Question re Long Lee butt marking--pics up

[boltaction]

Hi all:
I just acquired a MLE Mk I*, manufactured B.S.A. & M. 1896. It is all matching, with buttstock M&D marks for issue to Canada's Dep't of Militia and Defence. There are no issue marks on the buttplate tang, which is typical of Canadian issue--we tended to use the wood rather than the brass. The serial number is 4 digit with no letter which is correct for that manufacturer and date. The buttstock has me puzzled though--it has the Enfield roundel, but that is overstamped with a horizontal, deeper BSA. The buttstock is obviously original to the rifle as it has the same patina (overall it looks almost unused). I'm wondering if BSA might have had to acquire some buttstocks from Enfield in the manufacturing process, and just overstamped them? It has to have been done before it came to Canada, as the M&D stamp was applied just above the roundel and strikethrough.

I will try to post some photos shortly.

Thoughts?

Thanks.

Ed

Attachment 63865Attachment 63869Attachment 63866Attachment 63870Attachment 63867Attachment 63864Attachment 63868

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.

[CINDERS]

Pics ultimately assist with early recognition and information about your questions if you could post some clear pics of what you wish to find out then the ones that know will chime in with their information

[boltaction]

Yup. I know pictures help, but with company milling around here for the next few days it's going to be challenging to have time to photograph the rifle. I thought in the meantime that someone would have run into this situation and know the answer, even without a picture.

Ed

[stevesmle]

When the Lee Metford Mark I was introduced, both London Small Arms and Birmingham Small Arms were supplied with Butts free of charge, but with transports costs added, by RSAF Enfield, to help both company's set-up production. I very much doubt that this practice continued , once both firms were in full production, and as a Mk I Lee Enfield butt,was identical to the Lee Metford Mk II butt, there should have been ample supplies at both BSA and LSA, because both had large contracts to supply LM Mk II's, both firms also had dedicated butt marking roundels. The stamps used to mark BSA on your butt, looks distinctly modern.

[jrhead75]

I agree with Steve. The BSA stampings look considerably newer than the rest. And it certainly wasn't like BSA didn't have the wherewithal to stamp their own roundel on the piece had they felt the need.

[boltaction]

So, what is the explanation then for when that would have been applied, and why? It doesn't make any sense for someone to have done it once it arrived in Canada and was in military stores, unless it was surplused out, went back to the UK and then back to Canada maybe? A commercial stamping? Still has me puzzled given that the unit is otherwise matching. Unless the buttstock was switched at some point and someone wanted to make it look like a butt from a BSA rifle. I suppose that's possible, although again the finish and patina on all the wood matches.

Odd

Ed

[jrhead75]

Unless the buttstock was switched at some point and someone wanted to make it look like a butt from a BSA rifle.

That would be my guess...that a previous owner didn't like having a mismatched butt. No other reason that I can think of for it. BSA had plenty of their own official stamps.

[boltaction]

Yeah, you'd think they wouldn't be short! Pity, as the rifle is really nice otherwise, but even with a mismatched buttstock it's still a nice MLE !!

Ed

[rayg]

And if that's an original clearing rod in the rifle, that is a real plus. Original clearing rods are real scarce as most were removed a year or so later from LE's. Scarce to find a LE with an original one still in it. Here's a Canadian one that still has one, Ray
Attachment 63888