BSA commercial No1 MkIII Fultonised? - Any advice gratefully accepted yet again!.

Managed to get hold of this one last week and for those of you who are not fed up with questions from a novice, here goes;
Attachment 31596Attachment 31595Attachment 31597Attachment 31598Attachment 31599Attachment 31600Attachment 31601
1) Is there a way of dating this rifle?.
2) Is the 632C prefix to the serial number a Fultons thing?.
3) Is the cork packing in the front hand guard(which has bowed it) a Fulton modification or a DIY job?.
4) The Forend is split (see pic) by someone removing the stock bolt without removing the forend. Does it need fixing?. It is very firm in the draws and the crack shows no movement, so I don't want to ruin it.
5) The sear pivot/bolt head release spring screw was undone when I got the rifle. Should I "Tin" the threads to ensure it does not come loose again or is that unnecessary?.
6) The sear has quite a lot of play as does the trigger about its pivot. Is it worth replacing sear , pivot screw and trigger pivot or is the play taken up when the cocking piece engages thus squaring things up?.
7) The woodwork has a glossy finish. Should I keep it "As Is" or strip and oil it?.
8) The P\ stamped on the action next to the BM Proof (pic 3)???.
8) Where is the best (cheapest) place to get a Stock bolt and washer, safety washer, sear and screw etc.

The barrel is well worn but looks clean and shiny with some rifling left although it does not spin the cleaning rod at all.
So is this just a scrap rifle to be left "as is" for plinking or is it worth tidying up with a few new parts?.

Just a comment on the barrel. It doesn't have to spin the cleaning rod, it's just got to impart spin (gyroscopic effect) to the bullet and I have seen some sniper barrels that just look shot out and accept the gauges that it should reject............. but they shoot as sweet as a nut. Years ago we'd just reject such barrels out of hand regardless of the fact that they shot well. Now we listen to the shooter. If it accepts the 'run' gauge and passes the accuracy test, then it's accepted.

What I'm saying in a shaggy dog story way is to assemble the rifle up properly and range/accuracy test it. If it groups, that's good enough for me! A worn or shot-out leed is the arch enemy of accuracy

I wouldn't accept a cracked fore-end. Easily repaired and will never improve with age! Same as worn axis pins. Some slack will be taken up with loading pressures but it's a palliative and not a cure and pi55 poor engineering practice to boot. Think excess end float on wheel bearings..........

Just my 2p's worth

Jss,

First thing I would do is see how it preforms on the range, then go from there, one thing regarding the glossy finish is this varnish or a build up of many years of linseed oil?

It's been "double proofed": Birmingham and Gunmakers Company (London).

I can think of two reasons why this could happen. The first is that significant has been done to the rifle that needs to be proofed. However in your case, in think that someone did not "trust" the Birmingham Military Proof (BM) and erroneously, in my opinion, had it proofed again in London.

As to date, the best that I can do is: "between the wars".

It also seems to have some Government marks as well and is that two sets of serial number?

1) Is there anything stamped on the top-right rear, flat part of the action, where the bolt slides in?
2) Anything stamped on the bottom of the barrel and action (where they meet)?
3) Is there a crossed flag proof mark anywhere?
4) On the butt socket, does it say "B.S.A. Co." ?
5) Can you please post a picture of the entire rifle?

Thanks!

Attachment 31629I think the P/ is part of an almost scrubbed out crossed flags proof.
Packing the handgard was a common accurising technique and was probably Fulton's work.
My Alex'r Henry has the same type of packing.
The 632C type marking I have always assumed to be a government view mark (to certify that the rifle is mil. spec. and therefore able to be used in competition) but Wheaty recently said he was told by one of the Fultons that it was a Territorial marking - while the Fultons should know, I find it strange. Most of the BSA commercial target rifles that turn up in Australia have these markings and are in too good condition to have been used by the military - although they often have another number on the top of the action which could be local military accounting but they seem to have been just stored in WW2.
The original finish on these BSA rifles seems to have been a glossy varnish.Attachment 31628

