Has anybody seen one of these before??
EFD Rifles - The Enfield Specialists
Printable View
Has anybody seen one of these before??
EFD Rifles - The Enfield Specialists
That's a first time for me, quite interesting and most definately rare!
Very neat rifle. Hope it turns out to be real...we've not had one of those appear around here before.
I'd suggest that the magazine is not original, and is considerably younger than the rifle action.
The magazine looks like one from a No4.
Muzzle end oddities:
1. Very odd "crown" on the barrel,
2. Something odd about the seating of the "Screw, Front",
3. There appears to be something like a tiny "Lithgow" star in the front of the left sight-protector "ear". What is that about?
4. The surface finish on the "different" front-end is quite at odds with the rest of the nose-cap: it looks to be ground, but not blasted / "pickled".
5. As far as I know, all early nose-caps had a "lightening" hole bored into the rear of the bayonet boss; grind off the boss and you expose that hole.
6. Is that an "Ishy" screw I see?
7.Steel butt-disc?
8. The timber damage around said butt-disc indicates that it or a previous butt-disc had been removed at some time, and possibly not had one fitted for a while.
The butt looks a lot like one for a Lee Metford Mk1 Carbine. These should have a disc, but in a slightly lower position.
Shouldn't the buttplate on a LEC butt be the same as the 1* rifle? As I understand, the long "tang at the top of the "delta metal" butt plate was to provide a space to put inspection / "ownership" etc. stamps in the days before butt discs.
The "U" on the bolt head indicates a "variation" in specification, (heat-treatment etc.); NOT always a good thing.
The fore-end "grasping grooves" are a bit like Lee Metford Mks 1 and 1*, but if this were an "upgrade" conversion of one of those, what happened to the elliptical clearance cut in the wood, just below the "handle" of the cut-off plate?
This rifle could re-write the books or it could be a complete lemon.
Just my 3 Lira worth.
It has been here before Jim, when I had it a few years back, but I returned it ( was another dealer back then), as it was sale or return.......Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
I must have missed that. I guess. It's one of those one shouldn't forget if he saw it.
Bruce in Oz
No 4 magazine was what I was thinking.
The hole you would expect to see after removing the bayonet boss seems to me to be covered by a thin plate fixed over the whole of the front of the nosecap.
Certainly looks like an "Ishy screw" in the fore-end - so if this conversion was for mounted troops it would probably have been for service in the subcontinent rather than the Home Counties.
Have I slept in? Is it the 1st of April already?
Honestly, the W^D had only just completed standardising their front line rifle manufacture across all arms of all services... "Cavalry" and Artillery" length carbines were traded off with the Long Lee to create the 25.2" barrel of Sht LE Mk1, to be closely followed by the MkIII, so they could issue one rifle to all troops. Anyone honestly think they would sanction modifying a bunch for a purpose they had already taken into account with the original design?
Sorry, it would take a lot more than what looks to me like a mish-mash of poorly fitted parts with a Beverly Hills pricetag to make the story even conceivable, let alone believable.
May be corrected here yet, but please make the evidence conclusive......
Any mention in Skennerton's book?
This thread?: (ETA: one of these links works but isn't fancy, the other doesn't seem to load correctly right now, but did when the search was done.)Quote:
Originally Posted by bigduke6
SMLE Yeomanry or Light Horse conversion
Regardless of any specific knowledge of Enfields, I find the cavalry "story" implausible.
If the object in question was altered to slide easily in and out of a scabbard, then the most obvious item to cause it to snag would be the sharp-cornered protrusion of the volley foresight, followed by the volley backsight and the cut-off plate handle. The nose, on the other hand, is not only not an impediment, but a positive advantage in keeping the muzzle clear of any fluff and dirt on the "floor". I have to use the "sardine-packing" method in my gun cabinets, and for this reason I am happy to store the No.IIIs nose down.
The nose is, of course, hollow, and can be dented. I have one such in my spares box. For me, the most plausible reason to cut off the nose and braze or silver-solder a plate over the hole would be if the original nosecap was bent to the point of uselessness - and there was no spare available! If spares were available, surely no-one would waste their time on repairing one? This thought makes it very doubtful for me that this is an arsenal or regimental workshop modification. More like Bubba thinking "what the hell am I going to do with this wreck".
