British 1942 Prototype Simplified...Enfield?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ค. 2024
- www.forgottenweapons.com/brit...
/ forgottenweapons
Cool Forgotten Weapons merch! shop.bbtv.com/collections/forg...
In 1942, the British government instituted a development program to design a new simplified rifle to replace the No4 MkI Lee Enfield. The CSAD (Central Small Arms Department) came up with a design using a quite simple receiver machined form a small steel billet. It was a rifle wholly distinct form the Enfield, although both were chambered for the .303 British cartridge. The simplified rifle used a front-locking bolt, a simplified cocking piece, and had a magazine holding just 6 rounds. The sights were a simple 300/600 yard rear aperture, and a crude spike bayonet could be fitted either forward for use or rearward for storage.
The project never got as far as serial production, or even field trials as far as I can tell, and only a handful of prototypes were made.
Contact:
Forgotten Weapons
PO Box 87647
Tucson, AZ 85754
"A proper gun needs to have hardwood on it " I'm british and I approve this message
The carpenters' union probably insisted on it.
I second that statement.
Yea...... But your military doesn't use wood on rilfe anymore. Hmmmm.
@@ScooterLee-ei1ep shame. I like the dead-tree look
British, eh? 😁 Yes, by jove! You guys did a fantastic job with the sten. I'll resent your engineers forever!
"Let's get rid of every unnecessary part. Except for these little wood cheek pieces. They serve no purpose, but they look nice."
What do you mean no purpose? How else are you supposed to hold moisture in contact with metal in a place you are unlikely to service or inspect?
Dignity is its own purpose, GOOD SIR!
@@traumajock Then I have done right. :-)
+FrogmortonHotchkiss Brilliant
But wood isn't a critical war material, so they've replaced expensive-to-cast-and-machine steel and replaced it with cheap, easy to manufacture wooden parts to maintain the lines of the rifle and prevent snagging.
It's so cool being a machinist and actually knowing how they milled the receiver and how much skill and knowledge it took before we had things like CAD.
That's not a rifle and bayonet... That's a MASSIVE flat-head screwdriver!😂
Honestly, if they'd put a small slotted screwdriver on the reverse of the bayonet for a takedown tool that would have been genius
The Russians had already produced a bayonet with a screwdriver tip for the Mosin-Nagant 1891/30.
@@Khonsu1373 Maybe you should look at the first bayonet for the M1903 That thing is a giant screwdriver
"A proper gun needs to have real hardwood on it" I couldn't agree more. :)
Polymer was a mistake.
@@christianhoffmann8607 How so? Isn't it widely used because it is cheaper, lighter and just as strong as wood or is the world just full of idiots?
@@wav_form9322 clearly full of idiots
The world is full of idiots but polymer guns aren't a mistake in most cases. Yes wood looks better but it's less practical.
Polymer is more practical, but damn if wood doesnt look better. It is much more elegant and it looks like that weapon has a soul unlike most new polymer guns, they are just tools manufactured in great quantity to do the job, not unique in any way.
It's the Light Improved Manufacture Enfield, LIME.
Which makes those bearing it.....
Not Deficient in Vitamin C
@@leebennett4117 Indubitably.
Xd
Limey
I guess it was designed for the navy then?
I find it interesting that the British, whether it be an experimental replacement (the P-14) or an early war 'last ditch' rifle, always went to front locking lugs when they were just messing around, but interwar when they had the time and resources they just couldn't get away from the Lee-Enfield bolt with its rear locking system.
It’s not surprising that the British would be looking to simplify in 1942, akin to the “last ditch” weapons of Germany later in the war.
Allied losses in the Atlantic reached their largest peak in 1942, as U-Boats sunk over 500 ships between January and June alone. Starving the UK into submission was a real possibility, as supplies of food and fuel reached critical levels and the possibility of resupply seemed bleak.
The benefits of hindsight may cloud our reference points. With the Battle of the Atlantic raging in 1942, the British were certainly desperate and the outcome far from certain.
In hindsight yes it did look bleak in 1941-1942 for the British. But looking back now the British simply had a huge edge over the Germans in intelligence. The German ability to sink ships at sea was plummeting. The German Air force was decimated. The British were winning in Africa and the Americans were gearing up for war. Also Germany had very little capability to land forces in England; they could maybe have landed 30000 men in England in 1940-41 but they would never be able to beat the home guard and expect reinforcements by sea. .
