1918 Enfield Small Arms Factory made SMLE No.1 Mk.III* converted back to No.1 Mk.III

[Homer]

Yes I think most would be aware of the FTR program's post war and into the 50's. Were they not all engraved on the receiver to indicate this? What about forend numbering?

[Peter Laidler]

Were you a RAEMEArmourer Owen Gun? When and where? So was I.

It is simplcity itself to convert a high sided fore-end to a cut-off fore-end. We did similar things almost every day with the No4Mk1 and 1* type fore-ends to suit what we had Just cut the section out and make good! But in UK and Aust. Military service we would NEVER retro modify something*. It is a pointless exercise. When something is obsolescent, you use it until the item or parts to repair it are NLA, which as an Ordnance man familiar with the VAOS system, you'll know indicates No Longer Available or ultil the WSE initials crop up on the Ordnance return - When Stocks Exhausted. As for the continued manufacture of bodies with the cut-off slot, you must remember this. During the relaxation criteria for parts manufacture. if a manufacturer uses the slot during his manufacturing/machining process as a datum point, mark or fixture, then he can retain it. Much like the flutes in a Bren gas cylinder or the hole in a No4 bolt. Both obsolescent but continued to be produced like that until...........

You can believe what you like but I'll tell it like it is. The rifle ain't not original or factory fresh and they ain't not factory stamp numbers. A quick check with a micrometer will confirm this

(* I did it once on a Sten gun simply to make it look original/unmodified for display purposes)

[owengun]

Yes I think most would be aware of the FTR program's post war and into the 50's. Were they not all engraved on the receiver to indicate this? What about forend numbering?

I don't know but if it was done on the scale that is implied in other forums others will know and chime in I hope.

[owengun]

Were you a RAEMEArmourer Owen Gun? When and where? So was I.

It is simplcity itself to convert a high sided fore-end to a cut-off fore-end. We did similar things almost every day with the No4Mk1 and 1* type fore-ends to suit what we had Just cut the section out and make good! But in UK and Aust. Military service we would NEVER retro modify something*. It is a pointless exercise. When something is obsolescent, you use it until the item or parts to repair it are NLA, which as an Ordnance man familiar with the VAOS system, you'll know indicates No Longer Available or ultil the WSE initials crop up on the Ordnance return - When Stocks Exhausted. As for the continued manufacture of bodies with the cut-off slot, you must remember this. During the relaxation criteria for parts manufacture. if a manufacturer uses the slot during his manufacturing/machining process as a datum point, mark or fixture, then he can retain it. Much like the flutes in a Bren gas cylinder or the hole in a No4 bolt. Both obsolescent but continued to be produced like that until...........

You can believe what you like but I'll tell it like it is. The rifle ain't not original or factory fresh and they ain't not factory stamp numbers. A quick check with a micrometer will confirm this

(* I did it once on a Sten gun simply to make it look original/unmodified for display purposes)

I served in the 1980's through to the 1990's at 21st Supply Bn & SME, 5th base workshops among others.

I know that the stock can be cut easily to fit, the funny thing is while everybody is coming out with wild theories about the rifles providence, I never asked for such as I was quite happy with it as it is, especially considering with the low price I paid for it. My reason for posting pictures of it was to show that these rifles are still around to be found in good nick and was inviting other to showcase their ones.

I never thought that it would cause a fuss, and as most knowledgeable collectors of Lee Enfields should know there are too many unknown variables out there for anybody to attempt to make definitive statements on how they were all made or refitted. I myself choose to believe that this rifle is a post war BSA refit of a Enfield made SMLE rifle, I never tried to pass it off as a genuine, all original from factory by Enfield Mk.III, unlike what others are insinuating I have and I invite all to show me were in this post that I did, I have been careful to say it was a post war refit right from the start. I did not care who refitted it as long as it was done while in the system.

I choose to only believe in the facts as they stand in front of me, I am not trying to make things up that are speculation only.

Lets all now move on from this aspect and direct future comments with these facts now in mind.

