ShtLE No1 Mk1* gunmetal buttplate and other details

[Lashenden]

Thanks for all those tips, RCS. Which books have this level of detail? - this is exactly the fine grain of information that I haven't been able to extract from the books I've consuted so far.

[303Guy]

I have several older MLE's (1896's and 1902's) all with brass/gunmetal buttplates. How does one identify the metal used? So the No4 would be brass in which case a visual comparison could be made, which I shall go and do.

Oh, on the safety catch - I was referring to the catch itself being a MkIII which could have been on any rifle (just to clarify). I have no idea when or where the safety catch Mk's would have changed or what the changes might have been or even if that is correct.

I have a 1904 SHT LE I. It too came with a brass/gunmetal buttplate. (That's the one with integral charger half bridge on body and sliding other half on the bolt head). If a collector wants the action body I might do a swap - I'm only using it as a bush gun. Anyway, would that have the gunmetal buttplate?

[303Guy]

Right, so I've had a look. What I see is a brass buttplate with three screws and a bronze hinge plate for one of the older guns (now idea which one) and for my 1917, 1940 and 1944 SMLE's I see two screw brass buttplates with a brass hinge plate. The latter have the III on the safety as does the 1904 SHT LE I. (The 1944 SMLE is a 25-303 Sporter - accurate rifle!) All three of my SMLE's are BSA's, the 25-303 is a Lithgow.

You know, I lost my 1902 buttplate in a move - pity.

So it seems only the hinge plates on my sample is gunmetal. (I have more somewhere).

[paulpanagi]

I understand that this rifle came originally with this butt from New Zealand complete with the other items on this rifle, the question is do you change this part as it 'may have been on this rifle all its live'. Or change it to the mk1* butt plate as you have been offered by EFD. Originality may be the former and to change it may change its 100 years history to an item that may never have been fitted even though it should have. Too many Enfield have been played with, by changing it as Loc 13577 states for the mk1* butt plate as should have been fitted, you may be replacing a part that was never fitted in the first place but should have been. When you own a rifle such as this you are buying into the past, this 1906 Mk1* has not been mucked about with why start now.

[paulpanagi]

I have been asked by EFD on there behalf to post this reply.

Paul, can you respond on my behalf? my e-mail is down. "This rife is 1906 MkI* made as a MkI* by BSA. It only remains an unmodified MkI* because it came from Australasia. It appears to have original woodwork, including an armourers repair. It came with steel butt plate single point rear sling swivel and safety marked III. I had another exactly similar. This rifle is 107 years old! Been through two World Wars and countless field Amourers hands, who's priorities were not the rifles future heritage. I have every version of MkI in my collection, none have bronze butt plates and half have safeties marked "III" such is the record of field armoures! Also even my very good friend Ian Skennerton's World renown Enfield bible can be awry in some detail; I have two pure MkI's; no modifications, dated 1910. The bible says last production 1908! Frequently I am asked for 100 year old Enfields so perfect they could be "factory fresh" few such rifles exist outside the Pattern Room collection. I have a completely original British Military 1906 MkI* transfered to the Queensland Police in 1907 and never been to war, this has Brass butt plate, not bronze! Geoffrey Organ

[Lashenden]

Apologies for the delay in responding to these two posts - I don't check the forums as often as I might. But I note a slight change in the temperature of the conversation here! So, to sum up and reassure, my original post was a request for information. Firstly I will re-state that I'm not dissatisfied with this rifle (or EFD) in any way. I'd just like to know more about how my new purchase might have been composed in 1906 so I'm consulting the enfield-owning community about some fairly obscure matters - it appears, for instance, that no-one contributing to this thread has actually encountered a 'gunmetal' buttplate. Now I may be new-ish to Enfields, but I'm not unfamiliar with the ethics of restoration. I have no intention of doing anything irreversible, I'm in no hurry at all and I may on consideration leave everything well alone. However, the rifle does diverge from the official specification, and I'd like to know what's original, what's part of it's service history and what may be post-disposal swapping-out of parts - surely that's what much of the discussion on these forums is about? If, at some point, I obtain a 'correct to original specification' part that can be substituted with no detriment to the rifle and I retain the former component, as has always been my practice, I'm quite comfortable with doing that. To sum up your posts, you're saying 'thats how it came to the UK' and that fact needs to be given due weight, I agree.

[jmoore]

Unless they changed the composition along the way, I think most "brass" Enfield buttplates are gunmetal bronze. But I haven't referenced that info lately, so that's just a SWAG at this point. Looking forward to a more definitive answer vis. the alloy. The shape issue has been dealt with eariler in this thread, I think.