Lee Enfield Aluminum stock

[Roger Payne]

Well I certainly believe you about the Edward VIII cyphered SMLE because I've got one too.
I really know nothing about this weapon, but it did occur to me that sometimes small production runs of modified rifles were made for quasi-official organisations & so forth. If there are a few of these rifles all to the same spec., could they maybe have been a putative design for Park Rangers or some such organisation?? Somebody who needed the power of a 303 in a light rifle. It's pure speculation of course......

ATB

[smellie]

Part of the problem, I think, is that these rifles are just SO ugly that most hunters would have restocked one with whatever second-hand wood they could find.

I would not doubt that, were a small lot actually built (more than the 2 which appear to remain), most of the aluminum stocks would have ended up at the scrap dealer.

You have some very good insights into the possibilities of a small lot. Thanks for posting.

[Thunderbox]

I think all of us understand "never to say never" when dealing with Enfields. Its just that there are some broad observations that most Enfield collectors accept.

For example, there are of course many different types of Enfield prototypes and experimental models in existence, and some of the esteemed collectors here have them in their collections. The point is that all of these oddball factory Enfields have a similar "look" about them - the "look" that comes from being made as a military piece for government testing purposes.

Another - rarer - category is that of commercial test pieces.

Sometimes a piece comes along that has the "look", but raises doubts about authenticity because of lack of documented provenance or unexplained disconnects in provenance. An example of this might be the "Savage Stevens mauser actioned No1 rifle" that keep cropping up. In cases like that, I think most of us just keep an open mind.

It would be great to see a detailed photo-essay of the two alloy stocked No1s. They don't "look" military, but they might be a limited project run by some private individual or company. The circumstantial evidence doesn't really mean anything. Having two '45 barrelled receivers with similar inspection marks might just mean they were picked out of a batch of '45 dispersals or rebuilds that just didn't get separated on their journey through the surplus market - e.g. many people here own No5s with similar BKxxxx serials, which appear to have come off the same pallet. I have several pairs of No1s with absolutely identical markings - and those are random rifles out of 4 million that have come into my possession separately.

[Peter Laidler]

Call me a pessimist here, but, and cutting to the quick, the crap quality of everything about this shouts out aloud '......fiction will soon become fact if I shout it out a) enough, b) loud enough and c) muddy the waters sufficiently.

I can see exactly where T/Box is coming from along the 'commercial testing' route. But what on earth would they be testing with something like that I'm bound to ask?

Sorry, but having been and seen these UK Military type trials and while I know sod-all about what BSA would have done, I don't believe that they'd turn out crap like this! If you'd given the job to BMC Cars or Leyland, then yes....., but BSA, never in a zillion years. There's a popular saying in England......... Well, there's a few that I use, but here's another for all you gulliable believers. You need to get out a bit more.....

Just my 2c's worth - again!

[gsimmons]

Are you implying Leyland didn't build a quality product?...... I'm shocked!

[Peter Laidler]

You can sleep soundly Gary..... I deliberately left Triumph out of the equation!

[Frederick303]

Looking at all of this dispassionately, a few things on both of these guns say they were not UK military trial guns in any way:

1) The commercial proof on a 1945 dated barrel,

2) The use of Ross buttstocks. Not UK standard in any way.

3) The lack of any kind of front bearing allowance, No 1 MK III barrels were well understood to not shoot well without damping of the barrel between in middle internal band and the front nose cap. Given that there would be no way a metal stock would be designed that did not provide for some sort of barrel damping forward of the middle band, at least on a full length barrel.

4) A check of Reynolds book “the Lee Enfield Rifle” shows all the metal stock trails were with the No 4 and occurred in 1943. These attempts were abandoned after 1943 due to various difficulties.


So that leaves the possibility that this is in somehow a Canadian effort. There are several good reasons why this would not be the case:

1) Canada had no shortage of lumber, none whatsoever.

2) In the June and October of 1943 holding reports the total stock of CA No 1 MK III rifles was 15,798. They had fewer No 1 MK III rifles then Ross rifles of, which ~41,000 were on hand. By 1943 the No 1 MK III was a surplus item, and far fewer were in stock then M1917 rifles and even Ross rifles. In 1949 the holding were listed as 11,000, of which only 2,280 were serviceable.

3) By the end of the war ~900,000 No 4 MK I* rifles had been made of which 330,000 were sent to the UK, there was a vast surplus of No 4 rifles in Canada. There simply was not any requirement for No 1 MK III trial rifles of any kind.

4) The DCRA made the No1 MK II obsolete for competitive shooting in late 1946, thereafter all shooting was done with the No 4 MK I*. So it is unlikely done for DCRA.

So what evidence are there these might have been some sort of post-war commercial/home build?:

1) The use of a commercially proofed 1945 barrel.

2) The use of Ross butts. In 1946 the Canadian Ross rifles were transferred to the War Assets Corporation, which was supposed to dispose of them. According to “defending the Dominions” most of these rifles were broken up and sold as scrape. It is quite possible in 1946 that there was a number of broken Ross buttstocks available for next to nothing (scrap value). Having a supply of unusable broken Ross buttstocks seems to be the only possible reason for making them fit the No 1 MK III.

3) The inclusion of various barrel bearing in the casting between the barrel reinforce and the internal barrel band might have been and attempt to dampen the barrel vibrations. The Martian nodal bedded target rifles that were fairly well known in Canadian target shooting circles between the wars. If the chap doing this work thought he might be able to dampen the barrel by inclusion of nodal bearing points behind the internal barrel band, he was following a concept well known at the time in Canada.

4) Lastly thought he casting may be well carried out, the lack of a firm fitting between the buttstock socket and the front draws seems to indicate a lack of the most basic bedding concern according the EMERs. It is hard to see any military trial piece not attending to this detail. You can literally see light through the gap between the action body buttstock socket and the rear of the aluminum stock piece on both examples.

On the other hand I have known folks that claim relieving this fit on the No 1 and No 4 will make it shoot better at the close ranges, in the 100 to 200 yard region where hunting rifles are commonly used, as long as the fit of the forend to the barrel is fairly tight. That is purely a hunting rifle type build.

So overall considering what little facts are available, these examples have to me, all indications that they are local Canadian commercial or garage shop efforts.

[Brit plumber]

The same observations keep poping into my mind, why bother fitting a Ross butt? What's wrong with the correct SMLE butt? or a No.4 butt? there's thousands of them surplus. Also, if it's intended for military use, why can't a bayonet be fitted and where's the sling points? And why not base it on a production rifle?

If I could see a need or some logic behind it I could understand. Is it any lighter than a standard Mk3?

[Frederick303]

See my post on the breakup and disposale of Ross rifles in 1946, posted just above yours.

Source, "Defending the Dominon" pages, 134 to 136 inclusive

[Roger Payne]

Frederick, you have put your points across very well & I think what you say is very plausible. Shame we can only speculate on the issue.....