. Please note that work-group guidelines are just that -- articles are not owned by work-grouyps, most certainly not by individuals. I'm not sure what "effect on firearm" would mean -- the thing was physically transformed? And note as well the larger group-guidelines I cited. This is not a mere mention of the rifle's appearance in a movie -- that would be trivia -- but a verifiable instance of its cultural significance. That would be highly encyclopedic. I don't think the gudielines were meant to exclude that.DavidOaks (talk) 11:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point was well made that the factoid is best placed elsewhere than the lead. The history section is purely about tech spec (as if these things never had any actual use in or effect upon the world). Googling the combo "Lee-Enfield" and "rule .303" generates enough hits to document the fact that the term has considerable currency, but citing bunches of usage-contexts to prove the obvious would tend towards WP:point. It isn't that the rifle is mentioned in a film -- that's trivia. The point is that the rifle becomes a metonym for the excesses of colonialism and civil war, and even enters the laguage, even scholarly discourse. Another extended scholarly usage should be sufficient:

Rule 303 is in the same chapter of the "Code of Human Conduct" as the rule that allows cattle posses to hang rustlers, white vigilantes to hang Black rapists, Black militants to ring Black collaborators with burning tires, and revolutionary crowds to guillotine counterrevolutionaries. The chapter title is "Summary Executions." The procedural rules for "Summary Executions" are that a charismatic leader or an unreasoning mob, despite limited evidence and protestations of innocence, identifies someone as clearly guilty and as clearly heinous--as someone deserving of the irrevocable punishment of death. This chapter, including Morant's "Rule 303," favors results over process, ends over means, and swift certainty over equivocating doubt.

"Rule 303" and its related rules have a patina of higher justice promptly, albeit terribly, executed. We should not be fooled. Human beings should be respectfully suspicious of their motivations. Righteous vengeance is no justification for the immediate execution of another human being. Human beings should be diligently alert to human errors and human frailties. Certitude and passionate action are no comfort when doubt and deliberation are the better paths. Beneath the patina of justice is the hardened heart, beating to atavistic instincts that divide the world into them and us. They deserve death inflicted by us.

