Enfield-Rifles.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Enfields > Enfield Rifles
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Lee Enfield magazines
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Lee Enfield magazines

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message
Sethg1981 View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: May 19 2020
Location: Idaho
Status: Offline
Points: 3
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sethg1981 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Lee Enfield magazines
    Posted: May 19 2020 at 6:50pm
I lost the mag for my rifle a long time ago. I was told some rifles take a mag with a squared bottom and others take the mag with rounded bottom edges. Anyone know if that's true or not?  If I do need the rounded mag does anyone know where to get one?
I believe this is the short mag No. 1 MK3, going off the U of I pictures and the G.B. III* stamp.



Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Goosic View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 12 2017
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 3634
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goosic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 19 2020 at 9:47pm
You are looking for the rounded bottom magazine.  No1Mk111*
Back to Top
The Armourer View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: June 23 2019
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 437
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Armourer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 19 2020 at 11:47pm

The main thing to look at is to ensure that it is a magazine for a No1 Mk3 (SMLE) rifle and not for the No4 rifle.
Many dealers have a the habit of calling all lee Enfields SMLE's which can make it difficult when sourcing the correct parts.

Look at the differences on the 'spine'.

No4 magazine on the left, No1 Mk3 on the right


Back to Top
Bear43 View Drop Down
Special Member
Special Member
Avatar
Donating Member

Joined: August 11 2010
Location: Doland, SD
Status: Offline
Points: 2613
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bear43 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 20 2020 at 6:33am
The magazine info is covered but I have to say that is a very nice looking Dispersal rifle. Is that a 1940 date?
Back to Top
The Armourer View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: June 23 2019
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 437
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Armourer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 20 2020 at 7:39am
Originally posted by Bear43 Bear43 wrote:

The magazine info is covered but I have to say that is a very nice looking Dispersal rifle. Is that a 1940 date?


Yup - a 'dispersal rifle'

Up until 1940, BSA made normal high-quality No1 MkIII* on limited military contracts, marked with the usual Crown and BSA&Co, as well as identical rifles just marked "BSA&Co" for commercial sale and export.

With the invasion scare, the Ministry of Supply ordered BSA to make rifles out of whatever parts it could get together. Hence the rifles were made of mixtures of commercial and military parts, mixed walnut and beech wood (or all-beech), later on No4 butts and firing pin/cocking pieces. A second wave of production in 1945 even used recycled and re-dated receivers.

About the same time the emergency rifle production was started, BSA was ordered to disperse its many Birmingham factories away from the bomb-target central area, and also to increase war production by diluting experienced staff with war staff. BSA was a huge engineering group, and this "Dispersal" programme led to 70 seperate factories being set up, moved and/or expanded. Rifle production involved several of these factories (both No1s and No4s), and this type of "all available parts" No1 has become known as a "Dispersal rifle". Technically, even the No4s were Dispersals, as well as motorbikes, bicycles, aircraft parts, machine guns and heavy weaponry...

BSA marked these rifles with just the first "B" of BSA&Co. Presumably this was to dissociate the company from these slightly less-than top quality peacetime rifles!

Back to Top
Shamu View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar
Logo Designer / Donating Member

Joined: April 25 2007
Location: MD, USA.
Status: Offline
Points: 12041
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Shamu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 20 2020 at 7:48am
Originally posted by Bear43 Bear43 wrote:

The magazine info is covered but I have to say that is a very nice looking Dispersal rifle. Is that a 1940 date?

If you must  use my copyrighted image as your own, please at least have the good manners to credit it to me.
Thanks.

Don't shoot till you see the whites of their thighs. (Unofficial motto of the Royal Air Force)
Back to Top
Sethg1981 View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: May 19 2020
Location: Idaho
Status: Offline
Points: 3
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sethg1981 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 20 2020 at 8:03am
Thank you everyone. I really appreciate it. 

These are the mags I kept pulling up when I googled them.

Back to Top
The Armourer View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: June 23 2019
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 437
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Armourer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 20 2020 at 8:32am
Originally posted by Shamu Shamu wrote:

[If you must  use my copyrighted image as your own, please at least have the good manners to credit it to me.


Please accept my apologies, I had not noted the source when I found it, that has now been remedied and any future use will certainly credit you.

There are an assortment of what (now) look to be your images used in the sale of magazines on the 'worthpoint store'

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/enfield-no1-mkiii-smle-magazines-293799633

Back to Top
Shamu View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar
Logo Designer / Donating Member

Joined: April 25 2007
Location: MD, USA.
Status: Offline
Points: 12041
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Shamu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 20 2020 at 11:45am
I'm confused.
I've never advertised them for sale & the images shown there are nothing to do with me?
I think it just a common background of a picnic bench. ( his is in much better shape than mind, I only keep it as a "rustic" backdrop for pictures.)
Don't shoot till you see the whites of their thighs. (Unofficial motto of the Royal Air Force)
Back to Top
Shamu View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar
Logo Designer / Donating Member

Joined: April 25 2007
Location: MD, USA.
Status: Offline
Points: 12041
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Shamu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 20 2020 at 11:48am
Originally posted by The Armourer The Armourer wrote:

Originally posted by Shamu Shamu wrote:

[If you must  use my copyrighted image as your own, please at least have the good manners to credit it to me.


Please accept my apologies, I had not noted the source when I found it, that has now been remedied and any future use will certainly credit you.

There are an assortment of what (now) look to be your images used in the sale of magazines on the 'worthpoint store'

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/enfield-no1-mkiii-smle-magazines-293799633


Those are an aftermarket replica. Usually problematic at best & tiny boat anchor at worst. "Pro Mag" is the brand IIRC.
Don't shoot till you see the whites of their thighs. (Unofficial motto of the Royal Air Force)
Back to Top
Homer View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: January 01 2013
Location: Brisbane
Status: Offline
Points: 506
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Homer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 20 2020 at 3:17pm
What often confuses people and hasn’t been mentioned, the correct magazine for an SMLE is a No3 or No4 box. But neither are correct for a No4 rifle.
Back to Top
englishman_ca View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 08 2009
Location: Almaguin
Status: Offline
Points: 1053
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote englishman_ca Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 20 2020 at 4:15pm
It gets worse with the designations Homer. The No.1 rifle uses a No.4 magazine body with a No.3 platform, and No.4 auxiliary spring. 

And you are correct in that a No.4 magazine wont fit in a No.4 rifle without a lot of fiddling, but they can be made to work. 

The designations do appear to be an exercise in confusion.  However, when the No.4 mag was introduced circa 1910 (?), the No.4 rifle did not exist.
.
.
Look to your front, mark your target when it comes!
Back to Top
The Armourer View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: June 23 2019
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 437
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Armourer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 20 2020 at 11:09pm
Originally posted by englishman_ca englishman_ca wrote:

It gets worse with the designations ………….


My No7 rifle uses the No1's No4 magazine with the No3 platform removed and a BSA Sporting 5 magazine inserted.
Back to Top
Zed View Drop Down
Special Member
Special Member
Avatar
Donating Member

Joined: May 01 2012
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 21 2020 at 12:38am
Clear as mud!Thumbs Up
it's fair to say that the Enfield nomenclature can get a little confusing sometimes. It's great that some of you guy's are willing to share your knowledge. It's much appreciated !
Zed.
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice!
Back to Top
The Armourer View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: June 23 2019
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 437
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Armourer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 21 2020 at 2:33am
Originally posted by Zed Zed wrote:

Clear as mud!Thumbs Up
it's fair to say that the Enfield nomenclature can get a little confusing sometimes. It's great that some of you guy's are willing to share your knowledge. It's much appreciated !
Zed.


The simplest way to look at it is :

Each component has a 'life' and is developed during its life. It starts off as a Mk1, but is then changed to a Mk2 and so on.

You can have a complete assembly (rifle) that is (say) a No4 Mk1, but many of its components are various 'marks' in the development life of the component.

A simple example would be that a No4 Mk1 rifle could be fitted with any of the 4 marks of rear sights - BUT the rifle is still a No4 Mk1 (assembly)




You could have a No4 Mk1 rifle with a Mk2 barrel, a Mk3 rear sight and a Mk1* Foresight block band with a Mk2 front sight blade.


As an Example, the following from Peter Laidler may help


There has recently been some too-ing and fro-ing correspondence about the sights used on the No4 rifles. Maybe it’s time to open up a few little previously unknown or certainly not fully understood points.

Let’s take the foresights first. For the No4 rifle, there were 4 distinct TYPES of foresight blade. The very FIRST was, naturally enough, designated the
BLADE, foresight. It came in eight sizes, from -.030”, -.015, 0, +.015”, +.030”, +.045”, +.060” and +.075”. These sizes (and I’m sure you all know this by heart…..) indicate the tip of the blade height below or above 1” of the exact centerline of the bore while the blade size ‘0’ is exactly 1” above the centre line of the bore ……, phew! Now for another misunderstood point. All of the actual BLADE heights are the same of approx .140” but it’s the .38” wide blade BASE (or stool) height that differs to make up the sizes. I know that some of you will say that this isn’t correct because ……… I know this and that’s because some of the commercial companies, including Parker Hale made their own variants including thinner widths, blow-up tyres and wind-up windows etc. BUT I’m talking about the Ministry of Supply/Army issue blades

This blade was followed by a later blade style so as a result, the first original blade was redesignated the BLADE, foresight, Mk1. The Mk1 blade is easily identifiable by having a SOLID base. This is because it was retained firmly in position, gripped by the split BLOCK, band, foresight. The split foresight block is closed, to grip the solid blade, by a reverse headed screwdriver. It is the REAR of the Mk1 blade that we ought to be aware of now, where the undercut/inward sloping blade part meets up with the block, which then slopes outwards towards the base of the block. So, the side elevation of the blade forms a side-on ‘V’ shape.

This rearwards and upwards sloping base could and did allow a line of reflected light to shine straight back into the shooters eye. Maybe not on the manicured ranges at Bisley but it certainly did in the bleak sunshine of Tunisia and Italy from where the complaints came

The next foresight blade was introduced as a result of efforts to cheapen the cost of the No4 rifle in 1941. This time, instead of using a split block, band, foresight and the reverse headed 4BAscrew, the block, band was left solid. But in accordance with good engineering practice and to maintain the required friction to hold the blade secure within the block band foresight, the BLADE base was manufactured with a split block. This split block blade was called the BLADE, foresight, Mk1*

The sizes remained the same as did the zeroing procedure, as did the side-on ‘V’ side elevation of the rear of the blade. It’s just that the block was easier and cheaper to manufacture. The new slot made very little difference to the cost of the blades because a), they were manufactured ‘biscuit-block (some call it chocolate block) fashion anyway and b), the addition of a simple slitting saw operation along the base was an almost academic addition and c), the original blades were still being produced anyway!

So there you have the earliest Mk1and Mk1* blades.

Now here is where we get a little more complicated. The Mk2 blade…………. The Mk2 blade was very similar to the Mk1 blade with its 8 sizes and its solid block base only this time, where the undercut/outward sloping blade part meets the base part, the base extends rearwards a small amount, then the BASE takes on an undercut inward sloping angle too. This immediately solved the reflected light problem because now, both the blade and the base reflected downwards. This blade was introduced as the BLADE, foresight, Mk2

If things were simple, the next blade would be designated the Mk2* but we don’t do simple…., we do complicated! So, the next blade became the BLADE, foresight, Mk3. As you might expect, the Mk3 blade was identical to the double undercut Mk2 but this time came with a split base to use in the solid block band foresight.

The earlier Mk1 and Mk1* blades were thereafter, obsolescent. Obsolescent but not obsolete so there are thousands of thousands still in service……………

THE No5 RIFLE
If you have a No5 rifle, then a similar situation arose there too but the situation was even more dire as the reflected line of shine certainly DID cause problems. So while the No5 blades were all split blocks, the;
Mk1 split block blade for the No5 equates to the Mk1* blade for a No4 rifle
and the
Mk 2 split block blade for the No5 equates to the Mk3 blade for a No4 rifle.
There were different part numbers for the blades indicating that there were subtle differences between the No4 and No5 types. Quite what the differences between the blades were on paper didn’t manifest its way to us as young Armourers in Malaya! We used split block ‘double undercut’ blades on every No5 we zeroed of course, but they all came from the same tubs, regardless of whether it was a No4 or 5 blade. They all looked the same to us and we treated them the same too!