Now in out-of the way places in desperate times there may be very good reasons for creative recycling of all sorts of spare parts. However, one criterion is an absolute killer: If that marking on the altered nosecap is a fake, then there are no excuses, no more-or-less plausible stories - it is a fake.
Trying to give this dubious object every chance, I took a close look at "The Lee Enfield Story" (1993 edition).
On P.56 it turns out that on the trials version of the Lee Metford MkII, the grasping grooves were omitted. Afterwards, in the final MKII pattern the recess under the cut-off handle was also omitted. So a fore-end with grooves but without recess is hard to explain. In my investigation I also took a look at other rifles with grasping grooves - Japanese, Russian, M1917/P14, but the grasping grooves from a Lee Metford MkI still look like the best fit.
On P.57 is a quote from LOC 6760 "A steel disc (blued) will be employed, instead of the brass disc, in arms issued for drill purposes only...".
Stretching my credulity to the limit, I could just about imagine this rifle as being a "local-brew" bitsa DP rifle. However, not being marked DP but with the dodgy marking on the altered nose-cap spoils even this story...
If you look closely at the chamfer around the front end, it appears to have a much different finish than the sides. One would think a contemporary conversion would have matching finish as the whole thing would have been redone after the mods.
Never mind the cap is later than the rifle and the cross screw is much later.
Saved sale information and pics for posterity and future research by members .. ;)
Regards,
Doug
Quote:
EFD Rifles - The Enfield Specialists
#448 - 1908 Enfield Mounted Troop Mark III .303" - £3,150.00
This is a very rare rifle which was heavily officially modified for mounted troops. Sling attachments changed to cavalry specification, bayonet lug and boss removed for ease of stowage in the cavalry rifle boot. All modifications stamped with manufacturer’s inspection marks. Otherwise full Mark III specification with volley sights, windage rear sight, magazine cut off and round cocking piece. Beautiful bore. Unusual “kill” markings under the forend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigduke6
Didn't it get pulled to bits in the forums back then? Indian nosecap, bits from several rifles, non-factory workmanship, copy of local sling bar mod, odd looking stamps, etc.
IIRC it was another example of a rare or imagined rifle that had been .. er ... recreated by an individual for his own collection. Specimens from that collection are now turning up with all sorts of "provenance" attached.
IIRC the nosecap is Indian. I have several of them in one of my spares boxes (unfortunately currently in storage). They appear factory made, not converted or refinished. The metal behind the missing bayonet boss is solid. Not much known about them, but possibly originally intended for prison muskets or similar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbox
It certainly did TB, and with that I returned it ( it was up North at the time) from the collection of the late Chris Barber...........
Jmoore that's the thread, SMLE Yeomanry or Light Horse conversion.
I received a email some years back regarding the rifle, someone had purchased it from who I returned it too, I gave him all the info I had and suggested to him to return it, he was in the mind set it was Kosher and said he had it confirmed from the IWM and others !!!! It has had a touch up since it was in my hands. I,ll dig out my pics.
Looks like there is be a DP marking on top of the wrist, just under the cocking piece in one photo.
I have no doubt that EFD do a lot of good things but their prices are always out of this world, they are the sort of people you need next to you at trade shows if you are selling Enfields as anything they have makes anything you have seem cheap, been there done that!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Son
With out the the flat bolt handle of a real cavalry carbine, the side mounted sling would have been uncomfortable at the least! K98's were designed as a cavalry carbine and have the sling on the left side.
I bet when the fellow sawed the bayonet boss off he cursed when he saw it was hollow and then had to make that plate for it. should have a serial no. there too.
My fantasy Sht. L E Mk III* M (Mounted) would have the following features
Piling swivel lugs removed from nosecap, so the piling swivel doesnt get caught in the reins if firing whilst mounted.
No volley sights, mounted troops are skirmishers / light infantry not used for massed firing.
Flat bolt handle, so the rifle can be stowed low in the bucket.
sling bar and sling on left side of rifle, supposedly more comfortable if slung across the back.
Based on the experiences of the mounted troops in the Levant during WW1 the New Zealand mounted rifles trailled........
looks like ive given the game away:cheers:
A right hand sling attachment can only have been designed by a staff officer. `Tis bad enough having a No. 5 bolt handle poking into the small of your back. But the force of a cav.- carbine bolt slapping at the gallop would probably maim a complete division.