Drew L. Kershen in the Oklahoma City University Law Review Volume 22, Number 1 (1997).DavidOaks (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Developing the discussion of guidelines further: Have a look -- "a discussion of the Webley representing a stereotypical British revolver, or a conceptual artist's public response to the symbolism of the East European tank monument, is certainly notable." Yes, I'd say a demonstration of the .303 as metonym meets this test. As it meets the following: "Acceptable pop culture information should be highly notable, for example: the Walther PPK's use by James Bond." James Bond is popular culture. Colonialism is world history. "Rule .303" gets forty thousand google hits. It is nearer the purpose of a worthwhile encyclopedia that a reader be able to get an understanding of that phrase than that s/he be able to find out what kind of sidearm a fictional character uses. This article is seriously lacking in cultural context; the "history" thus far treats only technical matters. That's a serious defect. I'm improving it. If I were adding long lists of every instance in which a .303 is mentioned or portrayed, you'd have a point. (BTW, I think the category used in the guidelines is a little off -- this is not a pop-culture reference, certainly not in the sense the guidelines you cite intend, for the purpose of avoiding an exhaustive list of films in which a given weapon occurs. There is a difference between culture and pop culture) DavidOaks (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against This sentence has no relevance whatsoever to the Lee-Enfield article. It's about the .303 cartridge. Add it to that article if you like. As Nukes4Tots already stated, it this sentence could be discussing practically any weapon chambered for .303. Also please don't support your own proposals in a way that makes it look like there are others supporting. Thanks--Pattont/c 16:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
Thanks for participating in the discussion. I guess I don't understand this phrase: "Also please don't support your own proposals in a way that makes it look like there are others supporting." I supplied evidence for the association -- is that against some rule I'm unaware of? DavidOaks (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When Nukes4Tots added his "Against" comment you added "For" right underneath it even though your the proposer. Can be misleading ;-). Anyway this article is already very long and only important info about the cartridge should be mentioend (weight, penetration etc). Add it to the .303 article if you like.--Pattont/c 16:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks too for a constructive suggestion. Now, this suggests two further modifications -- if ".303" refers primarily or even exclusively to a caliber rather than a weapon, should the statement that .303 generally refers to the Lee-Enfield be deleted from this article? That was in fact my understanding of the usual meaning of ".303" both in the film and in common usage, but if it's inaccurate, then it has to go; if it's true/verifiable, then I think we're back to where we were -- the statement stays and the historical reference again becomes appropriate to this article. One thing or the other. Likewise, the DAB page currently sends people here, and should probably be changed if in fact we generally understand the otherwise unspecified term ".303" to refer to a caliber, not a firearm. I'd go ahead and make those changes on the basis of WP:Be Bold, but I'm getting retaliatory vandalism of my talkpage and WP:Hounding from a longtime edit-warrior, and kind of getting sick of it. DavidOaks (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.303 pimarily refers to the cartridge, although yes, this rifle was sometimes called the "three-oh-three", in the same way the M2 Browning is sometimes called the "fifty", or the M4A3 Sherman was sometimes called the "seventy-six".--Pattont/c 17:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Australia and New Zealand, ".303" refers to the Lee-Enfield rifle as well as the cartridge. If you said to someone "I'm going to bring a .303 camping", they would assume you meant a Lee-Enfield rifle, not a single cartridge. The Breaker Morant reference is absolutely warranted, completely relevant, and most certainly belongs in the article, IMHO. Commander Zulu (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's appropriate at the very least as a culutral reference. Certainly in Australia, any reference to "a 303" is assumed to be a reference to an SMLE or No 4 rifle. Kartano (talk) 00:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know that consenus was ever achieved. I returned it, then realized it should be discussed first (extended WP:BRD. So I propose adding the following to the lead paragraph: So closely was the weapon associated with British colonialism that in the film Breaker Morant, a group of prisoners is said to have been shot "under rule three-oh-three" (though James K. Kirschke notes that there is no evidence that any such rule actually existed."[2] DavidOaks (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After a couple of weeks with no objections, I'll take silence for consent. DavidOaks (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this David, but didn't realise you were thinking of the very first paragraph of the lead. I don't dispute its addition, but it seems a bit too much detail so early on. I know Wikipedia dislikes Popular culture sections, but I wonder if this rifle should have some sort of legacy section. After all the lead is supposed to summarise the article contents and there's precious little about the 303 name in the main body of the text. Ranger Steve (talk) 09:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Seems reasonable!DavidOaks (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of removing the sentence referring to the academic noting that "Rule 303" was unlikely to have existed, since the average reader is going to roll their eyes and think "Well, Duh!"- obviously the British wouldn't have a rule (conveniently named after the calibre of their service rifle, no less) allowing their soldiers to shoot prisoners out of hand. Commander Zulu (talk) 04:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Say Who Made Her So: Breaker Morant and British Empire Film & History: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Film and Television Studies Volume 38.2 (2008) E-ISSN: 1548-9922 Print ISSN: 0360-3695 DOI: 10.1353/flm.0.0042 James J. KirschkeVillanova University
  2. ^ Say Who Made Her So: Breaker Morant and British Empire Film & History: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Film and Television Studies Volume 38.2 (2008) E-ISSN: 1548-9922 Print ISSN: 0360-3695 DOI: 10.1353/flm.0.0042 James J. KirschkeVillanova University
Obviously Rule 303 never existed, it's a figure of speech. (In the army in Northern Ireland in the 1980s it was called 'Big Boys' Rules', as in the expression, 'Big boys' games, big boys' rules,' meaning that, since terrorists gave no quarter, they could expect none in return. The difference at that time was that the troops were careful not to break the law -- you could shoot terrorists if it was too dangerous to take them alive, but you didn't take them alive and then kill them, as Morant unfortunately did.) Breaker Morant is a distinguished and notable film and Edward Woodward's 'Rule 303' speech is famous. There are multiple extracts featuring it on YouTube and you can even buy 'Rule 303' T-shirts of various designs, macabre as that seems. Woodward of course is playing Harry Morant. I gather that the term 'Rule 303' really was used at the court martial, but by one of the other defendants, not Morant himself. As the transcripts are lost, it's hard to be sure. In the film, the characters are equipped with the Magazine Lee-Enfield Mark I, which is correct for late Boer War issue. (Some of the Boers are also seen carrying Lee-Enfields as well as 1895 Mausers, which is again correct -- the Boers did use captured British rifles.) As Woodward delivers the lines, in answer to a provocative question about which rules of engagement entitled him to shoot prisoners, the audience sees a flashback to the shooting incident and a close-up of the wristguard -- the steel band around the Lee-Enfield's stock just above the trigger -- stamped with the maker's mark 'L.S.A. Co. Ltd' (London Small Arms, one of the supplementary manufacturers) and '.303'. The rifle was usually called the 303 in service, just as the US Colt 1911 pistol was called the 45. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lee-Enfield name usage[edit]

