I saw a comment here someplace, that I can't find again, and I can't locate pics that will solve the day; are the original barrels bands, front and mid, for the no1 mk6, hinged on the top, or are they one springy piece ala no4mk1's?:rolleyes:thanks
Printable View
I saw a comment here someplace, that I can't find again, and I can't locate pics that will solve the day; are the original barrels bands, front and mid, for the no1 mk6, hinged on the top, or are they one springy piece ala no4mk1's?:rolleyes:thanks
RJW NZ,
I know the thread your looking for it was regarding a very early
No4(T) had a quick look but cant find it, (dont think it was that old) am sure they were hinged.
P.S, recieved the PM thanks for the offer.
Front hinged, fairly sure. Middle band? Unless the wood and metal was removed altogether under the hinge, which seems unlikely, the guards would be really thin at that point. GUESSING the middle one was solid from the outset. Of course, there variations w/in variations, so ???
I just need a nice original example to have as a reference!:lol:
I found this post in our Marketplace Discussion Forums but I can't really tell from the pics.
Reference Thread - Poulins and James Julia Auctions (October 3-7, 2008)
Regards,
Badger
Those are some great rifles, regardless of their so called shortcomings. I can hardly believe a no6 mk1 went for $700!. Great looking and one of a hundred ever made, it should have sold for gold. It also indicates that its for 308 winchester, yet has a stock 303 magazine, is that a typo or were the aussies looking at 308's back then?
Thanks for the post though, really really interesting, plus, the no1mk6 has a folding mid band, I can see that its surface is rounded rather than flat. The front one I can't tell. Any other eagle eyed scouts?
I think that particular No.6 Mk1 had been really messed with and wasn't all original ... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by RJW NZ
Some of those older threads about auctions and their results in the Marketplace Forums are really interesting. I just haven't had the time to maintain the research and keep up with the newer auctions this past year.
Regards,
Badger
I thought I remembered a hinged front band someplace, and this was over at Springfield sporters, Omigod! look at that price...
1G BAND, FRONT LONG BRANCH HINGED 350.00
eek
The rounded surface on a middle band doesn't mean it has to be hinged. Early No.4 Mk.1 (and possibly Mk.1*) rifles often have non-hinged rounded top middle bands. All of the No.4 trials rifles, as far as I know, also have the same style rounded top band. But since the No.1 Mk.V has a hinged unit, its possible that some of the next design retained that feature.
Limpetmine has a No.1 Mk.VI, where's he hiding?
I'm quite a bit put out by the after auction critique. I thought I'd done a decent job of restoring my mk6 but now it sounds like an unwantable pos.
Here's the comments
Lot 2015 - SMLE Mk VI—1930 original s/n A0277 reserial numbered 13A on receiver, bolt and forend. The bad: incorrect Fazakerly rear sight, modified incorrect SMLE Mk III cut off, incorrect but proper front sight protector, it is waisted but is marked SM41. Rifle has lots of dings and forend appears to have been lightly sanded a long time ago. The good : still has original SMLE Mk VI mag and the major parts match. Therefore museam quality no..but still decent example with problems.
Sold for $3,450 U.S.
See this? Mine is exactly the same, marked sm 41. How could it be a waisted sight protector and unique to the 6, but be incorrect?
Quote 'incorrect but proper front sight protector, it is waisted but is marked SM41.'
My magazine is marked in and out M 8, does anybody know if that's correct?
My serial is A 0207, 75A, thats pretty close to this other one.
SM41 (Singer mfg. 1941) sight protector -proper looking, but incorrect year/rifle! What can you do???:dunno:
Mag ought to have "EFD" (plus some number underneath) inspection marks stamped on the body and follower.
Considering that that "vast" majority were rebuilt as No.4 Mk1 rifles, its not "wrong", its just "used"!
Why would you think it's unwanted? Daaaang! I'll swim down there and take it off your hands if you are ready to pitch it in the great water.
Poking through "The Lee-Enfield Story", I found one picture of a top view of a No1 MkVI that shows the middle band. No hinge seam evident. Barring further evidence to the contrary (like a GOOD picture), I'll vote solid-arched profile. It would also have Enfield marks, just to make your life even MORE difficult.
You'd be right jmoore
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...g?t=1268425063
Well, thanks, Amatikulu! That's a lovely snout you have.
Only problem- Your front sight protector looks a bit different from the "run of the mill" Enfield No.4 Mk.I trials rifle OR the Singer Mfg. early production unit. Much more upright in the ears. Yet another variation?!?