@@Litany_of_Fury 100% hindsight. Easy now. Though at the time anything that saved time and material was worth exploring. Though tool steel and skilled machine operators were in very short supply so I wonder about that milled reciver. There were also plans to mass drop cheap weapons, such as the STEN to resitance groups. What if the main manufacturing plants had been put out of action? Could a replacment be be batch produced from small enginnering works with simpler machinery?
"The benefits of hindsight may cloud our reference points. With the Battle of the Atlantic raging in 1942, the British were certainly desperate and the outcome far from certain."
I'd argue you yourself are letting your preconceptions skew things. I mean in 1942 as a whole, there was 6 million DWT of shipping sunk. 23 million still got through. And the country had years worth of reserves and a well received rationing system in place.
The idea that this could be an endgame for the Nazis is kind of...
@@jimmydesouza4375 Also every year of the war the UK was outproducing the Germans in terms of air power until 1944.
Jimmy De'Souza IIRC the U-Boat succes rate dropped dramatically in May 1942, so if the first 5 months looked very bleak for Britain, the rest of the year was a lot better, with the Anglo-Americans closing the Atlantic gap and increasing the rate at which U-Boats were sunk. Within a space of a month the tide of war was changed in the Battle of the Atlantic.
A forgotten weapons video on one of the Enfield family............this makes me very happy
Even if it is the ugly basement child of the enfield family
Even under these circumstances, just look at the quality of the woodwork. The inside of the handguard, in particular, has been beautifully shaped.
I really like the lines on this rifle. Would buy one in a heartbeat.
>rifle built with the goal of economy of design
>pointless hand-cut wood cheek-pieces on the receiver
OH BRITAIN NO
A rifle must have proper decorum! Our troops cannot serve without proper A E S T H E T I C
@@thechongwolla isn´t the sten from the brits too?
Hardwood is essential!
I find it interesting that the idea of using a barrel extension to save cost and time of manufacture does not seem to have been used in these type of rifles. Johnson had already used the idea in his designs and it would have allowed the use of cheap lower strength castings for the receiver.
The focus may have been different given the circumstances, it looks like the designer was more focused on managing with smaller base stock and less waste at the cost of more non-machine handwork (welding, brazing, grinding), which kind of fits the conditions Britain was (or could have been) operating under.
I've never seen a bolt action with a barrel extension have I been living under a rock ?
I believe IJN's emergency bolt action rifle actually use a cast receiver and barrel extension locking.However, many people don't know that would work, so they thought shooting it would be unsafe
Ian, have you ever injured yourself while filming episodes? I've seen bandages on your hands in the past and was curious if one of these weird things has bitten you
That was brazed together vs welded, and a very good braze job it was. *Might* be silicon bronze...
Very cool either way
Man I love watching all your videos, I love watching guns get fired but there's just so much information about various weapons that you go over in depth.
Very interesting indeed
I wonder what kind of a morale impact this would have had on the British troop, had they adopted this. The British Enfield has been in service in various version since a long time, and I can imagine is the pride of British army, and to see it being stripped like this, could appear they are on a last ditch effort. I am sure that would definitely have played a role.
It doesn't look that bad - it's still recognisably Lee-Enfield-esque. It would probably have been sold to the troops as a lightened, modernised Lee-Enfield. Or a high-capacity P14!
Great get, Ian. Really interesting.
Very interesting 1942 prototype Enfield rifle. Thanks for showing this rare rifle.
Off topic Ian, what do you Plan on doing once you hit 1 million subs?
Michael James: 🤣🤣🤣
A video where he shoots the G11. Hopefully.
I suspect something comedic. Naturist 2 gun match? Or Ian singing Bohemian Rhapsody?
"....Ian singing Bohemian Rhapsody?" If so, I'm hoping we get Karl on harmonies.
EDIT: Along with Beardy, Dino Girl, and IV888.
EDIT: And it would appear that Mark of gunts and rabbit holes would be a no brainer in regards to who should be on keyboards.
Hi Guys and thanks for tuning in to another video on Forgottenweapons.com, I'm Ian McCollum and I am here today on the Death Star to celebrate my One Millionth Subscriber by taking a look at the Planet destroying Super Laser.