I have understood for many years that upon the adoption of the No. 4 rifle in early WWII that the "Lee" name was dropped completely. As I have read in US literature on the subject, the SMLE was the last Lee-Enfield because the Lee name was not associated with the No. 4 rifle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.151.21 (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Lee" refers to the bolt design, "Enfield" to the rifling. The Rifle, No. 4 used the same bolt action and rifling as the earlier SMLE, and is still a Lee-Enfield. Ditto the Rifle, No. 5 "Jungle Carbine" and the Ishapore 2A1. Commander Zulu (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It was in 1926 that the nomenclature changed from "Short, Magazine, Lee-Enfield" to: "Rifle No.1" but it was only the naming that changed. (That is to say why before the No.4.) As a rifle type, the rifles remain Lee-Enfields. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.56.245 (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

its always lee enfield, one question though, Lee-Enfield or Lee Enfield? (Fdsdh1 (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Great article chaps. I have a request for additional content.[edit]

Great article. My thanks to all the contributors. One of the things I enjoyed was learning of rifle users using the names "Smelly" (SMLE) and "Emily" (MLE) and I found myself reading the letters that way as I progressed through the article.

What I'd like to see added, if anyone is able, is a bit more colour; perhaps some quotes from British WWI troops about their feelings towards the rifle. Since the gun was very effective I imagine that British soldiers were quite favourable towards the guns; if anyone has a soldier's quote or reminiscence about the guns it would be marvellous to see that in the article. And/or something from politicians about the gun's contribution to British success. For someone who has no deep interest in weaponry I would have been pleased to see such human angles alongside the detailed information of the weapon's build and capabilities. --bodnotbod (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True afficionados consider the term "smelly" offensive. We (conflict of interest revealed) prefer "smiley." Rumiton (talk) 08:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I own dozens and am certainly an aficionado, and it's a Smelly. ;) Mzmadmike (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was usually pronounced ess-emm-ell-ee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.209 (talk) 09:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
George MacDonald Fraser served with 9th Battalion The Border Regiment, 19th Indian Division, Fourteenth Army, in Burma in 1944-5. He carried an SMLE No.1 MkIII of Great War pattern. In Quartered Safe Out Here: A Recollection of the War in Burma (HarperCollins, 1993, pbk HarperCollins, London, 2000, ISBN 0 00 710593 2), pp.29-30, he recalls:- 'The standard arm was the most beautiful firearm ever invented, the famous Lee Enfield, either of the old pattern with flat backsight and long sword bayonet, or the Mark IV [he means No.4] with the pig-sticker, a nine-inch spike with no cutting edge. The old pattern, which I carried, was the great rifle of the First World War, which the Old Contemptibles used with such speed and skill that the enemy often believed they were facing automatic weapons... I'm no Davy Crockett, but I could hit three falling plates (about ten inches square) out of five at two hundred [yards], and I was graded only a first-class shot, not a marksman. The Lee Enfield, cased in wood from butt to muzzle, could stand up to any rough treatment, and it never jammed... She's a museum piece now, but I still see her on TV newsreels, in the hands of hairy, outlandish men like the Mujahedeen of Afghanistan and capable-looking gentry in North Africa, and I have a feeling that she will be loosing off her ten rounds rapid when the Kalashnikovs and Armalites are forgotten. That's the old reactionary talking. No doubt Agincourt die-hards said the same of the long bow. Nowadays the automatic rifle, and concentrated firepower, are the thing, spraying rounds all over the place... but I doubt if the standard of marksmanship is what it was -- it can't be, except at short range -- and I wonder what happens if, say, a bridge has to be blown from a distance, because there's no fuse, and someone has to hit a gun-cotton primer, the size of a 10p piece, at two hundred yards? (A Sapper lieutenant did that in Burma, with a Lee Enfield, one shot.) Possibly such problems don't arise in modern, hi-tech war, or perhaps they just plaster the bloody thing with automatic fire, and hope.' Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

