This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
Could you stop posting the picture of the CLLE Mk I? It is not a Lee Metford, no matter what the misspelt museum label says.141.152.50.101 23:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know who you are and how your credentials supercede those of the museum. If you can get us a better picture please post it. --Kevin Murray 00:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a Charger Loading Lee Metford, which was a conversion effected around the same time CLLE was introduced (the British Army not wanting to waste anything), but the picture isn't clear enough to tell. The only major difference between the CLLE and the CLLM is the rifling, and for what it's worth there's probably less than 100 people on the planet who could spot the difference between the two rifles with a casual examination anwyay. There's not a lot of Lee-Metfords floating around out there, so until someone manages to track down a usable photo of a MLM Mk I, I don't have a problem with leaving the current picture where it is. --Commander Zulu 07:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I shall clarify, then. It is a Charger Loading Lee Enfield Mk I*. Charger Loading because there is a charger bridge on the receiver. Lee Enfield because there is a safety mounted on the bolt. Mk I because the rear sight is not windage adjustable and there is no front sight protector. Metford barrels were replaced at the time of conversion. CLLMs are identified by the bolt lacking a safety. I suggest picking up a copy of Skennerton and reviewing the relevant sections. Commander Zulu, perhaps Jolly Green Slugg can provide you with a photo of his MLM Mk I*. 70.105.46.193 20:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a copy of Skennerton, but I was using a copy of the SAIS guide rather than TLE. If JGS wants to provide a photo of his MLM Mk I*, that would be very nice of him indeed... --Commander Zulu 10:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I visited the Lithgow Small Arms Museum recently photographed an MLM on display there; so now the photo is definitely of the correct rifle! --Commander Zulu 13:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really correct to say the P1913 wasn't "successful." The outbreak of WWI meant that Britain couldn't rationally change ammunition to the new .276 cartridge, so the P1913 rechambered in good old .303 became the P1914, hundreds of thousands of which were issued (all made in America under UK contracts). When the USA entered the war the same rifle was rechambered again, for .30-06, and as the M1917 over two million were produced: far more doughboys carried Enfields than M1903 Springfields. The P13/14/17 was a very good rifle, combining the SMLE's speed with accuracy on a par with the Mauser or Springfield. Unfortunately it was also rather heavy, which made it unpopular with the troops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solicitr (talk • contribs) 15:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