Thanks Rowdy and JC5.
I have another 232E prefix. I'll dig them both out and take some photos rather than try and describe the marks. There are loads of them!.
Yes it's BSA and Co on the Butt socket, there are marks on the rear flat of the action A and T and more on other surfaces including A on the underside of the action next to the barrel with ^84 above ^57 ^51 ^57 and another mark on the reinforce and a P further down the barrel???.
Much easier to see when the sun shines!.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jss

Managed to get hold of this one last week and for those of you who are not fed up with questions from a novice, here goes;
Attachment 31596Attachment 31595Attachment 31597Attachment 31598Attachment 31599Attachment 31600Attachment 31601
1) Is there a way of dating this rifle?.
2) Is the 632C prefix to the serial number a Fultons thing?.
3) Is the cork packing in the front hand guard(which has bowed it) a Fulton modification or a DIY job?.
4) The Forend is split (see pic) by someone removing the stock bolt without removing the forend. Does it need fixing?. It is very firm in the draws and the crack shows no movement, so I don't want to ruin it.
5) The sear pivot/bolt head release spring screw was undone when I got the rifle. Should I "Tin" the threads to ensure it does not come loose again or is that unnecessary?.
6) The sear has quite a lot of play as does the trigger about its pivot. Is it worth replacing sear , pivot screw and trigger pivot or is the play taken up when the cocking piece engages thus squaring things up?.
7) The woodwork has a glossy finish. Should I keep it "As Is" or strip and oil it?.
8) The P\ stamped on the action next to the BM Proof (pic 3)???.
8) Where is the best (cheapest) place to get a Stock bolt and washer, safety washer, sear and screw etc.

The barrel is well worn but looks clean and shiny with some rifling left although it does not spin the cleaning rod at all.
So is this just a scrap rifle to be left "as is" for plinking or is it worth tidying up with a few new parts?.

---

Aha, another Fultons rifle, very nice, a desirable rifle for sure, worn or not, and as others have said, how it shoots is the deciding factor, especially now when barrels are not so easily found.
I like triggers to be tighter on their pivots than loose, and even though they are made loose if you rummage in a box if them you can get a pivots and parts match that are tighter than most. I'm not sure about parts in the UK but there are several good suppliers in the USA ie Numrich who ship outside the US, there's a list of them in enfieldresource.com.
What kind of barrel bedding does your rifle have? The Fultons I have here uses spring damping with a small section of cork at the front of the top guard, its always interesting to see what the pros were deciding worked best.
Your exterior finish looks just like mine, and correct.
re screws and dotting them, not needed, these two don't tend to come undone, I'd say they probably weren't tightened at the last look in.
The only comment I'll toss in is that cork bedding and packing especially, and probably also others such as cardboard, compress over time, and it was usual to firm up their contact with the barrel once per year at least by adding another thin layer of packing, even .005 of paper would do it, so if you want to try improving its shooting try that trick of making the packing tight on the barrel. The way you know that the packing thickness is correct is that when the guard is resting on the rifle but not clamped by the bands there should be a small gap between the guard and the forend, about 1 mm or 1/32inch would do it. This will compress as the bands are done up, applying the right pressure.
cheers, nice rifle, well done.

Gents,


Of the Fulton regulated rifles I have seen them fall into three categories as far as modifications:

1) Pre 1934, no metal shields or added actions screws. Fitted asbestos pad under the forearm and cork hand guard packing. Packing varies enough on rifles, some are full hand guard, some are only jut forward of the rear band and over the nose cap area, sufficient to keep the barrel from resting against the top of the nose cap on the two “nubs”
2) Post 1934 to ~WWII period, added metal band between nose cap and rear band to ensure constant pressure on upper hand guard packing. Lower packing material more likely to be cork then asbestos. Also the nose cap on these rifles is reamed out so that the barrel is not contacting at any point.
3) Post 1950 rifles that have the above as well as an added weld on the front of the action body, and four screws mounted to maintain the action body alignment within the forend. On these rifles it is not uncommon to see the top packing replaced by small metal plungers to exert downward force on the barrel. The plungers have small spring mounted to maintain pressure.