.410 conversions[edit]

There are actually two quite different ".410" cartridges being discussed here.

The first is the common ".410" sporting shotgun cartridge, made in several different lengths (which may prevent conversions with short chambers from accepting longer cartridges) while the other is the quite distinct ".410 Musket" or ".410 Indian Police" cartridge, produced by loading a .303 cartridge which had not had the final "necking down" step performed.

The .410 shotgun conversions to the commercial sporting cartridge were largely the result of British and Australian gun control laws. Shotguns could be owned with little paperwork, while military rifles required registration and police permission, secure storage, in-home inspections of storage, etc. As a result, many .303 rifles had their barrels drilled and reamed out to .410 and the chambers recut to accept commercial .410 sporting shotgun cartridges. This allowed the owners to register them as shotguns rather than as rifles. Many such conversions were done by individual gunsmiths, though there were some "factory" .410 shotgun SMLEs produced in Australia after WW II.

The .410 Musket was the result of the government of British India wanting to arm police with a weapon that had a reduced range (for general public safety) and that could not accept easily-obtained ammunition (to make them less useful for insurgents), thus the development of a unique "Musket" cartridge.

British (and British-ruled India) ammunition manufacturers used cordite as a propellant, this required that the strands of cordite be loaded into the case while the case still a (nearly) straight-walled cylinder; the case mouth would then be "necked down" to the final form, to accept the .311" bullet. This is unlike the case-forming and loading processes used elsewhere when using granulated propellants where the case is brought to its final form prior to installation of the primer and propellant charge.

In the case of the .410 Musket, the partially formed .303 case was simply loaded with a suitable charge of a granulated smokeless powder, as used in a shotgun cartridge, and then loaded more or less in the same fashion as a shotgun cartridge with either fine shot, "segmented shot" or a "ball" round that was literally a round lead ball.

The chamber for the .410 Musket has much more taper than that of a sporting .410 shotgun cartridge, and even 2" .410 shotgun cartridges will not chamber.

The .410 Musket remains in use with police in both India and Pakistan (http://policewb.gov.in/wbp/unit/ptc/ptctrg.php for an Indian example) and ammunition is presumably loaded in both nations, but it is not available for export or civilian sales.

.410 Musket has been loaded commercially (presumably under contract from Indian or Pakistani government users) by British firms such as Kynoch in the past, but there does not seem to have been any production in decades.

While many of the .410 Muskets that have been sold as surplus outside India and Pakistan have been modified to use commercial .410 shotgun cartridges (the US surplus gun dealer Springfield Sporters, for example, reamed the chambers of many of the .410 Muskets they imported, they charged about $10 more for this work) it is possible to modify .303 cartridge cases to use for handloading .410 Musket. The usual procedure is to anneal the mouth of a .303 cartridge case with a propane gas torch, then load with a "fire-forming" charge of a small amount of a fast-burning powder (5 grains of Bullseye powder for example) topped by filling the case with a filler material such as corn starch to provide sufficient resistance for the powder to burn properly. When fired in the .410 Musket chamber, the soft (annealed) brass of the case mouth will expand to fit the .410 Musket chamber and can subsequently be loaded as a .410 Musket cartridge case. There is a web page on this process at http://www.fourten.org.uk/reloading303.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.162.7 (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines listed as user?[edit]

No documentation provided for Filipino use of the No4 Lee Enfield. Such use is extremely unlikely as the Phillipines were under US control at prior to WW II and used US-supplied small arms, in particular the .30 caliber M1917 "Enfield" rifle. Post-war/post-independence small arms continued to be supplied by the US.

