Long Lee Enfield

[wsswann]

Hi there to all. I'm new to the forum, but I've patrolled them for a couple years and finally got around to joining today. Anyways, I just wanted to share one of my rifles that I acquired a couple years ago while I was overseas in Afghanistan. For those of you who this might bother, I went through the correct channels and have all the paperwork form JAG and the base Provost Marshall that allowed me to send this rifle home LEGALLY. It wasn't until after I came home a year later that I was finally able to start researching it.

The rifle is a Magazine Lee Enfield. On the right socket is a crown with V.R. stamped along with Enfield. Below that is the year 1888 which I now know to be an incorrect date. Below the date is LE and the I* below that. And finally probably a rack number of 167. I'll post pictures of these marking and others as well as pictures of the rifle put together. At first I was fearful it was a Khyber Pass rifle, but from looking at other examples, I'm confident it is not. Other than an incorrect year stamped on the socket, I believe it to be a true Long Lee. Lastly, the fore stock has the channel for the clearing rod and there was a clearing rod in it when I purchased it. The head is mushroomed out from what appears to be years of abuse. I took it out of the rifle because I couldn't find a picture to compare to it and until recently believed it to belong to another type rifle. However, recently I started to look into it again and found a picture of a reproduction on another forum and besides the mushroom head it appears to be identical in design. Is this an original example that I have? It doesn't fit all the way down in the channel and so I'm not sure if something is blocking it, etc. Thanks for your input.

Attachment 46948Attachment 46949Attachment 46950Attachment 46951Attachment 46952Attachment 46953Attachment 46954Attachment 46955Attachment 46956Attachment 46957Attachment 46958Attachment 46959

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.

[Frederick303]

hate to say it, but it looks like a well done kyber pass model.

Date is 1888, forst model L-M were dated 1889, those were of a differnt pattern.

A couple of the proof do not look right either.

That said it is a well done example and very collectable for what it is.

[Ridolpho]

wsswann: Welcome to the forum. I doubt that anyone on here would begrudge you the chance to bring home a neat souvenir like that after doing your time in Afghanistan. Question to Frederick303: Is it possible that the stampings on the right cheek are the only "khyber" enhancements? The action body looks so normal on photos 3 and 5- no way that could be handcrafted, could it? Maybe a few more photos would help wss- details of the action body with the forend removed.

Ridolpho

[RobD]

Now, i am not the world's expert, but here goes:
To my eye, the metal parts of the rifle look good - i.e. it's an orginal MLE Mk1* - except the date has been re-stamped. The date is not in line with ENFIELD above it or LE below it, and is too deeply stamped. Probably the original date was rather shallow / illegible and the local gunsmith decided to improve it. The barrel date being 1901, the original action date would probably have been 1900 or 1901.
The stamping of 1888 looks wobbly (reminiscent of my John Bull printing set when I was a kid). I wonder if the date 1888 was chosen because the Enfield inspectors stamp have 88/E on the barrel (that's not the date, though) and the gunsmith thought she should over-stamp the illegible date as 1888 to match?
Obviously no MLE Mk1* would have a clearing rod or channel for it, so the fore-end has come from a MLE Mk 1 (no star) or a MLM. That is common enough to find, and does not imply Khyber-fakery.
The clearing rod is something non-Lee Enfield, too.
Are there any markings on the buttstock, inside the barrel channel of the forestock, or on the buttplate tang?
Rob

[5thBatt]

Now, i am not the world's expert, but here goes:
To my eye, the metal parts of the rifle look good - i.e. it's an orginal MLE Mk1* - except the date has been re-stamped. The date is not in line with ENFIELD above it or LE below it, and is too deeply stamped. Probably the original date was rather shallow / illegible and the local gunsmith decided to improve it. The barrel date being 1901, the original action date would probably have been 1900 or 1901.
The stamping of 1888 looks wobbly (reminiscent of my John Bull printing set when I was a kid). I wonder if the date 1888 was chosen because the Enfield inspectors stamp have 88/E on the barrel (that's not the date, though) and the gunsmith thought she should over-stamp the illegible date as 1888 to match?
Obviously no MLE Mk1* would not have a clearing rod or channel for it, so the fore-end has come from a MLE Mk 1 (no star) or a MLM. That is common enough to find, and does not imply Khyber-fakery.
The clearing rod is something non-Lee Enfield, too.
Are there any markings on the buttstock, inside the barrel channel of the forestock, or on the buttplate tang?
Rob

That would be my guess too, but i think the rod is correct only it has been flared out at the end, maybe from trying to hammer out a stuck projectile???

[wsswann]

Sorry for the quality of the pictures. I couldn't really get a decent picture of the markings on the stock. There are no markings on the buttstock or buttplate, The forestock has what looks like a '3' and a little further up an 'S'. Finally, where the nose cap sits on the stock is 'J A' stamped. Thanks again.

Attachment 46973Attachment 46977Attachment 46976Attachment 46974Attachment 46975Attachment 46969Attachment 46970Attachment 46971Attachment 46972Attachment 46978

[RobD]

To me that all looks correct - except, as I mentioned above: date erroneously re-stamped and wrong forestock fitted. The buttstock should have an enfield cartouche on the right hand side, and so must either have been re-finished (i.e. sanded down), or been replaced at some stage. Either would be OK, by the way.

[Surpmil]

Looks like a genuine rifle to me, re-dated as mentioned already. Look at the wear around the volley sight dial: the dial is now proud of the woodwork by almost the thickness of the dial plate! That is not from sanding, that is from decades of carrying and rubbing. Perhaps the date was re-stamped to get around import/export laws, to conceal a stolen rifle better, who knows! You can be sure it was the joy of some Pathan's heart and maybe his sons and grandson too.