Thanks Ian - that's really interesting. Looks like some good engineering thoughts were put into the design. I guess WW1 experience would have shown the undesirability of having several different families of rifle in use concurrently (e.g. SMLE, P14, Ross and, for training only, Arisakas) so not changing rifle designs part war through WW2 was probably a good decision.
Somehow that's remind me of MAS-36
Shit! I wanted to be the first guy to say it looked like an Enfield 4 and a MAS 36 had a baby.
A-1 Tetropilovstava I just commented that didn’t see your comment it really does tho
The odd shape of the bolt handle and the magazine area not covered in wood did it for me.
Ian, you should do a video on how the different ways receivers are formed and the cost/time in doing it that way. I saw a video of the Garand receiver being forged into rough shape, it seems quicker then milling a solid bar into shape, there would be a lot of cuts to make and bits to re sharpen.
Nice video love all the british rifles
Interesting gun. It makes me realize that we didn't see many real industrial era bolt actions since pretty much everyone was either using 19th century rifles or moving to semiautos.
Comparing british, french and Axis approach to simplified cheap guns, I now have some interesting thoughts about PTRS/PTRD simultaneous production. One is simple, one is fancy. Produce both until you fill up the needs and get some extra stock on top. I wonder how such approach might have changed things if it was used more and in advance instead of being reactionary.
Absolutely beautiful rifle.
*Shudder* I suppose anyone could mess with perfection...*Gazing fondly at my four No. 4s*
Heard of this but never seen it. They dont even have one at Warminster. Great video!
Bayonet similar to MAS 36, could be mounted facing foward or backwards to stow. Very practical! Thanks for video!
Waaay cool. Thanks Ian!
Great Video, as always, Ian. That receiver still looks hacked with the sheet metal TG welded to the milled receiver-John in Texas
Thank you ,Ian.
Love the rock island episodes getting to see how much these things cost is always an eye opener
They also made a “slam fire” mode carbine prototype. It’s published and was for sale on Joe Salter.
On of these just showed up for sale in Australia for $16550
That's bloody cool!
Son of P-14?
Sten trigger?
This exact rifle ended up in Australia already for sale for an undisclosed price
And gun jesus did praise the works of Enfield and saw that it was good...though it may have kicked like a heavenly mule
The Barrel seems to be the Fabricated Model, also used for the No4 rifle...
Seamless Tube barrel with a swaged on Threaded Shank for attachment to receiver. Idea discarded when found the seamless tube came loose from Shank.
( they should have pinned or threaded it.)
DocAV
When was the last bolt action rifle intended for general military service (as a mainline rifle) designed?
Probably the Madsen M47
Simonov designed several bolt action rifles/carbines for the M43 / 7.62x39 cartridge around 1946-47, including MKS-10 (original design), MKS-11 & MKS-16 (essentially scaled down Mosin system with SKS magazine instead of Nagant's). None of them went anywhere beyond prototype stage, though. Some photos of the MKS-11:
popgun.ru/viewtopic.php?p=851659&sid=422030d21cfaec813c8eacd491e2f604#p851659
Yugoslavian M-49!
@@pebo8306 As an all-new design? The French MAS Mle. 1936, used by the French army into the early 1960s, and held in storage by the Gendarmerie into the 1908s. As for a bolt-action general-issue rifle, there are the Kark98k adopted by Germany in 1935, the No. 4 Mk. I and Mk.II adopted by the UK int November 1939, two months into WWII, and the M44 version of the Mosin-Nagant carbine with a permanent bayonet, which was produced beginning in 1943, officially adopted in 1944, and used all over the world into the many wars of National Liberation within the Cold War....
@2:00, those cheek pieces, are like the tiny grips on a .22 semi auto.
Does anyone else find these videos incredibly soothing?
Looks like a combo of the No.4 or No.5 carbine, maybe a MAS-36, and a Mauser bolt system.
We do need to get Ian to 1 million before the end of the year imo.
I like a battle-rifle that has proper peep sights like that.... spaced a max. distance apart.
These videos help me to learn while I poop.
Coincidentally I just saw one of these for sale on one of the Australian second hand firearm sites, POA. I'll see if I can find the site again if anyone is interested.
