Lee Medford vs Long Lee

[RetiredArmy]

What is the observable difference between the Lee Medford and Long Lee Enfield?

TIA

RA

[Art]

The long Lee Enfield Mk I* was a charger loader which is of course readily identifiable just by looking at the top of the reciever. The important change was from the shallow metford rifling to the deep sharp cut Enfield rifling which was made because cordite was just too hard on Metford rifling. To check just look down the bore, assuming you don't have a "sewer pipe" of course.

Besides modified sights for the cordite ammo and of course the deeper Enfield rifling not much between difference from the outside between early Lee Enfields and the Lee Metford MkII*. The earlier Lee Metfords had full length cleaning rods and the later ones had half length rods or in the case of the last models, if memory serves me, no rod at all. It's hard to tell the difference between a late Lee Metford and an early Lee Enfield from the outside unless you're an expert.

[Fred]

Medford rifling has seven shallow lands and grooves. Enfield rifling has five deep lands and grooves. I believe that the term Long Lee is a broad description more than a proper term used by the military which used the terms Magazine Lee Enfield (MLE), Magazine Lee Metford (MLM), then the suffixes of Mk I (originaly made with a clearing rod), Mk I* (originaly made without a clearing rod ((anytime after May of 1899)) OR a MLE Mk I that has had the rod removed), MLM Mk II (Associated with rifles with Metford rifling that've been updated in certain features like the bolt and safety), Charger Loading Lee Enfield Mk I (CLLE Mk I) Charger Loading Lee Enfield Mk I* (Any Charger loading Long Enfield with the updated rear sight) and then there are others like the India Pattern Charger Loading Long Lee's with the charger guide on the Bolt Face. Some Charger Loading Lee Enfields (with the charger guide) didn't have updated front sights OR didn't have updated rear sights while the (CLLE Mk I*) had everything updated. Just having a charger guide on the receiver changed the designation of a rifle to a CLLE. Confusing eh? Anyway, the first real early Lee Metfords had grasping grooves in the stocks, a recess cut out to assist in grasping the magazine cut off, a stacking swivel AND a sling swivel attached to the front band. They also had a single line magazine that held eight rounds of blackpowder ammo. There are other easy to identify fetures that are pointed out in Ian Skennerton's Wonderful book The Lee-Enfield, A Century of Lee-Metford & Lee-Enfield Rifles & Carbines.

[John Sukey]

The differehce is Metford rifling was designed for black powder. The Bp round only lasted around three or four years. When the switch was made to cordite which burns a lot hotter, the barrel throat was eroded, often causing the bullet to tip on leaving the case. The deeper enfield rifling fixed that.
By the way , it took the Boers to let the Brits know that single loading was just not on anymore. The idea before that was to keep the magazine in reserve with the cut-off, and only resort to the magazine if the enemy got close or in case of a cavalry charge.

[Fred]

John, isn't it interesting how such an outdated military theory (magazine in reserve) could be maintained on the Springfield Model 1903 and some of the SMLE's that retained their cutoff? Go figure...

[JB White]

There may have been some valid reason for the cutoff later when it came to grenade launching and line throwing. Just tossing that out there for discussion.

[Art]

John, isn't it interesting how such an outdated military theory (magazine in reserve) could be maintained on the Springfield Model 1903 and some of the SMLE's that retained their cutoff? Go figure...

The SMLE cutoff is just an abomination. I'm amazed that it lasted as long as it did. A poorly designed feature on an excellent weapon, I bet the troops were glad to see it go.

[Guamsst]

The magazine cutoff is a GREAT theory. Ofcourse the problem with theories is that they don't work so well in practice usually. If you want to know if something is a good Idea, let an enlisted man use it during one training exercise and then let him fill out an anonymous survey about it...LOL

[John Sukey]

There may have been some valid reason for the cutoff later when it came to grenade launching and line throwing. Just tossing that out there for discussion.
If you are going to launch grenades or throw a line, you are going to single load the rifle. Grenade launching rifles were usualy designated for only that purpose and you don't need to throw a line more than once.

Oh by the way I do have a No4 line thrower. No sights, but then a ship is rather hard to miss:icon_lol: