No. I MK III Wood

A couple of questions regarding wood for No I MK III (Not "*") with the inletting for volley sights.

I assume other kinds of wood were used on Lithgow and Ishapore production, besides walnut, what's the easiest way to tell them apart? I'm aware of beech? and Queensland Maple being used on the MK III*.

And lastly, I am no expert on the earlier models that pre-dated the No. I MK III. How close is the wood (inletting, length, compatibility) between them and the No. I MK III? Easy way to tell them apart?

Thanks all

One change made when the SMLE Mk.III was adopted was moving the inner band away from the outer barrel band. So the inletting is no longer all in the same spot. I believe it had something to do with either barrel harmonic changes with the adoption of the Mk. VII .303" SAA, and/or strengthening the front handguard in the barrel band area.

P-07ShortLee, one of the other chief differences in the SMLE I and SMLE III forestock is the inletting of the rear sight protector on the III/III* pattern.

On another note, I do not believe it is possible to alter a post 1921 forestock to the earlier III volley sight pattern due to the altered configuration of the lower stock immediately behind the middle band/outer band. So that effectively negates the possibility of altering a later stock to the earlier pattern. You might get lucky and locate an early Aussie III/III* Queenland forestock and it MAY be possible to alter it for the volley sight but hope you have access to the rest of the wood furniture as it's scarce.

Best solution would be to purchase a new made forestock or locate an original volley sight forestock from that era. They turn up with some regularity on eBay if you watch close. One thing's certain--it will be an expensive undetaking.

Barbarossa, thanks for the post. I was mainly asking for ways of telling them apart (different mfgr's of NO I MK III and models that pre-date the No I MK III).

After 100 years of rebuilds and collectors you don't know what's been changed out to an almost correct part.

Queensland maple, coachwood and walnut are all fairly distinct in grain structure. The VERY few original WW1 issue Australian Mk.III's I've examined were stocked in Q.maple. You just have to compare them and learn the differences. The coachwood has a very distinct smell too if the original finish of creosote and linseed oil mix is still present. You need to look close though. I have a British peddled scheme, (1916 NRF), Mk.III* out of Australian service that was MA FTR in June/1944. It sports it's original walnut buttstock, rear handguard with a coachwood forend and Q.maple front handguard! It's been together so long that the color is consistent on all the different types of wood. Talk about character! You have to look closely at the grain to see the difference.

I'm intrigued Brian do you have a 1916 NRF rifle or was it a slip of the finger. I didn't think
the National Rifle Factory took over from Standard Small Arms till 1918?

What's throwing me off, and I am no expert on wood. Is that it looks like walnut, but has a little of that "scaley" look that I associate with beech?

---------- Post added at 03:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:47 PM ----------

That's why I wondered if it might have been made by someone other than Enfield, maybe the Lithgow or Ishapore.

Would there be any wood proofs that might be useful in telling it's origin?

If it's lithgow wood there will be a lithgow star on the very end. You have to remove the nosecap to see it.

If it is a lthgow and has been issued to other commonwealth troops then it could have been re-stocked in english beech. I came across just such a set of complete wood a while ago, restocked a rifle and sold it on. but it was definately english beech, had the blonde scaly look a lot like some of the No4 wood.
cheers
NED

The NRF is a 1918. I misread it. Sorry about that.