Another "treacle rifle" - FTR No.1MKIII*

Up to now, the only No.1MKIIIs I have seen here in Mauserland were very worn objects, and I never gave any of them a second look...
...until today.

It is what I call a "treacle rifle" - a rifle which has been smothered in varnish, apparently applied with a brush last used for painting the fence.

I eagerly await the comments of the experts on what seems to be a complete arsenal rebuild of a No.1MkIII before stripping off the varnish, which I cannot imagine was ever applied in a British arsenal.

The buttplate is practically mint. It has certainly never been exposed to square-bashing, where the first things to be spoilt are the screw heads.
Attachment 36072

The butt has been expertly lengthened from a "B" (bantam) 12" length to a full 13". The spliced-on piece adds about 1 1/8" in length, with a 5/16" dovetail.
Attachment 36071

The butt markings also appear to have been overstamped. Not clear, because of the varnish.
Attachment 36069

There is another repair just in front of the buttstock ring.
Attachment 36070

The receiver has been renumbered. Old number X-ed out and new number applied above.
Attachment 36066

I am not sure if the "P", which is somewhat detached from the number (above and to the left) is a part of the number or indicates something else. And note the outlined F on the top of the receiver ring.
Attachment 36068

Bolt handle and nosecap have the same number, with the oddly separated P. Note the "low-mileage" bolt face.
Attachment 36349

The backsight appears to be practically new.
Attachment 36073

And the muzzle is perhaps the best I have seen on any military rifle, bar none. Darker areas are shadow from the roomlighting, not rust or dirt. If you hold it in your hands and rotate in under a watchmaker's eyeglass, it looks spotless - new, in fact.
Attachment 36067
That was the "unique selling point" for me. Old bangers are plentiful, but this one appears to have had a complete makeover, including a new barrel, and then gone into storage, only emerging for a misguided owner to pour varnish over it. But as ghastly as that looks, experience has taught me that the wood on treacle rifles is often excellently preserved underneath the gunge, so when the dealer named me a price that would be two-figures in pounds, I only hesitated long enough to be sure that my ears were operating correctly.

First - a clean-up, custom-made ammo, a shooting test, and then - off with the varnish!

:wave:
Patrick

nice - it'll be interesting to see the follow-up pics

I have seen the separated P before--I might even have one in the pile. Memory is going and not enough curious to dig. I think Springfield Sporters had some and they were attributed to a far east police dept. The heavy varnish was done to preserve the rifle in the damp climate. Another do I remove the wrappings quandry!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by breakeyp

Memory is going and not enough curious to dig.

---

Oh please, please dig for it! If the varnish really was "official", maybe I'll leave it (but it still looks horrible).

Looks like an Irish Free State rifle, from the nock's form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mk VII

Looks like an Irish Free State rifle, from the nock's form.

---

That was my initial impression as well. But you are referring to the "circle FF" on the receiver body just behind the barrel, yes?

About the barrel- how about pulling the rear handguard to reveal the hidden markings- like the barrel date for one!

It is definitely an Irish rifle. My guess is based on the markings that it has a replaced 1938 or possibly 1937 barrel date. The barrel will be most likely an Enfield barrel and will also bear a FF in a circle mark.

If the barrel does not bear such a marking, then the barrel will be a post war replacement barrel, which may have no marking at all, or a BSA marking. If BSA it will be dated before 1954.

The above is based on observed markings on Irish rifles; with this rifle I have 78 rifles in the SMLE database.

The varnish is a post service modification.

It seems to have a European proof on the barrel; this is the second one I have in my database. These rifles were all from the final sale of Irish SMLE rifles, which occurred after 1985 and before the end of 1988.

It's probably a West German proof mark, though it's not very clear

Sorry, I should have said that the small mark below the E on the knoxform is indeed a German nitro-proof mark, applied when the rifle was imported. It is the hollow/doubled F in a circle that must be a clue. And the P, of course. According to Skennerton, the P signifies a replacement barrel.

Resisting the urge to pull up the plant to see how the roots are growing, I do not wish to dismantle the rifle before a firing test, and thus disturb a setup that may be just right, merely from impatience to satisfy my curiosity about its history.

P.S: Frederick303, would the FF stand for Fianna Fail?

---------- Post added at 05:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:13 AM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick303

It is definitely an Irish rifle. My guess is based on the markings that it has a replaced 1938 or possibly 1937 barrel date. The barrel will be most likely an Enfield barrel and will also bear a FF in a circle mark.

---

Thanks again! That was the key info. The FF is identical to the one shown here:

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread....ht=Fianna+Fail

And I have observed that the front trigger guard screw is not original. So any arsenal setup has already been disturbed. So I AM going to pull up this plant to examine its roots (or rather, barrel markings).

We used to practice our woodworking and patching skills as apprentices on old (and new!!!!) rifle butts and would occasionally come across these butts where the rear 1" or so was dovetailed in place to extend the length. Mr Riley, one of the two woodwork teachers at Carlisle told us that this was done on contract by the gun trade for the Ordnance Depots in the UK before and during the war, pre No4 rifle era, in order to utilise the vast stocks of unused Bantam butts by effectively making them into 'standard' sizes.

I have to say that I never saw it on a No4 butt. In any case, instructions were issued that needy No1 rifles would be fitted with No4 butts

Thanks Peter. As I said, it seems to be a skilfully implemented piece of work. As it was an Irish rifle, the varnish can hardly have been for protection against tropical climate. So should I strip it off?

Personally Patrick, I'd have been stripping it off in my head even on the journey home with it! I don't believe that popular myth that varnish protects anything, ESPECIALLY if it's only varnished on the outer surfaces. Like rust, any rot starts where you can't see it. I'm no cabinet maker or wood technologist but have been told that a slight skim of french or button polish is the only laquer type protection that wood appreciates because it's not a cover as such but is a breathable membrane. I would argue that the beeswaxes are as good too because they do the same job! Linseed oil has stood the test of time too................

But a nice find none the less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick

Resisting the urge to pull up the plant to see how the roots are growing, I do not wish to dismantle the rifle before a firing test...

---

Removing the rear handguard ought not disturb anything. Just requires strong fingers to pull straight up after flipping the rear sight leaf out of the way. Usually there's plenty of info above the stock line.

Patrick

Of the identified No1 MkIII rifles in my database, not one Irish rifle had a varnish finish. That includes the AM .22 cal rifles, the SMLE MK I rifles, and of course the much disputed No 4 MkII rifles. I have seen rifle that had some much of a buildup of linseed oil that that they had a shiny appearance, but not one rifle when I had it in my hands had an actual varnish coat.

I do not have a copy of it, but some time ago corresponded with a gentlemen who had read the mid 1930s Irish version of the English 1931 armourers manual. According to the gentlemen, the Irish manual was a near copy of the English one, with additional information on the SMLE MK I*** added. It is fair to conclude that the Irish followed English practice, especially as up through WW II they were formally part of the commonwealth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick303

My guess is based on the markings that it has a replaced 1938 or possibly 1937 barrel date. The barrel will be most likely an Enfield barrel and will also bear a FF in a circle mark.

---

Frederick, your guess was a 10X.
Of course, since I will not be able to shoot the rifle for another week, I was unable to resist my historical curiosity.

And now I know what an almost new SMLE barrel looks like.
Attachment 36084

The top has the FF, as predicted. And the Enfield "E". Also marked FB31 (Firth Brown Lot 31, I think).
Attachment 36077

And the left side shows a 38 with WD arrow.
Attachment 36080

The right side shows the original number, X-ed out, and the new number applied.
Attachment 36081

There are yet more markings below, but the photo turned out poorly.

B.T.W. the bolt does not have an old number X-ed out, only the new number and the detached P. The Nosecap also only bears the new number and the separate P. It looks as if this was a barrelled system put into an existing rifle (stock, bolt and fore-end) and renumbered to fit. An odd way of doing it. Why not simply renumber bolt and nosecap to match the barrelled system?

There is a "W" in the barrel channel. Probably Wilkinsons Ltd. of Bradford.
Attachment 36079

The magazine slot shows how clean the rifle and all components are on the inside.
Attachment 36083

So the treacle is now coming off!
Attachment 36082
This is now. Next week it will look somewhat different.

:wave:
Patrick

'Mauserland' ... I like that :D Auch möchte Ich viele Mauser!

Regarding the age of the barrel, when did 'they' stop the FF on rifles?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick303

It is definitely an Irish rifle. My guess is based on the markings that it has a replaced 1938 or possibly 1937 barrel date. The barrel will be most likely an Enfield barrel and will also bear a FF in a circle mark.

If the barrel does not bear such a marking, then the barrel will be a post war replacement barrel, which may have no marking at all, or a BSA marking. If BSA it will be dated before 1954.

The above is based on observed markings on Irish rifles; with this rifle I have 78 rifles in the SMLE database.

The varnish is a post service modification.

It seems to have a European proof on the barrel; this is the second one I have in my database. These rifles were all from the final sale of Irish SMLE rifles, which occurred after 1985 and before the end of 1988.

---

Why 1937 or 1938?

Since you say the undated ones are postwar, does that mean it was rebarreled before ww2?

Not trying to be secretive, but based on a data base of sampled rifles it seems to have a feature I have seen exclusively on 1938 re-barreled Irish rifles. I have 78 rifles sampled out of approximately 31,169~31,669 SMLE MK III/II* rifles that were sold between 1961 and 1987, I have only a 0.246 % sample of the rifles. Of course when this feature appeared is not for sure, so there might be some 1937 re-barreled guns with this feature, I simply do not have enough rifles in my sample size to say.

