Lee Enfield Aluminum stock

Hi, I'm a long time lurker on these forums but frequent many others. I have been in some discussions on the Canadiangunnutz.com website about some pictures a friend sent me of an Aluminum stocked smle rifle.

One other board member who I believe also posts here has one as well. Apparently the rifles were a trial rifle that made it's way into Canada and went walking soon after. Any other info on this would be much appreciated.

The rifle also sports a modified Ross buttstock.

here is the info gathered this far from a member who has one identical to the one I will post.

"Story was that it was sent to Canada in 1945 for evaluation and 'borrowed' in 1946, spent many years on a farm.

Supposedly, there were 6 of them made.

There also were 12 Ross Mark III butts reworked to fit the SMLE."

"There were at least 2 types of aluminum stocks, one that was aluminum sheeting, the other a composite of aluminum and woodwork. Mine is the latter."

"The rifle has a Suncorite finish, badly mucked-about and chipped and it has a recycled Ross Mark III butt.

Finish on thee aluminum fore-end is some yellow material (zinc chromate, from the look) with a coat of Army Brown paint over top of that. It's original for sure."


https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...1f09d520-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...df10a146-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...4bb60504-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...4452ec8e-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...166c7a7c-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...7123e0ab-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...467ddd71-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...e24400f4-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...20a85b88-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...eaf9f53b-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...6ee84792-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...dee1f658-1.jpg

I'm no expert on the Lee Enfield rifles and I'm probably wrong but it doesn't appear correct to me. I have heard about Aluminium stocked No.4 rifles for trials but not the SMLE, it would seem a bit pointless seeing as the SMLE was the older rifle and the No.4 was the current production rifle. Also, if this was a trial for service use, it wouldn't have had commercial proof marks (Unless there not proof marks) and I'm pretty sure it would have been fully stocked with a forsight protector with bayonet boss. I'm afraid I think this may have been a commercial venture or a small scale run by a arms firm.

Just my opinion of course so I could be completely wrong.

Guess what........ I'm with BP here. I'm not a betting man but to be really, truly honest and frank, I'd say that that aluminium stock was someones idea of fixing up his rifle when he broke the original! It just doesn't look like something that would have been submitted for trials to replace the real McCoy. Being honest again, I'd say that it was made by a little boy, probably about 8 or 9, who wanted to play with an old busted rifle that he found in his grandpa's shed.

I could be wrong of course and others might disagree with my theory.........

The screws appear to be commercial screws as well, not parked or blued. Looks like the material you would find in a hardware store.

looks home made.

Maybe someone used a sportered wooden stock as the pattern for an alloy casting? If so, maybe there is some evidence left behind - e.g. is there any mark on the underside of the forend where the rear sight protector nut would have been?

The thing is this isn't the only one, there is another on exactly like this a few provinces over, it seems strange that they are both a rebarrel done in 1945 when most of the smle run was stopped in 1943. Both rifles have the modified Ross buttstock, very close serial numbers etc.

I really have no idea really what this oddity is but I thought it was an interesting piece non the less.

---------- Post added at 04:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:43 PM ----------

I also believe the rubber hand guards are a bubba item.

This rifle is no bubba- Smellie has one.
(no guards on his.)

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...119180c2-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twosteam

This rifle is no bubba- Smellie has one.
(no guards on his.)

---

Thanks for posting, I was just going to put up the video and you beat me to it.

Neal

---------- Post added at 05:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:11 PM ----------

I am looking at a thread I posted on another forum and someone from Australia thinks it is aftermarket and is looking for some info, will keep all posted.

Yes, I have had this rifle over 20 years. It appeared as a trade-in at a shop I was working at, swapped for 3 boxes of .243 ammo. I paid for it with repair work, $38 deducted from what I made refurbing an entire rack of Stevens 820s and almost 100 1886 Winchesters.

The aluminum forestock part is a very good-quality casting; it wasn't done in anyone's basement or garage. Seriously, I do not think we can blame these rifles on Bubba. The two rifles are closer than peas in a pod: pennies in a roll would be closer.

Like the OP's rifle, mine is completely numbers-matching, in this case 69111R and it also has a 1945 Birmingham barrel on it.... with Enfield Inspectors' marks.

Note kindly that neither rifle has the common "commercial" Proof stampings of the post-1945 period.

Mine is built on a 1918 NRF. Bore condition is near perfect. It is lightweight and fast-pointing, but that would qualify it as a combat rifle even more than for sporting use.

I believe that there is a passing reference to the aluminum-stocked and Ross-butted experimentals in the Reynolds book, but I do not have my copy at hand. There were some strange things being done right at and after the end of the war in Europe, especially as regards recycling and alternate materials; Britain was determined never to be caught-out again as they were in 1940. I note that this attitude continues with regard to the L-85 rifle, which is far too heavy because it is made entirely of LOCAL materials, Britain having no local Bauxite.

My rifle has languished on the basement rack for many years, the ugliest topic of conversation I own. I was quite shocked to discover that there exists another.... which is absolutely identical.

It is indeed a tragedy that so much original documentation was shredded in the 1960s and '70s.

Using a rigid aluminium chassis is quite common in benchrest, metallic silhouette, F-Class etc. circles, and has been for decades.

If fitted properly, it should withstand the elements, (including "dry" rot and termites), and recoil fairly well. However, salt water ingress could cause some interesting electrolytic effects.

Maybe one last trawl of the old Canadian archives is in order.

Was there a "wood shortage" in Canada at some time?