Thread: Why are lee enfield 4 peice stocks?
Retrieved: 06/18/2014

Well why?

Son
Jan 02, 2011

Now that's a good question. I've heard it asked before, and I think I can remember the reasoning provided without spending an hour or two in a book...

The handguards are easy. To cover the barrel, both to protect the metal and shield the firer from the heat, the handguards need to be made in two pieces to get around the rear sights. I know other military rifles of similar vintage did it in one, but the fore runners to the SMLE, the MLM and MLE (Long Lees) only had a rear handguard which was not altered much at all to produce the new model for the Sht LE Mk1 and then the MkIII SMLE. They simply designed and made a second part to cover the front of the barrel.

Now to the foreend. The decision to make a foreend that went to the muzzle was for a few reasons. Protection of the barrel, protection of the firer from the hot barrel, and to strengthen the whole unit for fitment and use of the bayonet. This also included the fact that the whole rifle became the handle when in a fight with bayonets - you could grab it anywhere and swing or lunge with it.

The previous models (Long Lees), as from their first design had a socket to fit the butt at the rear of the action. This was thought to be for ease of manufacture of the two piece set- not needing a single long piece of wood (over 42") good enough for the job, and it greatly reduced wasteage. It also meant that the recoil from the rifle was transferred to the firer through the positive fitment of the butt to the socket at the rear of the action, negating any need for complicated mounting of recoil blocks in the woodwork to attach somewhere on the action. The fact that the SMLE needed copper "recoil blocks" in the Australian produced coachwood foreends was because of the softness of the wood (it probably wasn't really suitable fior the job) not any problem with the design.

Personally I think all of the above pretty much wraps up the answer. Anyone want to add anything?

singleshotcajun
Jan 02, 2011

How many cracked wrist have you seen on a Enfield? Not very many. British military theory has always been heavy on bayonet usage. The Enfield design is the best twentieth century service rifle on which to deploy a bayonet. No.1 and No.4 series, great for shooting your enemy as well as clubbing and slashing them.

Tommygunn
Jan 02, 2011

And the seperate stocking allowing for different length butts to be used, (bantam, small, standard and large), to better accomodate different sized soldiers...

SavageShooter
Jan 02, 2011

I had long thought that the seperate butt stock and socket was a British innovation, since US Lee rifles have a one piece stock, but then I found the separate butt was part of Lee's US patent.

US Lee rifles with one piece stock are known for developing cracks, since there are no effective recoil bracing blocks or cross bolts.

Two piece stocks, hand guards aren't stocks just an add on under heading of furniture, a component of the stock set, were very common for breechloading and repeating rifles of all sorts, due to the often massive size of the receivers.

The Hungarian Mannlicher, later adapted by the Germans as the 98/40, also used a two piece stock with stock bolt.

The only real problem with the Enfield two piece stock is that the grain at each end soaks up oils and solvents.

I've seen many buttstocks with oil perishing so severe that the stock was unusuable without extensive repairs, same goes for the fore ends.

5Batt
Jan 02, 2011

A big plus for the 2-piece stock over 1-piece is, if you had 20 rifles of each type, 10 each of which had damaged butts and 10 with damaged forewoods, how many of each type could be repaired in the field using only parts from these rifles and returned to the front?