But back to No4 rifles and the BLOCK band, foresight. Are you in for the long haul? Soon after the large late 40’s FTR programmes, it was established at Fazakerley that a large percentage of fully refurbished rifles were impossible to zero due to them shooting too high. Fazakerley sought to obtain a relaxation in order to use the +.090” and +.105” STEN gun foresight blades but already there were problems relating to the final inspection standards that I won’t go into. But the same problems were apparent outside the factories and Base Workshops, in service too so while the factories, FTR programme contractors and the large REME Base workshops were NOT permitted to use the higher Sten foresight blades, a relaxation was sought that they could be used at unit level (both high sizes) and Field workshop level (just the .090 size). But this was palliative and not a cure by any means. The answer was that where a rifle was perfect in every other way, then a Mk2 BLOCK Band foresight was available.

The ‘new’ BLOCK, band, foresight was .030” taller, at .490” than the original Mk1 block band, at .460” tall. This immediately, but invisibly, allowed for a further 2 increases in blade height (……. think about it!). The new blocks can be identified by the figure 1H for the Mk1 split block or a 2H for the Mk2 solid block, marked on the rear sloping surface. But even these didn’t last long because they only allowed for a further two ‘invisible’ increases of foresight. The problem was more acute than that with thousands otherwise perfect No4 rifles stacking up in Ordnance depots unable to be zeroed So in an act of almost desperation in January 1954, two FURTHER foresight block bands blocks were introduced. These blocks were heightened by a further .030” to .520”. So we have the original block band height of .460”, the 1949 increased height to .490” then the 1954 block band with a height of .520”. At a stroke, we now have a block band foresight that allows the highest blade ( the .075”…., don’t forget that anything higher was for the Sten gun) to be, in effect .135”……… which is 1.135” above the centre line of the bore

So now we have a total of SIX BLOCK, band foresights.
The Mk1 and Mk2 original, the
Mk1H and 2H modified both .030” higher than the original, and the
Mk1 and 2 SECOND modified, now .060” higher than the original!
You’re not quite believing this are you? But help was at hand. The second block was pure duplication so was declared obsolescent. So that after 1954, only the first, original blocks and the third pattern, .060” taller were available from Ordnance stores. While the second pattern was obsolescent, you HAD to have the original, lower block of course in order to cater for those rifles firing LOW!

Jeeeees, we had to learn, know and put into practice all of this rubbish! The most astute of you will now be looking at your ‘original, untouched since the factory’ rifles to see if it has the higher foresight block band fitted. Only a post 1949 made rifle will have a block marked 1H or 2H and only a post 1954 made rifle will have a block marked 1 or 2 on the rear surface as original. Before that, they were bare!

But there’s a little more……………. Our acceptable zeroing standards state after zeroing, the blade of the foresight will overhang or be level with the edge of the foresight block. If the edge is inboard of the edge of the block, then it indicates that something is wrong with the rifle. BUT, it was discovered that while the UK made foresight blade bases were .38” wide, due to a tolerance error, the Canadian bases were .43” wide. Without going into the technicalities, a rifle fitted with a Canadian .43” wide base could fail the zeroing criteria unnecessarily. So these Canadian .43” wide blades were all declared obsolete and withdrawn.

There, a little bit about a previously unknown feature of the No4 rifle! Not a lot of people know that!

Back to Top
Zed View Drop Down
Special Member
Special Member
Avatar
Donating Member

Joined: May 01 2012
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 21 2020 at 4:27am
Excellent information! I was not aware of all the various front blade versions.
Also; while I was aware of the different sizes; I did not know that the "zero" blade was exactly 1" above the centre line of the barrel. Makes sense when you think about it. Thanks for posting that.
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.