The above is only the barest guide, based on what I have seen in guns located in the US of A and Canada. The nice thing about rifles seen here is they generally retain whatever Fulton features they were made with, rather then having been updated over their match career. In particular after 1946~47, these rifles were not legal for Canadian competition so they were bought and used for Bisley teams and quite a number of post war guns are in pretty good shape on this side of the pond.

Unfortunately that can not be said of the pre war Alex Martin, AG parker, AJ Parker and Parker-Hale rifles, most of which seem to have been sported or altered in some other way (sigh). In any case my observations are based on examining the rifles that show signs of match regulation and seem to have some date indications.

The earliest guns that were packed (circa 1924) were only packed in the top hand guard. This seemed to help with the accuracy but was seen as finicky, sometimes “packing up” in the middle of a competition due to heat. These guns also seem to have an action body stamp like yours with just a “G Fulton”, they do not say “regulated by Fulton” as do the later rifles.

Sometime in the late 1920’s the idea of putting in pads of asbestos in the locations where the barrel contacted the forend was introduced, along with lubricating the sliding surfaces. This was supposed to help with vertical group shifts as the barrel heated up.

An alternative method that is seen in rifles left in Canada was placing pads of cork above and below the Nodes of the barrel, in an effort to dampen the vibrations of the barrel. This seems to have been the Alexander Martin method and was somewhat popular in the new world because of the relative ease with which a rifleman could regulate his own rifle (by copying the Alex Martin techniques).

Sometime in the late 1920s to the early 1930s Fulton’s regulation of rifles seems to have moved their rifles into the winners circle and there they remained for most of the remaining 303 period (up to 1968) at least in the UK. Fulton seems to have blazed a trail with regards to action welding to help with action alignment, adding plugs on the forend to align the action body with the stock, adding plungers on the top hand guard instead of packing and replacing the asbestos pads with rubberized gasket cork

The problem with identifying when a rifle was regulated (especially with English rifles) is that these rifles were used and had their packing and regulation periodically updated. On the rifles I have been allowed to examine the owners typically date the rifles to earlier than the Birmingham proof allow. Foe example I have seen a heavy barrel BSA gun that the owner is sure was pre war, when the Bisley bibles I have clearly state the BSA heavy barrel was not allowed until the summer of 1950. His father may have bought it earlier, and used it earlier, but he heavy barrel dated from 1952-1953

As for the gun described in the above, what would be of help is to see the forend packing, if any. Also a pic of the forend internals where the action body lays would be indicative. If there is packing in the forend that would date it to circa 1928 or later. The stamp is a Fulton trade proof and I have seen that one early guns. It is possible that the rifle was packed by someone other then Fulton’s, that was common in the 1920s or so I have read.

Also you can date the barrel if you can locate the BSA proof date mark. That would be small crossed swords with a letter above the handles of the swords if pre WWII. The dates stated at A which correlates to July 1921 to June 1922, C correlates to 1923/24, etc. I think I or J might have been left out.

Post war the crossed swords will have a letter combination on either side of the crossed swords like (BB -1951), BC -1952, etc. London will have no such date mark though.

No idea if Fulton had any rifles proofed at London, it is closer to Bisley but most of the post WWII guns I have seen seem to have been proved at Birmingham.

Those are the first things that come to mind. The added numbers are from their internal register. Unfortunately those records were taken By Robin Fulton when he sold the firm; they seem to have been destroyed when he died. What a huge loss.