That rifle doesn't sound that bad to me. I think the only "original" No. 1 Mk VI you might find will be in the Pattern Room. (do they still call it that?).
After Dunkirk, over 350,000 rifles were lost (just read that), and anything that would toss a round downrange was put in service. Mine is a restoration, and low and behold, my center band is a great looking Long Branch band. I didn't know that until tonight. The wood is a hand carved reproduction, and the rear sight is an early 1941 sight. I have the original "sportered" checkered forestock. The front band is a hinged band, but not knowing the provenance of the parts, can't tell you if it is correct.
My No 1 Mk VI is parts and pieces, but it's MINE, ALL MINE...muwahahahah!!
Sorry, I'm back.
This one doesn't contribute to the knowledge base, but I think a trip to the UK may be in order to solve this mystery.
An SM41
The gap between the ears, measured directly above the sight blade is .646 inch.
Have an SM41 foresight protector between my hands as I type- ever so slowly. It's ears are both pushed in a bit; it seems fairly "common" on these.
Found it on a quite worn exterior finish 1942 Fazackerly (S/N T29988A) that has a TIGHT and well bedded early-ish fore stock, 1942 two groove (Drawlapped?) barrel, and an unnumbered magazine. All of which it fine, but the bolt's a random Savage assembly (S/N 20C4308).
Limpetmine, is that an "SM" cocking piece in your rifle? Doesn't look Enfield'y or Savage'ish in the machining marks to me.
RJW-NZ, Looks like one of those monster thick "C.E.W." front bands on your rifle. I'm having Evil thoughts about that. Oh, never mind.
Heres one that was for sale many years back in the Uk (Deactivated)
http://www.deactivated-guns.co.uk/detail/SMLE_Mk6.htm
Thanks for the pics of the mk6, a very nice rifle, I wonder where it came from? Odd machining in that rear depression, huh.
Re the GEW band/s, they were available in unissued condition from springfield sporters, so they were a replacement for the weird items already on it. Just to recap my rifle showed up with a wood set so mis matched that the bolt release wouldn't depress. I still have a sinking feeling the gent who sold it may have taken off the original weird checkered fore end to put smoother looking other no4 wood on it., just the sort of thing he was doing to keep his hobby chugging along.
My external components that aren't close to original are; the bands-marked GEW, the cut off-a stock nomk3, rear sight-marked B (but proper/correct rear sight marks I don't know yet, did they make rear sights with EFD?)
I still find the concept of deactivating really odd; plenty of these guns are worth more when not messed with, particularly the 'rare' ones. I guess the whole thing has now built a customer base of folks who have collections of deacts. and who keep driving it further along.
Re the handguns; are they really saying that these handguns don't require a permit of any kind? I reckon they'd still make a bloomin good hold up weapon, heck if people get robbed with air pistols, then the real thing should work great.
Well, it you don't try to pass it off as original, say by stamping "RJW" over "10" on the side as your own inpsector's mark, I reckon you could take TWO C.E.W. bands, and w/ a bit of cutting, welding, cutting, and drilling, fabricate a "grande sized" hinged band. (The big, fat bands would be easier to weld and cut- sort of Dr. Frankenstein mentality...)
Thus my "evil" thinking goes. Or just make a good early WWII homologated(sp?) No.4 Mk I and not worry. It's a restoration after all. Do as good a job making it appear proper for the era you intend on setting it at, and drive on. Just don't try to fool the future owners.
By george, I think you've got it, the idea...I'm a chronic fiddler, itd be just like me to make a hinged front band during them there cold winter months...
Just don't try to fool the future owners...agreed. I've actually deliberately made the checkering too tidy, so that if an original front end were beside mine, mine would look odd for not having run outs all over the place. Same idea as those T scope repros. Funny how a rough finish gets by on some things and not on others in wartime.
RJW NZ, you asked about the rear sight:
My external components that aren't close to original are; the bands-marked GEW, the cut off-a stock nomk3, rear sight-marked B (but proper/correct rear sight marks I don't know yet, did they make rear sights with EFD?)
This is how my No.1 mark VI is marked on the rear sight:
The rear sight is marked with an "E" superimposed on a "D"
The mark is found on the aperture slide on the left hand side and also on the top left front face on mine.
Well, yeah. AND have four rather than six clicks per revolution on the elevating screw as well. (And a different pitch thread, too?) Plus the odd ball detent cuts on the bottom and front lower sides.
Oy, to be proper, the whole rifle should have nothing but Enfield markngs. Makes for an interesting search for odd bits, over many years, but it's amazing what pops up from time to time, and in the strangest places!