There has been a lot of “conventional knowledge” put out on Irish rifles that has been in error, indeed on some very basic points there is still debate. In order to be more precise I would need to have written verification on some observed data. I do not want to put out information that is incorrect, but once I have all the data verified I am sure I will post the results here or on Gunboards (under the name Fritz)

Love seeing those Fianna Fail marked Smellies..always on the lookout for one. Hope to find another at tomorrows gun show. Great find!

...apart from the rear handguard, which I have left for the moment, to show the difference.
Attachment 36351

Alas, the woodwork underneath the treacle is not (yet) beautiful.
Attachment 36350

In fact, I think this was wartime-quality walnut. Grain is OK, no knots, but definitely streaky. Not what you would call grade 1 selected. And scratched, as if some Bubba had removed the finish with a penknife. Maybe that is why a previous owner tried to hide it all under varnish. But the varnished surface is unpleasant to hold, and although the wood is streaky, it is now pleasant to the touch. After all, when shooting, I hold the rifle - I don't look at it.

It has now acquired a sling and a proper P-H target backsight. I need those to test the rifle rather than myself, and the extra sling swivel bracket on the trigger guard was also a secondary reason for buying this rifle, the primary being, of course, the immaculate bore.

As the BDMP Hessen competition for blackpowder firearms is coming up in a few weeks, it may take a while before I can give the Irish Enfield the careful testing it deserves.

Looking good Patrick, I,m not going to to teach you how to suck eggs, but at that stage and you mention the scratches try the damp tea towel and the hot iron to raise a few of them.

The wood looks to me like it's been scraped, that's how they were done weren't they Mr Laidler? I've got a couple of No1 butts in my spares that look just like that, and that's how they look after I scrape them, but I sand the "streaks" out as far as possible.

Yep, you're right TBone. We scraped the woodwork down before we did anything. Those that were good could almost get a perfect finish with just the scraper. But just beware of letting the scraper drop into the band etc recesses. This will create rounded edges - the sign that an anateur has set about it. Preserve the edges at all costs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tbonesmith

The wood looks to me like it's been scraped,

---

Yes, but by a bodger.:thdown:
Properly scraped wood does not look like that. I have described how to do it and shown the results in the series on the Argentino Rolling Block. If you scrape with a flexible scraper - and it's a good idea to have several, with different degrees of curvature - you can flex it in your fingers to follow the curves and adjust the angle to have less scrape/more boning action. The final surface is smooth and hard, as the surface fibers have been ironed flat, and you can polish straight onto it. Which is what was done on fine furniture in the 18th century, but has been forgotten in the days of sandpaper and electric sanders. What I have here is not just scratches, but downright gouges, and if the fibers have been torn by gouging, then the steam iron method has little effect.

I think I will concentrate on shooting first, and only worry about the woodwork when the rifle is performing well. Even now, it is more pleasant to handle than before the varnish was removed.

I have been steam-ironing, scraping and boning, but the wood is not yet "fit for public consumption".

I wanted most of all to see how it shoots - whether it's worth the bother. So here is the first 100-meter target from "Fianna":
:
Attachment 36487

The vertical spread is largely an expression of my difficulty with a blade sight in changing light conditions. I would not blame it on the rifle or ammo at this stage.

The horizontal spread (tighter than the 10-ring) is very promising. The rifle has been set up "by the book", and passes my personal acceptance test for service rifles -a grouping quality that would place all in the 9 after correcting the point of impact. The blade is far over to the right, so the correction will bring it back towards the center - indicating that something was maladjusted beforehand.

I would be very interested to hear how tightly other Mk IIIs from forum members can group!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick

...I would be very interested to hear how tightly other Mk IIIs from forum members can group!

---

I think I have a No.1 Mk.III* entry in the Milsurps 2012 Competition.

Regardless, a SMLE should be able to do quite well in good "as issued" trim- IF you can find an ammo it likes!

ETA: Wow all the way back in March! Post #4. Time to do another target. Might even have to hunt with it this year. It's been a while. It IS the first rifle with which I drew a bead on a deer.

My MkIII is very picky with ammo. It was exceptional with the limited amount of surplus I had. It's terrible with Remington, and okay with Winchester. It likes the 174gr Hornady, but I only use that for hunting since it's expensive. I waiting on a couple of boxes of Privi to arrive so I can see how well it does with those.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick303

The above is based on observed markings on Irish rifles; with this rifle I have 78 rifles in the SMLE database.

---

Perhaps mine is #79?
I've a 1916 BSA No.1Mk.III* with a SSA stamped trigger guard that I finally got around to removing the rear handguard from. Here are the pics:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCN7380-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCN7382-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCN7383-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCN7385-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCN7386-1.jpg

That's the only place I've seen the FF, but I haven't disassembled it any further.

#80, very nice example of a scrubbed Irish rifle.

Thanks for posting, 33 dated rifles are one of the less common years

I'm rather new to this- do you mean scrubbed as in previous numbers/stamps ground off and new numbers applied? But it doesn't look as though anyone has done anything like that. Would you normally expect to see obvious signs of such scrubbing?
The rifle is all-matching: nose cap, barrel, receiver, and bolt handle.