7 Attachment(s)
1915 Sht LE Stock Markings
It has been quite a few years since I last posted here, but I have a Enfield-related inquiry and figured this would be the best place to get an answer, if anywhere at all. I just picked up this 1915 LSA ShtLE at auction and I personally feel like a scored decently. It is all matching, including the rear which isn't force matched, and still retains the magazine cutoff as well as previsions for volley sights, although the apertures have long since been removed. There is a good bit of paint splatter up at the muzzle, removal of which will be my next project. One thing I did notice that my 1918 BSA doesn't have is the multitude of stamps and proofs at the bottom of the wrist behind the trigger guard. I can make out a few of them, like the Enfield/broad arrow proof, but most I have no clue about. They seem nice and legible, which is a plus. In addition to the wrist proofs, I was wondering if there was anyone who knows what the paint stamp on each side of the stock correlates to. If it were only on one side of the stock I would just chalk it up to more paint spatter/spillage, but since both sides have the same mark in the same place there is reason to believe there is a meaning behind it. A helpful reply over on Gunboards said it is an "FR" mark, which I can kind of make out an F and R in the paint blotches.
Anyways I was just wondering if anyone out there knew something about the proofs/markings that I don't know. This particular rifle is seeped in history, which is exactly what I wanted for an early-WWI example. There are also 3 inspection dates on the wrist band, 1926/28/36, which is interesting given the fact that the base for the front volley sight as well as the magazine cutoff assembly are both still present. One would assume these features would have been removed in one of those trips back through the armory. All in all, for $336 I'm happy!
Thanks for all feedback!
4 Attachment(s)
1915 Sht LE Stock Markings
For browningautomaticrifle, the paint up front is white. No question that the buttstock paint markings will stay. They do look like “FR” when held level though.
As for the pictures on the Knox form, they look like your standard Enfield affair. Looks like it was proofed (possibly rebarreled?) in early 1922, tonne proofed, stamped as rust found in bore, nothing entirely unusual that I can see. The barrel did have a very nice, even coat of old cosmoline under the wood, so it’s nice to know that hasn’t been messed with since she was in English possession.
Attachment 105532Attachment 105531Attachment 105530Attachment 105529
1915 Sht LE Stock Markings
So a much belated update: I removed the paint splatter on the front half of the rifle using a rag, cotton swabs, and acetone. The acetone only removed the paint and just the very top layer of oil and grime, not stripping by any means. Afterwards I inspected the newly exposed wood and counted a total of 7 repairs/splices on the handguards and fore end, one of which is pictured below. Then I hand rubbed a little lemon oil into the wood to replace the oil that came off with the paint removal. Overall it came out great. My question on the pictured repair is: Why would the front volley sight base be spliced in? Were they done this way originally? Seems strange to me.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...811b055b-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...b11cf0ad-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...51e95181-1.jpg
Edit: I forgot to take close of pictures from before I cleaned the paint, but here is the best picture I have from the auction listing. That isn’t light shining off the nose cap and surrounding area, it’s paint.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...27623c7aa1.jpg