About the beginning of the video, where you talk about the receiver. if you have circular features, it is almost always easier to start with a round stock first and then square it. making properly round segments in milling requires radial motion on the mill, which is only really trivial and easy with cnc machines which were not available.
It looks to me that the rounded front of the receiver could have been skipped later if time/machinery got scarce. Would make for one fugly rifle, but functional and present.
@@mfree80286 Isnt the lee enfield a rotating bolt design? That would imply the necessity for circular components or features at the center where the bolt is, as well as the necessary round features in the trunion where the receiver interfaces with the barrel. I dont think it would have helped much. If they were short on materials, a better option might just be to use a hacksaw to cut off segments of the cylindrical cross section, allowing for larger pieces that could be more easily recycled, as well as faster machining time with now only a finishing cut being necessary
@@SigneOtter Not so much short of materials, as others point out, but a potential shortage of materials and larger machinery. Time factors in too, I'm guessing, and that rounded front is a 'luxury' but starting with square stock makes start-to finish production easier on several fronts. Remember that the production line doesn't start with the receiver blank, it starts with the foundry.
@@mfree80286 Yea but rounded features are a necessity anyways. It may very well be that the rounded front serves some purpose with barrel indexing for example, we just dont know. My point is the receiver also has absolutely necessary internal round features, which require the use of a lathe anyways, because at the very least in the interior, it has to index with round components, like the bolt head, cartridges, and the barrel. Lathe machining square components is usually more effort than simply starting with a round piece of stock, because indexing a square milled piece of stock to machining on a lathe requires precise dyes.
This is because you have to now line up the milled surfaces from the mill with the centerline of the lathe in order to machine it there, and have the features machined on the two different machines line up. In the case of doing it the other way, the lathe machined component is symmetrical about a centerline, which means you can quite happily drop it in to a mill and keep doing your thing, with no regard for alignment.
My only point is it was probably less effort when it comes to set up, machining time, and so on, to start with a round piece of stock than a square one.
I suppose by 1942 there wasn't much need for a new, cheaper, infantry weapon because by then there is the Sten, and it would be hard to get cheaper than that.
Strange that they made 6 round magazine since the British clips held only 5 rounds.
P14 Enfield also held 6 rounds. Coincidence or intent?
I'm kinda assuming that they wanted to make the magazine floorplate to fit flush with the top of the trigger guard (see: ~2:20). Probably for structural or manufacturing reasons? When Ian tips the rifle upward (2:26), it looks like the floorplate and base of the trigger housing is all one single stamped piece..
The capacity of 6 could simply be the result of their magazine location, rather than them designing the magazine hold a specific number of rounds. They mag would need to to be at least 5 in order to use the clips, but any more kinda doesn't matter.
There's no disadvantage to having a magazine that holds 6 when your clips hold 5.. If you want to load with only clips, it essentially becomes a 5 round magazine that's a bit easier to load. If you wanted to load another one on top, you could, but it isn't necessary.
(I suppose you could also add a clip while the magazine has 1 round left, so you never run dry? I kinda doubt that would be a significant contributing factor for the magazine design(err, did Ian do that with the M1917 in a match iirc?))
@@doraran5158 I thought the P14 held 5 while the M1917 held 6 because it's chambered in a rimless cartridge.
@@ben501st You are correct.
@@doraran5158 You reload after the first 5 rounds anyway so 6 to a charger will actually give you more firepower after the first 10 would have been expended on No4.
Nice. Thank-you. Very interesting. D'you know what... "trunnion" is definitely one of my favourite words!
Wow...........this was really interesting.
I love the look of it I don’t know why I just do lol
still surprises me that nobody thought of plywood furniture except the germans who had no real choice.
They did think of it but the glues available at the time werent 100% waterproof. The Germans tried it but how sucessful was it I bet it delaminated pretty quickly when it got wet.
All the plywood may have been going towards dh mosquito production. The British had excellent glue production....the Nazi's did not. Check out heinkel 162 production which was hampered by poor glue
@@babaganoush6106 I belive that Areldite, two part glue was one of the developments for Mosquito production. My Farther, who was a master carpenter always swore by (and sometimes at) Cascamite made from boiled bones.