Hope that helps

Thanks RJW NZ and Frederick303. What a great response. From what you say, I think this is an early one. No asbestos thankfully or I would have had to bag it up and dispose of it!.
I will strip the other one (after donning my Frog suit and setting up an air sampler), a MkIII which may or may not be a Fultons job, to check against this one and thentry to improve my photography skills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick303

Also you can date the barrel if you can locate the BSA proof date mark. That would be small crossed swords with a letter above the handles of the swords if pre WWII. The dates stated at A which correlates to July 1921 to June 1922, C correlates to 1923/24, etc. I think I or J might have been left out.

Post war the crossed swords will have a letter combination on either side of the crossed swords like (BB -1951), BC -1952, etc. London will have no such date mark though.

---

Just quick clarification, they are Birmingham Proof House markings, rather than BSA's (By law, only the Birmingham Proof House and the Gunmakers Company are allowed to Proof Firearms) and they are supposed to be sceptres not swords. (I know that they don't look much like swords but then the Gunmakers Seax takes a bit a leap of belief as well.)

Is it necessary to keep the square ended stock bolt to engage the keeper plate for civilian type use?. The old square ended one is wonky and I have only been able to obtain a new bolt without the square end.
Should I try and straighten the old one and re-use it or just forget it and fit the new one?.

When you say 'wonky', what exactly do you mean. It's a bit of a non too technical term......... Duff, chattered or stripped threads, bent shaft, knackered screwdriver slot, rounded square end...... or what? I'm not being pedantic but if it's bent then I'd put it in a lathe and straighten it although I'm blowed if I ever saw a bent one unless the butt had been run over by a three-tonner!. Then, I'd use the same bolt again but this time, I'd put a double coil thackray washer (from a No4 bolt.......) between your bolt and the flat plain washer sunk deep in the bowels of the butt. Make sure that you have one in there...., you'll feel and hear the metallic clunk when you tap it with a long screwdriver.

Then you've got the best of both worlds. You have the original square ended stock bolt that you can screw the butt tightly on with. AND when it's as tight as a ............., er........, anyway, pretty tight...... you can back the bolt off a tad so that it aligns with the square of the keeper plate.

It won't protrude as far as it did into the fore-end keep[er plate but what the heck! The butt is tight, the bolt is original - what else do you need?

Not that I doubt you Beery, but where is it recorded that the BM is 'Birmingham Military' proof, and it's status?

Thanks Peter. It's bent, and yes it does look as though it could have been run over by a 3 ton truck or possibly in a fire, but it looks salvageable.
I agree it should stay as designed if possible. I have obtained a new washer so I'll try and straighten it.
I had seen on another thread that stock bolts without the square end are fitted to No1's fitted having the original keep plate which seemed to indicate an acceptable practice.

Fitting a No4 stock bolt and some other screws, after chasing out the old threads to suit the No4 rifle BA thread pattern was an approved method of repair according to the EMER's. Strangely, it also says that grip screws/nuts from the 'new' bayonet can be used in place of the No1 bayonet grip screws and nuts. It doesn't say what 'new' bayonet they are referring to. It could be the No5 or even the No7!

Fulton seems to have blazed a trail with regards to action welding to help with action alignment,

Hi Frederic 303, you mentioned this welding on the action body a couple of times, can you clarify what this was or have a picture? Most interesting post you made, I predict a book on enfield target rifles would be a really interesting addition to the pantheon. thanks R

Welding the bodies........... most interesting! I'll ask Robert this afternoon when I see him. Even when the trigger block was brazed onto the Mk1/2 and 1/3, after the relatively low brazing temps required, the body was still subject to hardness testing at the locking-up surfaces

A small plate was welded or soldered onto the action side , opposite side to the Magazine cut off boss to even out the action footprint to make it symetrical and therefore more stable.

Ah, question answered. I suppose a small weld that far forward wouldn't have affected the temper or hardness of the locking shoulders. Mind you, I'd like to test the veracity of such a mod in a lab with a calibrated press! But, like homeopathy, if it works for you, it works!