[browningautorifle]

I served in the Army for 12 years

Yes, many of us did and not just a few years.

all these opinions came out of left field

Not really, you asked...

I never thought that it would cause a fuss

I don't think there's any fuss, you seem to want us to confirm your beliefs and now the senior armorer (just about anywhere) has instead told us how it is. But you can believe a 1918 rifle can still show up in as new condition if you wish. Don't get hot about it, you aren't the first to do that here. Yes, we like the looks of your rifle. Most of us would love to have it as is...

[Brian Dick]

BSA FTR rifles done in the 1950's sport a big date and FTR engraved on the left right side of the body. I've seen many of them. I'd say yours is restored with nos woodwork. Nice rifle nevertheless. Enjoy.

---------- Post added at 11:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 AM ----------

Oops, should read: left front

[owengun]

Yes, many of us did and not just a few years.

Not really, you asked...

I don't think there's any fuss, you seem to want us to confirm your beliefs and now the senior armorer (just about anywhere) has instead told us how it is. But you can believe a 1918 rifle can still show up in as new condition if you wish. Don't get hot about it, you aren't the first to do that here. Yes, we like the looks of your rifle. Most of us would love to have it as is...

I not getting hot at all, cool as a cucumber actually and while I know should be deferring to posters here who have more military time in service and therefore are by default more knowledgeable on these rifles.

I still have this problem with how the facts present themselves squarely in my face, so I just happened to have one of these definitive 1953 BSA FTR'd SMLE's in my collection, so I pulled my almost the same condition originally BSA made in 1917 and then re-barrelled/rebuilt and clearly marked as FTR'd by them in 1953 from my gun safe to double check again.

Well strike me pink!, who would have thought that it has the same 53 over a broad arrow on the left side as the above posted rifle and funny enough it also has a new serial numbered bolt, barrel and nose cap with the use of the same as London to a brick font stamp as on the original posted rifle, I be stuffed!

Fair suck of the sav! , How could this be? it clearly fly's against all the most learned wisdom previously presented logically before me in posts above.

Anyhow lets let this craziness die and move on, I don't want to argue anymore and if most people here do not, for what ever reason, want to believe it is a BSA 1953 FTR SMLE then so be it. What ever the majority want to believe it is I will go with and from then on forward will label it as such.

Anyhow for everybody's pleasure I submit these pictures of my originally made in 1917 and the FTR'd by BSA in 1953 SMLE Mk. III*




Also I also happen to have another excellent almost new condition BSA 1918 Mk.III FTR, so it is not like I am coming from left field with my thoughts of what this original posted rifle appears to be to myself, I guess owning 3 excellent condition post war BSA FTR SMLE gives me a little lee way in why I am making the statements I have. I have a collection of nearly 20 Lee Enfields and am not trying to convince anybody of anything I can not back up.

---------- Post added at 03:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 PM ----------

BTW the above 1917 rifle has a mix of walnut and beech stock work.

[browningautorifle]

No FTR marking on the first rifle...and the finish is completely different. This one's a paint over after and the first is just blue. How do you say they're the same? You can't possibly think the same numbers have been used between one rifle and the next...if you want to move on, go ahead...I'm just curious. Doesn't matter how long your...I mean how many rifles you have.

[owengun]

No FTR marking on the first rifle...and the finish is completely different. This one's a paint over after and the first is just blue. How do you say they're the same? You can't possibly think the same numbers have been used between one rifle and the next...if you want to move on, go ahead...I'm just curious. Doesn't matter how long your...I mean how many rifles you have.

I probably should have mentioned in the first post that the seller told me there was a chance that this (whatever the masses think) rifle was previously owned by Winston Churchhill and from his personal collection.

---------- Post added at 03:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:09 PM ----------

I have now think I have worked out what is happening here!

I think the problem with this rifle is that there may be some Jelly involved!

[Father Ted]

I didn't know Winston C did restorations. Something else I have to keep an eye out for now!