I wonder what would've happened if the original Schlegelmilch rifle beat the Gewehr 98 and became the standard rifle of Germany. Other countries might have copied it's simple receiver, dustcover/bolt-sleeve arrangement with the barrel simply dovetailed in. The British might look to that rifle for inspiration in designing a simple, easy to produce rifle.
Wow. Looks like a very simple & efficinent design, really reminiscent of the MAS-36, just as some people write in the comments here. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the trigger group housing and the rear socket may be not welded to the reciever, but rather brazed with copper or brass used as filler - hence the yellow color of the seam. Not surprising for a one-off prototype gun.
Except the MAS 36 used rear locking lugs, like a proper Lee-Enfield .
Given the similarities in appearance, although this gun did not go into production, you wonder if it might have influenced the later (1944) Mk.5 "Jungle" Carbine Lee Enfield.
Very interesting rifle looks like a removable magazine could have been an easy option
The webbing set had the large front pouches full of Bren magazines. You loaded your rifle from chargers held in the disposable bandoliers so you do not need to fumble to stow the empty reusable larger removable magazine and then fumble to extract the full one and insert it. Just grab a charger from the bandolier, push it in and close the bolt and resume play. You get to rejoin play faster than with a removable magazine. Even in the early 1980s you got your frontline fresh ammunition in cloth bandoliers of 5 round chargers and had to refill the magazines from the chargers stripped into the magazine. In real life the pouches were filled with GPMG belts and the SLR magazines went into pockets etc. whatever the official SOPs.
Very, very cool.
I may be weird, but I think this is so much cooler looking than the normal SMLEs.
By 1942 we were desperate in Britain. Supplies of everything were at an all time low - had Germany invaded, we genuinely didn't know if we could repel them. This might seem like a mid war rifle now, but at that point to us it was a last ditch weapon. The u boats, the blitz, the loss of men and material during the doomed defence of France, we had very little to put into the fight. Amazing we made it through to be honest.
It kind of reminds me of the VG-2.
Seems more like a simplified P14. Funny how the British looked at replacing the SMLE with what was essentially a Mauser, then during WW2 they toyed with replacing the No.4Mk.1 with something that looks a lot like a Mauser.
The magazine and receiver from the outside looks like a weird MAS 36
Very cool
One of the few times, the Brit's thought ahead on their designs. But considering they were getting to a "Close Thing" at the time, it turned out pretty good. Now, I'll have to move the dog out of his dog's house when I add this to my collection.
I really want to see a reproduction of this.
looks perfect for a dieselpunk setting
I never understand how these things have been put up for sale and not put in the armouries.
Guessing here, either post-war offload to try and bring cash into the economy, or as it was never accepted it was given back to the designer who then had no family or family interested in keeping it so the rifle was sold off upon his passing.
FRONT LOCKING LUGs......... HERACY!
IKR?
Why get rid of that short and sweet bolt throw that was just made for rapid aimed fire
Definitely an improvement in the other Enfields ,with the bolt locking up in front.
Ian, I don't think the Besal was developed during the Battle of Britain due to the threat of invasion, I believe it was because our Bren Gun production was entirely from one factory, and if the Luftwaffe destroyed it there would be no Brens at all. It was thought important to develop an alternative from another producer in case the worst happened. I'm fairly sure Falkner worked for or at BSA at the time, and that's where his design was to have been produced.
I wish there was a company that specializes in making reproduction military firearms both service rifles and experimental ones like this.
In regard to bits welded on, it was a prototype after all. I would have expected a fair bit of modification before it ever went into production.
Looks like a bit of an amalgam of the P13/14 Enfield and the SMLE No.4 Mk.1.
4:44 Now it's a proper rifle.
Well I knew a bit about British WW2 rifles but not this one. Thanks
bolt looks like a Mauser action but bit less refined
Odd questions 1) how much does it weigh? Especially verses a Jungle Carbine and 2) Are the later marks of SMLE easier to produce than the Pattern 14 the British used during WW1?
I actually kinda like weapons that are simplistic yet functional.
it is beautiful
Strange that they put a six round mag on when clips came in 5 rounds....... wonder of it was to prevent any stress on the mag spring?
I like this rifle. I want to attach a scope, but I want the body of the scope to be made of wood - turned on a lathe.
It meets with my approval... 76 years too late, but it's got to count for something.