The inletting for the sling bar looks both very rough and much too deep. It is indeed a happy coincidence that what appears to be an examiner's(?) mark has been added exactly where the bayonet boss was.:rolleyes:
The half cylinder cutout for the sling looks like it was whittled: the sides are not parallel and the edges are oddly beveled in a 'hand made' sort of way.
The sling inlet is too close to the buttplate compared to the Lee Metford Carbine; such a location would probably not be acceptable as the wood is too thin and therefore prone to cracking, chipping etc. from impacts on the butt plate. But of course that would require a different location for the marking disc such as the LMC had; not an option for someone making something up 100 years later!
Nor would there be any reason for the authorities to change the locations used on the LMC if they had wished to revisit that sling arrangement; despite having already dropped it from the LEC.
The bolt does not appear to match either, though that does not necessarily invalidate the rest of the rifle.
Overall, one has to wonder WHY? Given that the SMLE was supposed to be the answer to problem already.
If I remember correctly, this is the second or third time that this rifle has surfaced...........
It was on Culver SP years ago and a similar story,
I agree with Son here and, BTW: "heavily officially modified for mounted troops. Sling attachments changed to cavalry specification". The latter means that the Upper Sling Swivel has been moved to in front of the magazine, which involved one screw. EXACTLY as designed!
Surpmill raises a good point about these variations that seem to be required by different parts of the Army. Like the need for a shortie SA80 carbine for heavens sake! As if the SA80, by definition, wasn't short enough. I remember some of the intermittent trials taking place. Shorter barrels meant greater flash and therefore greater need for longer(?) flash eliminators or certainly FE's that had greater powers of dispersion. It was mind boggling.......... One even had an L1A1 flash eliminator fitted that returned it ti the original length!
Final assessment ....
Quote:
This item has been judged by members of the Milsurps Advisory Panel as NOT completely authentic, possibly has been rebuilt, or put together with correct/incorrect parts substituted.
Badger you have way too much time on your hands, I like it!
If I recal correctly, this rifle's front sling swivel comes off a Thompson sub machine gun...
I think that was mentioned here at one point but apparently no in this particular thread. It does look like it.
Rob, Jim,
It was mentioned when I first did a thread on it, I have plenty of pics I took when it was in my possession (for a very short period), I was going to put them up but don't think its fair, with all due respect to EFD I would of thought that they would of give it a wide berth.....
The problem is not the rifle its who made/ built it up ??
We all know it come from Chris barbers collection and when I started to investigate it, I was turning up a lot of stones and the investigation did go off in all tangents, very interesting and spoke to many, but could never get any hard evidence, I,ve still got all the notes, so may put them to paper one day when I write my memoir's.
Although when I purchased it, it come with a lot of providence, but when checked out it was all fantasy, It was supposed to be one of three or so that was confirmed to Chris Barber by the late Peter Fox ( NZ) the problem here was Peter was below room temp before Chris had even started collecting.
When I looked at all the facts and figures I,m led to believe that Chris Barber was not fully responsible or didn't make ALL the "not quite correct" rifles he had, I'm quite sure he probably got stitched up in his early collecting days, one thing I do know he never made the rifle in question, as I know of the guy he was with when he picked it up.
One things for sure its one of the first lemons I had and it certainly won't be the last...... its also gained another 0 on the price in the last few years.
I saw a rifle like this many years ago, here in NZ. It to was supposedly confirmed by the late Peter Fox too! When I saw it ,Peter had been deceased for 2-3 years, so no confirmation was possible! To me, it looked like the nosecap had been very recently modified by a disc grinder. I didn`t believe it was genuine. Stuart.
Peter Fox and I discussed this particular rifle many years ago. I'm not completely sure of the general consensus on it but I seem to recall we both thought it was a bit dodgy at the time, but then someone had something that ended up convincing Peter that it might have been kosher.
The finish on the nose cap and different fonts set off alarm bells here, as well as several other small details. Somehow, someone had convinced Peter that it was kosher and they were supposed to supply documentation on it.
Peter was more than just an accumulator and I would say he was an advanced collector and knew his caca on Commonwealth kit. Grahame Barber might be able to chime in a bit on this one....Grahame are you out there ?????
Peter, unfortunately succumbed very quickly to the second onset of cancer....
RIP old friend.