Gents,

With regards to the action welding, XL39A1 is correct; it was added on the left side of the action body, to increase the bedding surface around the front action ring. The only rifle I had a chance to closely examine was brazed on, or so it appeared by looking at the filler material. I spoke with the NRA armorer back some years ago and he informed me the welded ones were done by a firm for Fulton’s fairly close to Bisley. At the time, (mid 2000) the fellow that did the welding was still alive.

The preponderance of the information I have collected indicates welding was a 1950s modification. The only caveat to that is that if you examine the NRA rules, it appears that the allowance for this change was made in 1934 which allowed the additional metal of up to 2 oz. In addition the action I examined had GE Fulton markings, which is a pre WWII marking. Now when one is talking about regulated Enfield rifles, the problem is that rifles were tweaked over their service life, so any feature on a rifle does not indicate that when sold it had that feature, it was quite possible that it is a later modification.

It may be that the action reinforcement was done first around 1934 with brazing and then went over to welding in the 1950s. I do not know the answer. I have never actually seen a welded action, though I have corresponded with folks that had seen or had at one time owned one. Some years ago there was a description of a rifle that had the action fail at the weld.

I think a book on Enfield target rifles would be a great addition to the history of Lee Enfield rifles.To find out all the tricks of the trade that were used by Fulton,A J Parker,Alex Martin,Tippins,W J jeffery,and the special order SMLE target rifles direct from BSA,would be very interesting .
Roger,are you up to the task?

Ah, yes, I see and understand now. It's not a welded/brazed on part to impart a more equal recoil load but a welded/brazed on part to equalise the load of the body while being drawn down onto the fore-end by the front trigger guard screw. Yes, footprint as in down pressure as opposed to what I was thinking....., footprint as in rearwards loading of the bolt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superbee

I think a book on Enfield target rifles would be a great addition to the history of Lee Enfield rifles.To find out all the tricks of the trade that were used by Fulton,A J Parker,Alex Martin,Tippins,W J jeffery,and the special order SMLE target rifles direct from BSA,would be very interesting .
Roger,are you up to the task?

---

It would be a qualified yes. Its something I'd much enjoy doing but the depth of my knowledge in the arena of who was accurizing Enfields over the years and what their techniques were is slim. It could be done with contribution of knowledge and pictures from others, and I'd be open to a co authorship etc. if someone had the knowledge and pictures but didn't want to write. The practical side of writing, in the past, where thousands of copies had to be budgeted and balanced against probable sales no longer applies, books can be affordably created for limited readerships...

I've added some pics here of my Navy target rifle which has the metal addition Frederic303 and Peter mentions. The use of the word welding on the receiver threw me off, I didn't realize it meant this corner addition,

Just from the engineering point, I would imagine that the little block was eventually brazed and then eventually welded in place because soft soldered joints as exhibited here don't have good shear value. Just my view thinking out aloud!

If it was me being asked to investigate the idea, I'd have made a shaped .1" or so thick, .75" wide and long steel collar to sit around/astride the front trigger guard screw block and reduced the depth inside the fore-end accordingly. This would give a greater 'footprint' area when pulled down by the trigger guard and screw and eliminated the need for a soldered bodge!

Or, if it was accuracy AND durability that I wanted, I'd have just bought a No4 and be done with it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RJW NZ

It would be a qualified yes. Its something I'd much enjoy doing but the depth of my knowledge in the arena of who was accurizing Enfields over the years and what their techniques were is slim. It could be done with contribution of knowledge and pictures from others, and I'd be open to a co authorship etc.

---

The Lee-Speed book will contain a chapter on Lee Enfield and Lee Metford target rifles, but only those of commercial manufacture. It will not be the "how-to" material that many shooters would want, though; it will mainly be a history, rather than a technical manual, and a high-level history at that. If you're interested in collaborating on something, please send me a PM.