The No4 Lee Enfield was in short supply in Britain prior to the Japanese invasion of the Philippines. None would have been available to supply to a non-Commonwealth nation. While some Canadian-produced No4 rifles were supplied to Chinese forces, there is no evidence that any were supplied to Filipino forces, regular or irregular. Nor is it likely that Japanese-captured No4s would have been supplied to Filipino forces collaborating with the Japanese, as few of the Commonwealth forces the Japanese were facing were equipped with No4s. British forces at Singapoe and Hong Kong were equipped with MkIII Lee Enfields, and Indian, Australian and New Zealand forces were almost entirely equipped with MkIIIs for the duration of the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.212.115 (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, a ship carrying a cargo of supplies intended for Canadian troops was captured by the Japanese at Hong Kong. IIRC, the cargo included among other things, a number of Universal Carriers, so it is possible it also included rifles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.167 (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely to have included any sort of Lee-Enfield rifles. Canada was in short supply of rifles when Hong Kong capitulated on 25 December 1941, having shipped most of their MkIII Lee-Enfields to the UK and being so short of weapons that they purchased a large number of M1917 rifles from the US to arm Canadian troops in Canada. The No4MkI production did not begin until June 1941 and there would have been only small quantities available by December 1941, all going to Canadian forces before any thought would have been given to providing them to allied Chinese forces. The Chinese did not receive any No4MkIs from Canada until at least 1943. References to 'Enfields" in the Philippines are to 1917 rifles supplied by the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.166.3 (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Named '303' in military usage[edit]

It says there that the Empire countries called it a 303- this was also a popular name with British troops, and my grandfather- who served National Service briefly as a Private in the REME and then as a 2nd and later full Lieutenant in the RASC. He has told me, on frequent occasions, that in his experience it was always called '303' in casual usage. I was contemplating add this to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.157.43 (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The full designation would have been something like; Rifle, Short, Magazine, Lee-Enfield, Mark 1 etc.
For the later ones; Rifle Number 1 Mark 5 etc.
Note: no commas ',' in the later designations.
The ammunition was officially; .303in SAA Ball
... but yes, most users (as opposed to armourers) would have just called it a "303" - 'three-oh-three'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the 'SAA' stood for Small Arms Ammunition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lee - Enfield air rifle conversion[edit]

I remember in the autumn of 1986 the UK company AirArms produced a .22 air cartridge conversion of real surplus MK IVs. I seem to remember they retailed for £160-£180. I still kick myself for not buying one. There are sources out there to confirm I am sure. I even have a Dec 86 copy of Air Gun magazine (prob in some old cardbox box somewhere) with a description and photo. The description stated they were surplus and the quality of the woodwork was variable. It was based on the Brocock .38 air cartridge, which was charged with a pump and then a 22 pellet was inserted into the cartridge on top. The bolt action was the same and it took 5 cartridges. I think this is the only example of a service rifle being converted to a commercially available air rifle. And you didnt need a licence. Would be a nice little seperate section. Irondome (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like the Brocock conversion? They're Section 5 weapons now (since 2003) in the UK, have to be licensed and are non-transferable. Brocock is still advertising the .303 cartridge type air cartridges for them though. They may still be available elsewhere?
I wouldn't mind finding one in the US to add to my Lee-Enfield collection. Under US law the receiver is the legal "firearm" and thus they would be considered the same as an unmodified No4 rifle when it comes to possession or transfer. And as a modified military surplus firearm, they're not importable under US law. Truly silly laws on either side of the Atlantic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.107.246 (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1902 BSA Co 303 Rifle.[edit]

