No1 Mk 3 H (not HT But poses a Question about my HT)

Good evening all (here in Australia),

I'm on night shift so have time on my hands to troll the web and pester you Knowledge banks with Newbie Questions (I have searched "H" rifles with the search function also to no avail)

I came across the following Web page and its triggered a question pertaining to my own HT rifle and its history..

Now I've spoken with Ian S(an amazingly pleasant and helpful man) via email and emailed him pics of my rifle and mentioned its having volley sights he informed me its not uncommon as some Civi target rifles were handed in to the cause and converted.

However after seeing this page and pic (as long as the info is correct) would it be plausible that this is how my rifle potentially started life or was this "H" Treatment reserved only for No1 Mk3* rifles as noted on the page? (My HT is a 1916)

Also in comparison to my HT alot of the rifles im seeing appear to be in far better states of FTR to the point of being almost new looking?

The stock is Modified and notched identically to mine (is this a factory thing? as i have noticed a couple of Rifles with similiar stock modicications and all look the same and not DIY? or is this to accommodate the standard factory issue Volley sights on older rifles?) on the Left hand side of the receiver and still appears to have a longer screw? in the trigger guard and parkerized the same as the rest of the rifle.
If this is plausible is there any possible way to track it down? or am i grasping at straws here?



Also what is with the little Lug on the picture of the rifle in the link below at the rear of the nose cone?

LINK TO PAGE In question >>>>> http://www.firearms.net.au/military/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81&Itemid=145


https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...BAFE2234-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...CBEDD924-1.jpg

Just because the metal is a mk 3* the wood could and was still a mk 3 for some time after the change. So yes the rifle can be original as shown.

But this wood is not likely original to this rifle

The lug is a piling swivel, for making rifle teepees.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but i can't imagine these would have been left in place post H conversion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homer

But this wood is not likely original to this rifle

---

Id imagine your correct the wood is dated 1913 the rifle 1916
however i did fail to upload one reasonably important pic (even in my initial "Do i have a HT thread") so likely having had the mis matched wood prior FTR/HT conversion?

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...C0327427-1.jpg

---------- Post added at 09:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henry r

The lug is a piling swivel, for making rifle teepees.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but i can't imagine these would have been left in place post H conversion.

---

ah yup the "c" shaped swivels just in the pic in the link it looked like something completely different to me cheers for pointing it out mate.

Old English forends were favoured by fullbore shooters, as being better quality timber and well seasoned they were less prone to shift the POI due to changes in the weather. The old timers used to say "the worst bit of walnut is still better than the best bit of anything else".

The H and HT rifles were keenly sought after for target competition as they already had the heavy barrel installed and were generally built on early actions which were reputedly better quality as well.

A few years ago I restored a HT for a friend who bought the rifle new through the NSW Rifle Assosiation in the '60s and promptly swapped the coachwood forend for his favourite walnut forend. Luckily he kept all the metal bits he removed and fellow member from here (Son) happened to have a tidy forend inletted for a heavy barrel.

In short, there is nothing unusual about a rifle that has been used in fullbore competition having early walnut furniture.