I wonder whether some of the thinking at the time was a recognition of the rise of the semi auto rifle? Why pursue a bolt action design if you think that you will inevitably develop a semi-auto rifle. Let the No 4 see out its time and then replace it with a semi-auto.
looks like the butt stock (and maybe the socket) are the only No. 4 parts left.
I suspect that the applique wood is intended to form the profile of the grip. Without them the user would have to hold onto a thin , sharp edged receiver. Not good for shooting, and worse for bayonet fighting.
My question is why Lee Enfield never tried to make an semi auto rifle? It's cool given the history of the company. Some cool weapons came from this company.
@@snowflakemelter1172 - also the name lee - Enfield refers to the two designers of the rifles. My point is the royal small arms factory produced some wonderful bolt action rifle. One varient of the rifle is still in service by the police in my country. My doubt is why there is no semi auto rifle made during the war?
sarath431 some prototypes were made but really, semi auto didn’t fit in with the doctrine of the time. It wasn’t until after the war that Britain decided to change its service rifle to the EM2. Ian has produced at least two videos on this later rifle
@@howardchambers3163 - okay. I'll check them now. Thank you.
sarath431 The Lee-Enfield takes its name from the designer of the rifle's bolt system-James Paris Lee-and the factory in which it was designed-the Royal Small Arms Factory in Enfield.
@@helliwell31 - yes. Ever wondered why royal small arms factory didn't made semi auto rifles during war?
The comparison with the French MAS-36 by TV-94 is good…. it also looks a bit like a ''last ditch'' weapon in the hypothetical case that the Germans had succeeded in invading and occupying Britain.
At least they recognized the superiority of the Mauser style of bolt.
A lighter, perhaps shortened cartridge might have been an idea as well with this.
New one for me. 👍👏👏🥃🥃
Beautiful. Where can I get mine?
Could you recommend a good book about the mechanical side of small arms and how it evolved in time? Thanks in advance.
I can absolutely understand why this got started as a project but I can also totally understand why it got canned. It should be noted that the No4. was also a stop gap measure and with Canadian and American Lend lease production starting to ramp up plus pressure starting to come off UK industry the need for a further simplified rifle gets rather weak.
It should also by noted that in 1942 the British effectively restarted the stalled development of a Self Loading rifle now the tide was starting to turn. Developing another bolt action when a semi automatic was on the cards again seems rather asinine. I do think if D-Day had been delayed a further year and the war had gone on to 46/47 the process of adopting a Semi Auto by the British army would have started.
One small side note at the very tail end of the war the British Army switched from issuing No.4 to No.5 rifles alongside the US Carbine M1.
My guess would be that this isn’t designed as a “simplified” rifle. The intent may have been to design a rifle that could be effectively produced using dispersed manufacturing. For example, machining a receiver from bar stock is more time consuming than machining a forging, but you do not have the bottleneck of producing the forgings. This would allow lots of smaller machine shops to produce receivers. The advantage is that the enemy can’t just bomb one factory and stop a significant percentage of your rifle production capacity.
@@JamesFrenchTX Good point and would tally with what was happening with other wartime production.
Well that bolt and trigger does have the smell of a three line rifle.
The Le Enfield Slim ...now with 4K
Oh look! By 1942 the UK sorted out the MAS Mle. 1936, albeit with front mounted locking lugs and close-on-closing from the Pattern 14... and a cross-bolt safety. The French had this rifle in 1936, withe the 7.5x54mm MAS Mle. 1936, but with a cock-on-opening Arisaka bolt and rear-mounted locking lugs for a shorter bolt travel. If only they'd thought this up in the early 1930s in 7.65mm Mauser or the German 7.92x57mm just to have rimless cartridges to go with an off-the-rack zb26/30, eh?
Instead, by November 1939, Britain adopted the No. 4 Mk.I rifle, e.g. an easier to produce SMLE 1907 but with the heavier barrel and aperture sights of the P14.
If there was a reproduction of this, I'd buy it in a heartbeat... Unfortunately, even this easy-to-produce rifle is too complex compared to some modern production techniques? Just a year after this prototype there was the D. Saive SLEM or FN49/SAFN prototype afoot, no?
Lose the top handguard and the little natty cheek pieces, and use less wood, and you're on to something. Of course, the sheet metal VG-2 from Spreewerke uses the 10-round magazine from the K43.