Talk:De Lisle carbine

Untitled

The De Lisle was never designed/built to retain fired casings. They ejected from the rifle like a regular SMLE.

The 1911 magazine was modified by soldering a rib/catch on the back so that the original mag catch on the rifle could be used. The feed lips and follower on the magazine was also modified to function in each individual rifle. The magazine was therefore not interchangable with the pistol, nor were the magazines interchangable between De Lisles, they would fit in the rifle but may not feed.

The rifle was accurate (to military standards) at distances greater than it would seem capable for the 45 ACP but most engagements with the De Lisle were under 75 yards.

The De Lisle was also one of the most silent rifles ever produced, the sound of the sear releasing the firing pin can be clearly heard while shooting the rifle. The large suppressor housing allowed the trapping of the gases generated by firing and the large number of baffles served to slow them down. The suppressor is in fact much larger than was really needed to reduce the sound signature but the design allowed the rifle to be used without the need to tear down the supressor for servicing until it was really filthy. 207.34.115.66 22:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)De Lisle Guy

Accurate to 250m? I don't believe it!

Is it really? I don't see how it can be with a very heavy, very slow .45 round. They drop like anything. Does anyone have a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.159.158 (talk) 21:09, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

According to Ian V. Hogg & John Weeks:

... although the .45 ACP bullet is generally accepted as a short range pistol cartridge, this assumption is drawn from its use in short-barrelled pistols and submachine guns. The barrel of the De Lisle is one of the longest of its calibre in military use, and owing to this, it shoots with remarkable accuracy up to three or four hundred yards.

from : Ian V. Hogg and John Weeks - Military Small Arms of the 20th Century - Arms & Armour Press/Hippocrene - 1977 - ISBN 0-85368-301-8 - page 128. Ian Dunster (talk) 11:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently some versions of this weapon retained the Lee-Enfield magazine, but divided it into two parts. One part was where ejected .45 ACP cartridges went, so it wouldn't make a noise as they hit the ground. Douglasnicol 18:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference for this? It seems like it could work, but the magazine would have to be padded inside (otherwise you get metal-on-metal sounds) and that seems like it might adversely impact reliability... scot 14:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ian Skennerton's textSmall Arms Identification Series No .13: Special Service Lee-Enfields... Commando & Auto Models' makes no mention of this at all, so I'm inclined to believe the idea is incorrect. The De Lisle was designed to use a magazine that was interchangeable with the .45ACP calibre M1911A1 handgun magazines. They did, however, often have a small piece of wood or bakelite mounted under the curve of the bolt handle to prevent the metal-on-metal noise resulting from the bolt handle being raised or lowered. --Commander Zulu 00:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

How quiet?

- indeed working the bolt to chamber the next round makes a louder noise than firing a round. - Can we find a source for this, please? It's a little difficult to believe. I've heard the same thing about modern silenced/suppressed weapons, such as the MP5SD, and the claim is certainly not true as far as they are concerned. Geoff B 02:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

See a quoted passage from a book about the SMLE variants here. I've not fired a DeLisle, but I do know that with a .22 CB Long fired out of a rifle, the hammer fall and bullet hitting the target are far louder than any gas exiting the muzzle. scot 14:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Ian V. Hogg & John Weeks:

... The De Lisle is undoubtedly among the most silent weapons ever developed, and the only noise audible on firing is the striker falling on the cap ...

from : Ian V. Hogg and John Weeks - Military Small Arms of the 20th Century - Arms & Armour Press/Hippocrene - 1977 - ISBN 0-85368-301-8 - page 128.

They also mention the noise produced when the bolt is worked to chamber the next round is louder. Ian Dunster (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Classification of Weapon

Is this weapon a "rifle" as in the introduction? I think not. It's pretty well established that any weapon firing pistol rounds off the shoulder, if it isn't automatic, is a carbine. The designation of the weapon is as such. Veritas Panther 13:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

A carbine is simply a shortened version of a full-length infantry rifle, regardless of calibre. In British/Commonwealth military usage, a "Carbine" was chambered in a full-size rifle round (such as the Lee-Enfield No. 5 Mk I "Jungle Carbine"). As such, the DeLisle is both a rifle and a carbine, if that makes sense. --Commander Zulu 13:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a carbine as far as I understand the term. Although lately it's been used to describe long arms chambered for a pistol round and firing in semi-auto, the traditional definition is that it's a shortened and/or lightened version of a rifle. The De Lisle sort of fits both. Geoff B 15:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Zulu, I said any weapon firing pistol rounds off the shoulder,if it isn't automatic, is a carbine. Nowhere did I say that excluded a shortened version of a full-length infantry rifle. My argument is that the De Lisle isn't really a rifle because it fires a pistol round and has a barrel much shorter than any rifle. It may fit technically the definition of a rifle but a better "common sense" definition is a "carbine". Veritas Panther 15:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is, it can be both a rifle and a carbine. I think you're applying American contemporary use to a WWII British weapon, which are notorious for being difficult to get the nomenclature right at the best of times. ;-) Hence, the compromise of describing the De Lisle as a "Carbine Rifle"- rifle describing any longarm with a rifled barrel, regardless of calibre.--Commander Zulu 07:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well the Brits called it a carbine and nothing else. FYI the "Jungle Carbine" was actually known as the "Rifle, No. 5" not as a carbine in official nomenclature. Secondly, the use of carbine to describe a semi-automatic pistol calibre weapon dates as far back as the Inter-War period. Semi-automatic Sterlings in addition were also called "carbines". I believe the term descends from the fact police were issued with carbines in the classical definition for their work. Additionally the all SMGs of British origin were dubbed machine carbines to distinguish them from the "Gangster Weapons". Veritas Panther 09:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In British Army usage a 'carbine' was a shorter version of the standard 'long' rifle. This comes form the time when two versions of a rifle would be produced, a standard 'long' rifle for infantrymen and a shorter 'carbine' for mounted troops, the shorter weapon being easier to handle while riding a horse, although not being as accurate at longer range. When the SMLE was introduced the new rifle was shorter than a traditional 'long' rifle, but shorter than a carbine, and it replaced both types, so the term 'carbine' then became redundant. When the sub machine gun (SMG) was first introduced, in many countries it was known as a 'machine pistol', however as the weapon was held to the shoulder to fire, and was shorter in length than a rifle, it was called a 'machine carbine' by the British. The de Lisle however, because it is shorter than a rifle but still held to the shoulder to fire, is therefore termed a 'carbine'.

By the time of WW II the term 'carbine' was generally used by the British for any short, 'handy' weapon that could be used in more confined spaces than a rifle, but with more range than a pistol, and which was fired from the shoulder, and the Lanchester, Sten, and Patchett/Sterling SMGs were all technically termed 'machine carbines' at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.253.120 (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:De Lisle Carbine Folding Stock.jpg

Image:De Lisle Carbine Folding Stock.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy redux

So was this weapon actually accurate? The article says not based on a book by Kevin Dockery, but earlier in the comments section we apparently have Ian Hogg saying it was very accurate. My personal bias is to trust what Hogg says, but that's not really sufficient grounds to change the article.

Are there actually any properly documented reports of the gun's accuracy or lack thereof? If not, given that the information available seems rather contradictory maybe it would be better not to mention it at all. --Vometia (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)