British Muzzleloaders' new video series - history of the No 4, Mk I* Lee Enfield

#4
 
#7
Can confirm first hand that he does ;)

You can tell him that the "MkII" on the MkIII sight is not incorrectly stamped - because it refers to the sight leaf and not the complete sight assembly. Ergo, the MkI sight leaf is on the Mk1 sight, but the MkII sight leaf is on the MkIII sight, because the MkII sight was the 300/600 flip sight.

I'm sure that you knew that....

p.s. as a proud Canadian, I'm a bit surprised that he didn't mention that the first large-scale use of the No4 was actually in August 1942 - Dieppe.

p.p.s as a proud Canadian he might be a bit disappointed to hear that the only Canadian part of his own rifle is the receiver; the rest is a mish-mash of other British parts added during or since its last service life in India.
 
#9
You can tell him that the "MkII" on the MkIII sight is not incorrectly stamped - because it refers to the sight leaf and not the complete sight assembly. Ergo, the MkI sight leaf is on the Mk1 sight, but the MkII sight leaf is on the MkIII sight, because the MkII sight was the 300/600 flip sight.

I'm sure that you knew that....

p.s. as a proud Canadian, I'm a bit surprised that he didn't mention that the first large-scale use of the No4 was actually in August 1942 - Dieppe.

p.p.s as a proud Canadian he might be a bit disappointed to hear that the only Canadian part of his own rifle is the receiver; the rest is a mish-mash of other British parts added during or since its last service life in India.
Personally, I've never felt satisfied with that explanation of the mark numbers, since on the Mk.2-stamped sights, the body of the sight is one single unitary part, with both the leaf, the battle aperture and the "foot" all integral. The "it refers to the leaf" thing seems to be justification after the fact, and would require for the fully-stamped sights that the mark number refers to only a sub-part of a single-piece unit. I can think of no other situation where a mark number could conceivably refer to only a part of a single-piece integrally-formed object.

Have you got a LoC reference, or anything official other than the figure from the 1955 pam that does the rounds (and contains other errors and omissions)?

My supposition, based on.... an educated guess, is that officially they were something like "Sight, Leaf, Mk.2" and the 2-position flip was something else (e.g. simply "Sight, Mk.2", or "Sight, Two-Position, Mk.1"), and somebody read "Sight, Leaf" as "Sight leaf" (NB the comma or lack thereof). Rather like some people occasionally think that the "short" of "Rifle, Short, Magazine, Lee-Enfield" refers to the magazine and not to the rifle....
 
#10
Re. Dieppe - every pic I've seen of a rifle at Dieppe is of an SMLE. Aside from Lord Lovat's personal sporter, of course. Have I missed something?
 
#12
Forgotten Weapons' video on the No 4, Mk l(T). Some interesting info here. I don't know whether there's any coordination between YouTubers re. subjects but good timing.

 
#13
Forgotten Weapons' video on the No 4, Mk l(T). Some interesting info here. I don't know whether there's any coordination between YouTubers re. subjects but good timing.

There was no coordination here.

Outside of actual collaborations (e.g. next week BM and BotR will release similar vids made from the same footage), we don't normally try to synchronise - sometimes it happens by sheer chance though.
 
#14
There was no coordination here.

Outside of actual collaborations (e.g. next week BM and BotR will release similar vids made from the same footage), we don't normally try to synchronise - sometimes it happens by sheer chance though.
I'm looking forward to those videos. It will be interesting, amongst other things, to see how you found the shooting and reenactment combination.
 
#15
I'm looking forward to those videos. It will be interesting, amongst other things, to see how you found the shooting and reenactment combination.
Hot and sweaty, mostly. But not quite as hot as I had feared!
 
#16
#17
#19

Latest Threads

Top