-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
Questions about ann odd Enfield by a newbie
Hi, another newbie here. I'd like some info from the experts here on a mail order Enfield I bought in 1962. According to collar markings it's a BSA Mark III*= made in 1917. All the metal parts have matching serial numbers and after replacing the sear it fires really well. My question regards the woodwork. The forestock appears to be a professionally cut down Mark III stock complete with volley sight, while the butt stock is from a jungle carbine. They are original stocks with markings and seem similarly aged. What gives? The obvious answer is that the gun was assembled from available parts, but is it possible that the rifle saw service as assembled. I don't understand why the importer would have gone to the trouble to modify and use original wood, although it's certainly possible. Also , what does the "=" indicate at the end of Markiii*= ? Any help you can provide will be greatly appreciated. I've been trying to upload photos from my Mac, but so far unsuccessfully. I'll keep trying!
Here are some photos
Information
|
Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current. |
|
Last edited by Badger; 12-26-2011 at 05:41 PM.
-
12-26-2011 03:09 PM
# ADS
Friends and Sponsors
-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
i just think it was 'available' nothing more , since you elected not to show a photo of the "=" i cannot comment ,
-
-
Legacy Member
-
-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
Thanks, Paul, I'll have to think about returning it to its original dress or just enjoy it as it is. The bore is really good and the action is tight so it works well for plinking on the range. I'll try to upload a photo of the "=" on the collar piece.
-
Legacy Member
Interesting. I was going to suggest the = was used to bar out the star but that looks excessive.
-
-
Homer, you're exactly right. Many Mk3* rifles were retro-converted to Mk3's after the event & the asterisk was barred through, although as in this case the barring out often missed the asterisk completely! Note the cut-off provision on this rifle.
It's eminently recoverable with a few spares. Personally I wouldn't bother about a volley sight forend as it's unlikely this rifle would have originally been fitted with one, not if it was made in 1917.
ATB
-
-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
Interesting, I wonder what was the reason was for retro-conversion. Thanks to you both for the insights.
-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
My present thinking is that I will keep the rifle as is. The wood, while mismatched, is original and has a history of its own. To replace it with modern reproductions doesn't seem right to me. I was the first owner after the importer and I didn't modify the wood, so it was either done earlier or by the importer, though I don't know why he would shorten the fore-pieces. Perhaps to "sporterize"it, but it was sold so cheaply it couldn't have been economical to put much effort into it. If it was just assembled from available parts, there is still question why there were shortened forestocks to begin with. I suspect a lot of 90 year old rifles have very individual and unknown histories.
-
Contributing Member
It looks like a previous owner wanted a jungle carbine look alike. The importer wouldn't put the effort into doing that. And it wasn't done in service.
-
-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
A good point and you may be right. I say may only because I bought it directly from the distributor off of an ad in Shotgun News in 1962. So far as I know I'm the first civilian owner.