British target shooting history question regarding matches/match rifles

I recently was shown a No.1 MkIII rifle that was alleged to be a rifle used in British rifle matches. Inletted flush to the butt stock surface was a 5/8 inch diameter brass disc and screw. The circumference was marked Swinborne (sp ? and poor memory) matches, 1938, x. x. Reynolds. It was not the author/match shooter Reynolds. I was told that the disc was added before matches to indicate the owner as the rifle was surrendered for testing prior to the matches. Does this make any sense at all? I like baloney on the plate but not with my guns. If the gun was used in multiple matches, shouldn't it have discs all over?

The rifle had no Fulton or other regulating markings, no match sights and had been "sporterized/ butchered" to boot. $450 seemed excessive for a brass disc and a verbal story. Comments appreciated.

I wonder if this could be Reyonlds of the Lee Enfield rifle book. He was a target shooter

I'm scratching my head to think in what target shooting context I've come across Swinborne before, although I hanker after it being spelt 'Swinbourne' when I saw it. The synapses are just not working like they used to.......

Peter, I think Mr Breakey alluded to the fact that the 'Reynolds' wasn't EGB Reynolds of Lee Enfield & target shooting fame; at least, that's what I thought he is saying. Mind you a friend of mine has his Model 1918 scope, complete with rings in its webbing case with his name painted over it. But I digress........

ATB

Not sure how you can tell it's definitely NOT someone.

Swinbourne was the 'Swinbourne Cup' (?). I seem to recall that this was originally an Army Rifle Assn competition, a bit like the Methuen today

It is common to come across No1 MkIII match rifles that have a brass disk bearing both a club name (or initials) and the name of an individual (or initials). There does seem to have been a system that required the rifles to be marked this way. Its not clear whether the rifles were club property, or the property of the individual - or just allocated to that individual by the club for the competition season.

Possibly - given the nature of the way match No1s were prepared - the "scrutineering" involved the rifle being partly dismantled, and/or submitted to the scrutineer (NRA armoury? Fultons?) well in advance of the competition - so needing some sort of robust labelling method.

There is Swinburne University in Vic. It might have had a rifle team in 1938. A possibility pehaps?

Bad memory aside, I said it wasn't the author/shooter Reynolds as the unremembered initials did not match when I looked at his books and could recall what the initials were. If the seller knew of the possible association, I am sure he would have name dropped Reynolds name.

Triggers will be tested, for winners (and DQ-ed if it fails) but I can't see anything else being examined unless there's some articulable reason to do so.
It's probably some owner's name and nothing more.
Occasionally you find rifles that have been the prize in some match, and that can be marked on a special plate.

The real comps shooters really do take the scrutineering seriously. While I was in Malaya with 8 RAR we all went down to Nee Soon ranges for a Forces shoot and by some dint of good fortune, we were doing quite well and got into the knock-out stages of one comp. When some half wit winjer complained that a) I was a pom in an Australian unit team - which caused a few flusters of feathers which was deemed to be OK because......... anyway. Then another half wit, not happy with that grizzled that the rules said that we should be wearing OG long trousers with standard DMS (rubber sole) or ammo boots (leather studded sole) boots with those wrap-around puttees around the ankles. But being Australian (?) we were all wearing our issue vietnam issue calf length BOOTS, combat WITHOUT puttees. I mean......., what the xxxx would we be wearing puttees (or anklets) for? We had calf length boots. They grizzled that it would help us with the long absolutely knackering run-downs!

The same applied that some of us had Owens (or was it F1's in '67/68 Muffer?) instead of Sterling guns as per the regulations for 'The Sterling Cup'. Someone pointed out that the SGR had MK5 Sten guns (they won too!) and the poor old RAF had Mk2 Sten guns.......... As for the Navy....., they couldn't compete because they had those Lanchester things that only fired automatic. So they borrowed Sterling guns off the Army - also against the rules apparently

'Flip' McKewan the NS Lieutenant and team boss told someone to hide the big Whites trucks that we came down in - because it wasn't a Bedford and someone was bound to moan about that too! Happy days...........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by breakeyp

It was not the author/match shooter Reynolds

---

You mean author/match shooter, Maj E G B Reynolds ?

Still Owens Pete.

Thanks Muffer. All (?) the pictures seem to show the Owens as green/yellow effect paint but all of ours in Malaya were black as per Base workshop repair.

Yeah, blackish grey finish was common, those fancy paint jobs seemed to be all wallhangers and early Mks. didn't interfer with their performance though. (Always had a soft spot for them.......my first skill at arms badge.)