Accessory Question

Yep, that's what I was replying to.

Bear43 wrote: I have many a book that shows the SMLE with action covers and muzzles covers in the field. Their purpose is to keep dirt, mud, etc out of the action and muzzle. There isn't any reason to have them on in an armory setting.

That makes sense.  I never recall seeing them on the No. 8s we used to use, though I have seen period photographs too. 

Now, the correct sling would be the canvas type?  The only exception would be a '14 or '39/'40 No.1 rifle which would have leather slings because of the equipment patterns in use at the time.

Pretty much the khaki canvas was the "normal", I believe snipers had the double loop leather type though.

Shamu wrote: No problem Sarge, it was a bit confusing with the posts in between the original & my reply. This forum doesn't have a "quote" feature either.

Can I quote that?

Gentlemen, can we please get one point correct? There are only two types of rifle sling issue to British Forces = Leather and Webbing. Where did the 'canvas' idea come from? Webbing and Canvas are two entirely different mediums, with vastly different wear capabilities (webbing being the more durable and cost effective of the two). So please, when using a certain term in reference, could we use the correct one?

BlackAck... as to the issue of either the leather or webbing rifle sling in conjunction to the pattern of fighting equipment used. Even though the webbing sling was authorised in January of 1901, the British Army is such that... the new pattern equipment item will not be issued until such a time as existing old item stocks have been exhausted. Or, an issue of the new item will be made once a suitable number have been acquired, with a reasonable reserve stock as backup. A combination of the two as mentioned could also occur. It is never a straight case of new in---> old out.

As has already been mentioned in reference to the 'canvas' muzzle cover & action cover... these originated during WW1, and were for use in the field---> to prevent mud and dirt from entering into the muzzle, or fouling the breach mechanism.

Shamu... you show a link to a certain universal muzzle cover. As the original post question was in connection to WW2, that type would be correct, but it is not the most common variation. I've attached a pic of that type.



Just for interest... here is a pic of the WW1 variation...

[

+1!!!

Hoadie... think on this logically for a moment...

In the days of the Musket, and I suspect that your talking about the '1853 Enfield Rifled Musket'... a tampion was the perfect tool for the job---> to combat the weather and combat conditions then encountered. In the mud and gore of the 'Western Front', what would happen to it? It would very easily become lost. Also, due to the fact that the foresight of the SMLE is encased = the nosecap... it was not now just a simple question of keeping the rain and a bit of muck out of the muzzle. A full covering for the business end of the rifle was now required... otherwise, not only the muzzle, but the whole forward end of the rifle would become a single block of mud... thus rendering the soldiers weapon useless. The muzzle cover makes perfect sense!

The action covers I can see. As for losing the Tampion, a simple thin lanyard would solve the "lost" issue.(I have one on my - yes your right: Pattern 1853 Enfield)
Hoadie