Lee Metford and a Jungle Carbine

Hi all: I picked up these two rifles over the last week or so. First up is a Lee Metford Mk II. It's been around the block, looks like it was issued to the King's Royal Rifles. The bolt doesn't match, but as can be seen from the photos, the bolt is from a rifle only a few numbers away in the same letter batch. A nice, honest, un-messed with Metford.

Attachment 53594Attachment 53595Attachment 53596Attachment 53597Attachment 53598Attachment 53599Attachment 53600

The second up is this nice #5, a 1945 date with no reinforcing band on the front of the forewood. It matches, but I am wondering if it was refurbed at some point. It has no FTR stamp on it, but the serial number is electropencilled on the buttsocket, seemingly over top of the Suncorite finish. The stock matches and is an early type; if it had been arsenal redone after the war, would the stock have been upgraded? The bore is lovely on it. Any opinions welcomed. My apologies for the crappy overall shot--I have a new camera which I am still figuring out, and it was raining outside so not great for an outdoor shot. While I think of it, what is the significance of the "England" stamp? Is that something applied to all military small arms which were sold out of service as surplus to the public/exporters, or only those which were sold to other countries as war surplus? I see it on Webley revolvers as well. Thanks.

Attachment 53608Attachment 53607Attachment 53606Attachment 53605Attachment 53604Attachment 53603Attachment 53602Attachment 53601Attachment 53609 Ed

Two nice looking rifles, what's the bore like on the Metford?

The Suncorite looks to be original as the M47C looks to be stamped after the finish was applied

In the 6th Picture there looks to be a Woolwich or Weedon mark on the butt.

I like your MLM Mk II a lot, because of its illustrious unit marking.
1st KRRC fought at Talana, then were besieged in Ladysmith, where they were very active participants in the defence, including the battle of Waggon Hill.

The bore is really very good on the Metford. It has some wear, but considering the use the rifle has seen and the shallow nature of the Metford rifling at the best of times, it's good. I've seen some total drain pipes on otherwise nice looking rifles, but this isn't one of them!

Ed

Ed, can I recommend you buy a copy of The Boer War: Illustrated Edition by Thomas Pakenham?
You can get a used edition for under 5 bucks at Abebooks:

The Boer War: Illustrated Edition by Thomas Pakenham: Random House 9780679430476 Hardcover - OwlsBooks

Get the hard cover edition - Reason I say this is that on the rear dust cover, and again on pp66-67 are good pictures of 1KRRC retreating into Ladysmith after Talana.
Rob

Here's 1KRRC on about 25th Oct 1899 with their MLM Mk II rifles. Yours may well be in the picture. You can see 1KRR stencilled onto the water bottle of one soldier. I wonder how your rifle came to be in private hands without being sold out of service? One possibility is that is was abandoned on the field of battle, taken by Boers, and recaptured by a Canadian who brought it back. Unlike Boer Mausers which have a single piece stock and are often found duffle-cut, the MLM comes apart and can fit into a kit bag.
Rob

RobAttachment 53730

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boltaction

the "England" stamp?

---

There's a thread here about that very thing...try the search up at the page top... Love the long rifle, they always seemed to be a real rifleman's rifle. You put it to the shoulder and the sights are on...

By chance is the JC mag numbered to the carbine? I had ONE out of the many that was, that was just by chance. He grabbed a mag out of the pile and it was the correct one...

There is unfortunately no serial number at all on the magazine of the JC.

Ed

I bought my first on in Victoria and when he turned to get a mag, just happened to grab the correct one...I was hoping too...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boltaction

There is unfortunately no serial number at all on the magazine of the JC.

Ed

---

Why is this a problem? It's an early mo5 and shouldn't necessarily be marked. My 1944 dated no5 doesn't have a numbered magazine either.

No, it's not a problem. I was just wondering, it used to be the first question we would ask. I don't even know if it was a standard practice or a localized thing.

No 5 mags were not marked with S/N in 44 not unless done latter by someone else but did become standard practice in around late 45 - 46 onwards until close of manufacture in late 47. The same also go's for the wooden stock just the wartime manufactures code was used such as N22 for example on 'wartime' rifles. However, so many of these rifles have been re-furbished during the post war years in service with other nations it is sometimes hard to determine what is original factory and what is re-fits done as late as the mid 60's.

Now I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gsimmons

Why is this a problem? It's an early mo5 and shouldn't necessarily be marked. My 1944 dated no5 doesn't have a numbered magazine either.

---

It's not a problem at all. I didn't say it was. It's merely "unfortunate" because a matching number on the mag would be a nice touch. The mag fits tightly and cycles well. The rifle is correctly matching, original and war dated. Not much else one can improve on with that!

Ed