What's the difference between these two SMLE magazines?

[in2anity]

The more worn, silver coloured one is out of my Savage No4Mk1* Service Rifle clunker, and it's given me feeding problems ever since I got it. No matter how I adjust the feed lips. Note the "bulging" belly on it - I think this is bad.

The blacker coloured one is newer, and with some adjustments to the feed lips seems to be feeding O-K, although I'm still yet to test it under recoil. The problem with the original mag only seemed occur under recoil, as in it would feed/extract all 10 fine in the garage...

IMG_2916.jpg (610.13 KiB) Viewed 2691 times

IMG_2917.jpg (449.39 KiB) Viewed 2691 times

Can anybody identify where they originate from? What's with the difference in the follower shape?

Cheers,
In2.

[boingk]

Take a measurement between the two indents toward the forward lips. See if there is a difference and set the misfunctioning one at the good ones measurement.

[in2anity]

Boingk the thing is they both feed ok out of recoil, it’s just I haven’t tested the new one under match conditions yet. I was more curious as to whether anyone knew the history of the different shaped follower...

[Diamond Jim]

It's not to do with the infamous SMLE "rim jam" is it? Some debunk the idea but I load my stripper clips as per the recommendations. Maybe one mag allows rims to ride over each other and the other doesn't. Just a thought. How do you load them?

[straightshooter]

It's the bevel on the rim that overcomes jamming of the rims as well as easing the load on the extractor as it slips over the rim.

[in2anity]

It’s not rim jam. And there is no connection to using a stripper clip. The issue is the base of approximately the 5th always feeding from the left stays a little low yet the tip sort of pops out too much, meaning the bolt can ride over the top of the cartridge (and jags on the side of the case leaving a very consistent scratch).

I suspect this issue is somewhat outside of possibly solveable on a humble text forum. The sloppy bolt probably comes into it, she’s certainly done some work.

I’m more interested to see if anyone can identify the “new” magazine which may or may not solve the problem.

[Diamond Jim]

The "A" inside the Star on the upper mag suggests it's from a much earlier rifle - pre 1926. That mark isn't on my mag in a 1942 rifle but, then, I can't guarantee my mag is contemporaneous to my rifle. In fact I can't see any marks on my follower at all but it does have the two "rivets" like the lower mag and the follower is more similar to mine. However mine has a more pronounced "squaring" of the upper guide/retainer and the guides are more "flattenened" like the lower magazine. The upper mag appears to have a diffrernt angle on the guides/retainers. I'd second copying the angles and gaps as suggested by Boingk.

[in2anity]

Thanks DJ, appreciate your time. Correct me if i'm wrong, if it were pre-1926, how could it be a No4 mag? That's mkIII (and earlier) era isn't it? And I'm pretty sure it's a No4 magazine, as the ribs don't go to the very base. Not only that, if it were a mkIII mag, it just wouldn't be compatible correct?

[No1Mk3]

G'day in2anity,
That A in a Star is a Lithgow mark denoting a mag platform made for the No1MkIII rifle, it is a Type 2 (stamped) made to fit the Type 3 (No1 SMLE) case which by your description of the mag case has been later fitted to a No4 rifle magazine. The lower mag platform is also a No1 SMLE, a Type 3 platform for the Type 4 No1 Mk III magazine which has been fitted to a No4 rifle mag. I would change it for the correct type, or a type 2 platform like the Lithgow one, and close the mag walls a bit. Cheers.

[Diamond Jim]

Thanks DJ, appreciate your time. Correct me if i'm wrong, if it were pre-1926, how could it be a No4 mag? That's mkIII (and earlier) era isn't it? And I'm pretty sure it's a No4 magazine, as the ribs don't go to the very base. Not only that, if it were a mkIII mag, it just wouldn't be compatible correct?

in2anity, You are absolutely correct - up until 1926 they were "SMLE Mk III or Mk III*", After 1926 they were "Rifle No.1, Mk III or Mk III*". Yours could well be a No.4 Mag as I've never seen one but it is very similar to mine. Mine is a No.1 Mk.III* but changes were made throughout the history of the rifles and magazines changed significantly as well. Your "new" mag is quite different to mine so that suggests it is either an older iteration or a newer one. The "Star-A" stamp tells me it's Australian and my research suggests it's older

The mag on my rifle isn't numbered to the rifle like the bolt, wood etc. are and I'm sure the mag in my rifle did not come with it from the factory - in fact my rifle is stamped "Lithgow" and the mag is stamped "OA" which is Orange Arsenal from South Australia. There is no guarantee that your mag is the one that came with it from the factory - in fact, unless it is numberd so, it's probably pretty unlikely given the number of times it has likely been to see an armorour or gun shop over the intervening years. It could even be a No.4 body with an earlier follower. The follower in the "new" mag has much more metal at the "nose" end than the other which doesn't fit with simplifying designs for increased and cheaper production. Again, this suggests it being an earlier design.

Mine has a "4" stamped on the tab at the front of the magazine with an oblong shaped stamped fixing the tab to the front of the mag as opposed to your circular "rivet". Mine also has a "4" stamped on the magazine latch steelwork. Again these suggest changes to simplify production but mine does have the ridges extend all the way to the base of the mag.

I'm taking my info from a sheet on SMLE markings I downloaded from a SMLE page maybe 20 years ago that says the "Star-A" stamp was discontinued on rifles in 1926. I'm assuming (and that's always dangerous) that the same applies to magazines. A search of SMLE enthusiasts would put you right in very short order.

On re-reading the original post, I note you don't have a feeding issue with the "new" mag but rather with the older "bulged" one. Time for some panel beating to get her back into her original shape I say!

I hope you solve the mystery.
Jim

[in2anity]

Wow amazing info - just what I was looking for! Thanks guys, legendary. So let me get this straight, you guys believe at least the guts of it are from a mkIII, so how does it fit the Savage? Or would the body part be from a no4?

Now I’m left wondering how it seems to be functioning with the mkIII magazine now...

[No1Mk3]

G'day in2anity,
From your description of the magazine case you have No4 rifle magazines, but they have been fitted with platforms and springs from No1 rifle mags. This is not too uncommon but one of the issues of doing this is sometimes unreliable feeding. The cure is simply to try another platform, they are not hard to find. Sometimes if the problem is platform jamming I have removed the auxiliary spring and fixed it, sometimes just grinding a little off the rear of the platform will do, Cheers.

[in2anity]

Thanks No1 - yea I think you are right. I’ve settled on the guts from the “original” mag in the so called “newer” body with some further feed lip adjusting, and she seems to be feeding better than ever before. The proof will be in the pudding however - as I mentioned before recoil comes into play on the line, obviously rattles things and changes feeding properties.

Thanks again to all for the help - Service shooters are always bloody legends.

[Diamond Jim]

The two followers are very different. I think you may have one follower from a No. 1, Mk.III and the other from a pre-1926 Mk.III - both in No. 4 mag bodies

[in2anity]

Yeah thanks again DJ - you are probably on the money! All I care is that it gets me through the bloody details without interruption! the amount of god damned points I’ve dropped due to having to stop to clear the jam is bloody infuriating! I’ll let you all know how it goes in the coming weeks.