Printable View
I’m interested in the BSA commercial rifles.
Wondering how common they are and whether they are comparable in value to a military No1 Mk3.
Any other information or comments are most welcome!
It seems every time I think I know of all the SMLE versions out there I discover another one!
Peddled Scheme, Dispersal, Commercial, etc. :banghead:
I have a commercial (no Royal Cypher) BSA No.1 MkIII that was regulated by Fulton and Son of Bisley and is in excellent condition, very accurate, and sports a PH5A micrometer peep sight. I was the high bidder of a Gunbroker auction for it and held off some spirited bidders. I paid a little more then $2,000usd for it and was delighted to be the winning bidder.
Three sold at auction today in Canada. $650, $700, $900, plus commission and tax. Had been set up for competition. One had the extra band added behind the nosecap, so it probably had a packed barrel.
I have one, also set up for target shooting. Decent shooter, although the throat has cordite erosion.
It seems many of these rifles were used for target shooting.
By commercial you meand sold to the public? BSA also supplied many to armed forces all over the world.
Apparently BSA produced rifles in between the first and second world wars that weren’t meant for military service. They look the same but are marked differently. I believe many were used for target shooting.
BSA built no1 Mk3 and Mk3* rifles to military specs without the crown stamp. To shoot at Bisley you needed a rifle of military spec to compete. The only way to do this was by buying a BSA get it passed and stamped so you could compete.
BSA also supplied other countries these rifles as well. who applied their own stamps.. This has created a huge area for collectors.
I'm working on collecting all the models BSA made for competition rifles and so far have found a M.L.E. MkI*, a C.L.L.E. MkI*, and a No.1 MkIII. I'm amazed at how well cared for these rifles are and some have almost as varied a history, judging by the stamps, as a service rifle had. Interestingly, the M.L.E. despite being rebarreled at Lithgow just prior to WWII still sports the longer barrel. I've read that after the S.M.L.E. entered service that all competition rifles had to shorten their barrels to S.M.L.E. specs to be able to enter competitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindi2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapper740
It is quite interesting that in comparison tests done at the time 0f the Mk111 being introduced the results showed little difference between the 'long rifle' and the 'short rifle'.
With the difference in FoM at 600 yards being about 1" and only about 1/2" at 500 yards.
Some interesting take-aways from your post: I often wondered if the longer barrel provided a greater muzzle velocity but according to the comparison done the shorter barrel has a higher muzzle velocity. I wonder if handloading with a slower modern powder would give the longer barrel the nod. Next, the two rifles swap having the best FoM back and forth at the various ranges until they're a virtual tie at 1,700 yds. As you pointed out, not much difference between the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapper740
Some more comparisons - this was with the 'long rifle' vs the competition, and barrel life of the short rifle, along with speed of reloading.