Times,they are a changing.

[Ginger.]

In the good old days on the Mk.1 Forum, the old greybeards chastised us whippersnappers for straying from the Holy Grail.Looks to me like the Off Topic section is a winner.
Obligatory first war bit.Does anyone own and shoot a Long Lee-Enfield?

[Barrett]

Only the SMLE version, I fear...but wouldn't turn down the chance to take a "Long" for a "test drive."

[Brad]

No... but I owned (and unfortunately got rid of) a WWI Mauser. Gonna have to replace that thing...

The designation stands for "Short MAGAZINE Lee Enfield." The capitals are mine. Note that it does not refer to the opposite of a LONG RIFLE, but refers to the MAGAZINE, which in the SMLE contains 10 rounds.
Some of you whippersnappers would do well to read a reference book before you attack the greybeards who are trying to thwart historical and factual revision by people who will not research their subjects or who want to willfully revise history along lines of Social Acceptance.
Evidently, the confusion arises over the fact that S.M.L.E. has periods after the letters, not commas, which would change the meaning to infer a short rifle.
At any rate, previous rifles to the #1 were not current in WW-I, which is the subject of this forum. As a matter of fact, if the war had been dalayed a couple of years, the Brits would have been armed with the Pattern 14 (American Enfield by Remington-Eddystone) rifle in .303 caliber, since the S.M.L.E. was deemed obsolete by the Brits prior to WW-I. Even so, it served in two world wars and more until it was supplanted by the Belgian FN-FAL.

John: Does that Eddystone refer to where Remington manufactured them? If it does, is that Eddystone, PA?
DD

It was a satellite factory set up by Remington. It was in PA.
After America entered the war on April 6, 1917, the .303 version was shelved and the rest of production was for the .30-06 round and more of them were issued to US troops than the '03 Springfield, which was in very short supply.
Remington had another facility that also made the 1917 "Enfield."
In some respects, the 1917 was a more practical rifle than the '03 in ought-six caliber.
However, the '03 special version machined for the Pedersen Device (a 40 round magazine fed autoloading .32 caliber conversion that was interchangeable with the .30-06 bolt.) was not adapted to the 1917.

[Ginger.]

??? John L,
venerable greybeard,my "Long Lee" has a winged flying bullet stamped on the receiver.Have a look in you reference book and tell this whippersnapper who made that one then.

Is it a military rifle? What is the official designation? Is it Australian or made in England by Enfield or BSA? What is the exact caliber designation?
I have copies of Small Arms of the World back to the first volume. No listings of Long Lee.
Is it a WW-I military issue rifle? If not, why is it being discussed?
If it does exist, and it is a military issue, what troops were armed with it during WW-I? Where can this be verified?

I'm a gunsmith, a gun writer and a firearms collector. I have had a lot of pre-WW-I weaponry. I even have a superb flintlock Kentucky pistol. It is my understanding, however, that we are supposed to limit our discussions to WW-I (1914-1918) military issue weapons on these forums.

Incidentally, during WW-II, a common Brit joke was "So this is a short magazine! (Handling the loaded 10 rounder) I'd hate to have to pack a rifle with the long magazine in place."

Sorry to have to cut this discussion short, Ginger, but due to the recent tragedy on the East Coast and the calling up of the reserves being contemplated, I have to sign off for what may be a long time. I'm being deluged with phone calls from Army Officers and other service personnel who need custom work on their privately owned handguns before their re-deployment. I didn't have this much work piling up during Desert Storm. I fear this is going to be a long, long war.

Cheers, and nothing personal intended.

[Ginger.]

John,
sadly I think you are right,but that other old greybeard did say something about preparing for war if you desire peace.
Back to business, sorry for the piss take about the winged bullet on my Long Lee. Mine is a non military rifle made by Webley, their logo at the turn of last century was the Webley Winged Bullet!
But just to prove one us whippersnappers can read, if you get chance have a look here:-
http://www.rememuseum.org.uk/arms/rifles/armedr.htm

OK, Ginger!
Perhaps every one who is reading these replies should access the mentioned site.
While it is only one voice from the past, the curator of the museum stated that the designation refers to a SHORT RIFLE, not a short magazine. If he is correct in his analysis, it means several things that can prove a hazard to historians:
1. The Brits, who invented our language, never learned to use punctuation as a means of clarification.
2. World firearms authority W. H. B. Smith missed the point, and every hiostorian who quoted him without verifying his assertions (including yours truly) made an error of great magnitude.
However, none of the strange variations shown ever ended up on the fields of combat in WW-I.
My Webley Mk VI revolver would benefit from the Webley winged bullet, since a number of those I fire from mine turn over in flight and make a sideways impression when they pierce the target paper.
The main point to be remembered here is that nothing, from whatever source, should be taken as immutible truth. You have to cross-verify everything you read.
And finally, the correct designation would be: S, M, L.E. and not S.M.L. E.
A small point, perhaps, but it could save future historians from getting unnecessary heartburn.
Well done, Ginger. We learn something new every day while we live.