Hi I am hoping to find out more about this rifle which has these Markings . (A crown with er below, then BSA Co 1902. )On the stock it Has (Birmingham BSA A crown & M.C.)all in a circle. Then (Commonwealth Of Australia MTLY Forces .AI?). In another circle. It also has other stampings On the stock. The rifle has all matching numbers, it also has a fold up peep Sight with cross slide adjustments. It does not have a safety catch only a Magazine slide arrangement. It also has brass muzzle cap (dirt protector ?) The rifle has a greasy film all over there are also other stampings on the barrel Has brass stock plate with oil bottle and pull through in stock hole.

Hoping someone can help Regards. Ron A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.209.128 (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"SHTLE"?[edit]

"For example, there are some surviving SHTLE Mk III rifles made in 1916 at the Birmingham Small Arms Co in Victoria Australia that have the "pre 1915" round knob bolt action."

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't find any clues in the article to explain just what a "SHTLE" rifle is. I've never heard of any such thing. "Short Hand-Training Lee-Enfield"? Maybe the person who wrote that sentence, or some other knowledgeable fellow could explain the acronym, because now I'm curious. .45Colt 05:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It stands for: SHorT Lee Enfield. Simples! As to "never heard of any such thing", take look at the left hand butt socket on some SMLEs, many have that designation stamped there.

Given that the usual pronouncement of "SMLE" is "Smelly", exactly how does one pronounce SHTLE"? – Bardbom (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect barrel length listed[edit]

Barrel length for first entry on the right (presumably mark 1) is listed as 44 inches, which is absurdly long and i can find no evidence of any service rifle with a barrel length this long, much less the enfield. needs changing.

here are the appropriate barrel lengths:

Barrel length 

   767 mm (Lee-Enfield Mk.1)
   640 mm (SMLE No.1 Mk.3)
   640 mm (SMLE No.4 Mk.1)
   478 mm (SMLE No.5 Jungle Carbine)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.32.154.2 (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lee–Enfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Lee–Enfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lee–Enfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lee–Enfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IOF .315 sporting rifle[edit]

The IOF .315 sporting rifle is a civilian version of the British military Lee–Enfield rifle, chambered in the 8x50mmR Mannlicher cartridge rather than the .303 British military cartridge due to Indian gun control laws. 1.23.152.116 (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lee–Enfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice pictures, but...[edit]

A lot of good pictures on this article, but any picture of the quintessential British rifle being used by British forces seems rather conspicuous by its absence. Is there any particular reason for this? Sadly, I don't have one of my own to contribute. --Vometia (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC) You may try downloading one from google, just remember to cite where the photo is from or you might be subject to copyright 11:54, 28 February 2020 (GMT+8) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.168.214.47 (talk) [reply]

SMLE Mk. III/Spitzer[edit]

Ian McCollum just explained that the SMLE Mk. III did NOT initally accept Spitzer rounds. The article should be changed to reflect that. --84.189.95.128 (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture[edit]

@88.243.143.211: The recently added pop culture section does not adequately demonstrate its importance. As stated at MOS:CULTURALREFS, pop culture sections should not be included, unless there are secondary sources that provide in-depth coverage that explain why a particular appearance in popular culture is noteworthy. Loafiewa (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the last policy that you sent looks much more related to this discussion than the previous ones. I no longer object to the removal of the content. Cheers. 88.243.159.0 (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actual WWI production costs[edit]

In 2001 our long inactive colleague Commander Zulu added, referencing a printed book, that during WWI SMLE Mk III cost £3 15s, and it's still present in the article. But I find it suspicious that Frederick Kellaway described a different cost dynamic after the war: namely, it "fell from £4 1s. to £3 8s". Could anyone please check in that 2001 book at which year the price was £3 15s? Ain92 (talk) 10:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lee–Enfield&oldid=1213272482"