Printable View
Yes, the 10-rd mags from any Lee Metford (except the MkI) and SMLE will fit, but they won't be correct for this pattern. The 5-round commercial magazine is the right one. Just curious, how are you intending to use this rifle, for hunting, target shooting, plinking, or as a collector's piece?
Looking forward to seeing a photo of the other buttstock (I'm hoping it might be the original).
MY use for it is mainly collection, although she does go to the range here and there, Hunting I think im going to use a 91/30 Nagant or a Mk 4 No 1. I like having my guns as multi-purpose as possible so I went shopping for it. I figure the 10 round mag is convenient, IF she were ever to be sold I would remove the other parts allowing the rifle to be original again.
One thing I can't figure out however is what use or benefit the sniper sling swivel brings to the table. I have one in there now so I can attack\h a sling, but being at the front of the magazine it only seems hang down enormously or need extra folding up, is there a purpose this thing was designed for?
Attach* typos...
EnfieldNutt,
When did you attach that so-called "sniper" swivel, and why? It was not in your original pair of photos. It doesn't go with this rifle in any case.
You seem to want to alter this rifle in all sorts of ways. It's YOUR rifle, of course, and this is still a free country, so do what you want....but I don't understand your desire to add charger loading, 10-round magazines, incorrect buttstocks, "sniper"/target swivels, replacement nosecaps, etc.
It's like buying a e-type Jaguar and deciding to add a truck bed, 4-wheel drive, and a trailer hitch. You could add all that stuff, but why not just buy a truck and leave the vintage Jag as it was intended to be? There are PLENTY of Lee Enfields out there that have all the things you want---they are dirt cheap and common. The one you have here is rare. Every part that you replace just takes it farther and farther away from being original. It also makes it harder to determine how it originally left the factory and what roads it has traveled---which is my main interest in it.
But again, that is just my humble advice. It's YOUR rifle to alter as you like.
I would still love to see a pic of the other buttstock. It might be the original one and could possibly yield some clues about the origin of this rifle. A lot of people have contributed a good deal of time to this thread, identifying parts and seeking the meaning of those markings. It would be a nice payoff to see the last original part (the other buttstock) and maybe come to some final conclusions.
As we've said before, you have a wonderful rifle here--rare and full of history. Congratulations! If we can work together to solve its mystery, that would be excellent---the sort of thing this forum was designed to do.
Best regards
Looking at the photos in Post #88, the carbine butts had the upper screw for the plate going in at a 45 degree angle or thereabouts, so this butt from a rifle, not a carbine. Of course, for the Ethiopians BSA may have used what they had, but I see no reason why they wouldn't have had plenty of carbine butts as they seem to have sporterized quite a number of ex-WD carbines.
The butt shown on the rifle in the first photo of Post #71 is a No4 buttstock.
In the same photo, you seem to have the correct forend cap with lug for the Patt.88 bayonet. The lug looks to be bent upwards though. That welded up abortion in Post #88 has no relevance I can see. It was made up by some bubba IMO.
In photos 5 & 6, Post #88, the butt markings are of a suitable type for a rifle of 1895-1905 give or take a few years. The butt is very heavily sanded obviously and it apparently became a bit loose with drying and shrinkage so someone tried to shorten the shoulders with a file to make it sit deeper in the butt socket and tighten up. Made rather a mess of it too unfortunately.
If it was mine, I clean all the congealed dirt and grease off the metal, give the stock plenty of coats of linseed oil, put the older butt on and leave it at that.
Short of finding an original carbine butt somewhere, you really can't improve it any more than that.
I understand the desire to tinker, we've all done that probably, but this is too valuable and unusual a piece to mess with IMO.
Ive been swapping bits and pieces out which will fit so I can adapt it a bit for use, as far as anything which would permanently alter the rifle im not going to do. The interchangeability of various enfield parts, i added the other stock bc it fit the bittdisc for display, i figure a ten round mag good for the range, there wasnt a sling swivel in front so i got the sniper swivel so i could attach a sling, more or less like I said so i can fit it to use without permanent changes, im keeping all of the swapped out original equipment. I dont know if i want to linseed oil the stock as i figure the grime in it might make it worth more in an antique sort of way though it is tempting to do.
i. e. its the sniper swivel that screws into the trigger guard/ magazine part, its not the one you screw into the wood, that would permanently alter it despite I have one and it would work better.
All good observations!Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
Couple things: we cannot assume that the Trade Pattern carbine used the cavalry carbine buttstock. I've seen several trade patterns with the rifle buttstocks and they seemed to be originals. Remember, BSA was not making these according to a Government pattern.
Enfield Nutt, could you please a take a pic of both buttstocks and buttplates side-by-side. I guess I am confused. I know one of them is from a No.4 (with the Canadian marks) and the other one has disc with the Arabic characters, but I am losing track of which had the UV marks. Can we see them side by side?
As for the welded up nose cap, yes it's probably a bubba, though it reminds me of the nosecap used on the .303 Martini-Enfield cavalry carbines. I agree it's unlikely that BSA would have fitted such a thing and it's not correct for this pattern. The replacement that is on there now is coreect as far as pattern, but the original one would not have government markings--a trivial point.
I think the nosecap stamp is a crown with BP or BR under it then a number, if its BP, going to get a magnifine glass later and reinspect, but if its a BP that would match the knox form marking, and it has 2 /l\ markings, one on the bayonet lug and one on the front face of the cap. The /l\ logo is also on the Buttplate, which i swapped from the one stock to the other. I honestly have several buttstocks, one with "AA" carved initials in it, it looks to be a little different in the fact that the lower grip is rounded off where most come to a point where ones pinky finger rests, there is not notches cut out for a safety on the top front and the few markings on it in the lower front of the buttstock are not discernible, the seem to be full of grime ad oil and blurry tot he eye, perhaps there is a stripper or something which can safely lift it all out? I will post a picture of it this evening.