daniel (australia)
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2002
- Messages
- 338
Pardon me for what may seem to be a rant but it seems to me that over the past couple of years or so there's emerged this sloppy habit of using "Enfield" to refer to Lee-Enfield rifles. I've seen it here and other sites, and quite frankly it sets my teeth on edge.
I say it is sloppy because among other things "Enfield rifle" can refer to a number of quite different firearms. For example the several variants of this one have commonly been referred to as Enfield rifles:
Then of course there's the Enfield rifle produced in large numbers from 1917 to 1919:
It of course was based on the Pattern 13, designed by Enfield's engineers and modified hastily to P14 specification when the Great War broke out. Both of these predecessors of the M17 have also been known as Enfields too - and with some justification.
Then of course there's more recent "Enfield rifles" like this one:
And lets not forget that other Enfield, the .38 revolver whose design owes so much to the designers at Webley.
As well, there's also several hyphenated Enfields, including the Snider-Enfield and the Martini-Enfield. These of course aren't referred to as "Enfields", so why refer to the Lee-Enfield that way?
As well, it is sloppy because these rifles weren't designated as "Enfields" - they were "Lee-Enfields", whether "Magazine Lee-Enfield", "Charger Loading Lee-Enfield" or "Short, Magazine, Lee Enfield", all in various numbers and marks, until the naming scheme was changed in 1926 and they became "Rifle No 1 Mk III*", "Rifle No 4 Mk 1" and so on.
The Lee-Enfield is, at its heart, based on James Lee's action. Indeed Lee rifles were produced for some years before the British adopted the Lee action in combination with, originally, the Metford Segmented Rifling design to make the Lee-Metford. When that rifling design proved unable to stand up to cordite the rifling was changed to a pattern developed by RSA Enfield, ironically also based on a Metford design.
That was all though, and Enfield doesn't deserve all the credit. In fact as well as being sloppy it seems, well, disrespectful to the original designer to ignore Lee's role by dropping his name in describing these rifles.
Please don't do it:banghead:
I say it is sloppy because among other things "Enfield rifle" can refer to a number of quite different firearms. For example the several variants of this one have commonly been referred to as Enfield rifles:
Then of course there's the Enfield rifle produced in large numbers from 1917 to 1919:
It of course was based on the Pattern 13, designed by Enfield's engineers and modified hastily to P14 specification when the Great War broke out. Both of these predecessors of the M17 have also been known as Enfields too - and with some justification.
Then of course there's more recent "Enfield rifles" like this one:
And lets not forget that other Enfield, the .38 revolver whose design owes so much to the designers at Webley.
As well, there's also several hyphenated Enfields, including the Snider-Enfield and the Martini-Enfield. These of course aren't referred to as "Enfields", so why refer to the Lee-Enfield that way?
As well, it is sloppy because these rifles weren't designated as "Enfields" - they were "Lee-Enfields", whether "Magazine Lee-Enfield", "Charger Loading Lee-Enfield" or "Short, Magazine, Lee Enfield", all in various numbers and marks, until the naming scheme was changed in 1926 and they became "Rifle No 1 Mk III*", "Rifle No 4 Mk 1" and so on.
The Lee-Enfield is, at its heart, based on James Lee's action. Indeed Lee rifles were produced for some years before the British adopted the Lee action in combination with, originally, the Metford Segmented Rifling design to make the Lee-Metford. When that rifling design proved unable to stand up to cordite the rifling was changed to a pattern developed by RSA Enfield, ironically also based on a Metford design.
That was all though, and Enfield doesn't deserve all the credit. In fact as well as being sloppy it seems, well, disrespectful to the original designer to ignore Lee's role by dropping his name in describing these rifles.
Please don't do it:banghead: