-
1918 Enfield Small Arms Factory made SMLE No.1 Mk.III* converted back to No.1 Mk.III
-
I'm not sure that the numbers/letters on the bolt and nose are those put there at Enfield! Look far, far to modern format to me.......... Others might have other views
-
Interesting, how about the stock stamp below the front bayonet boss? I think the rifle was refitted with the mag cutoff and new stock in 1944, maybe they fitted a new bolt and nose cap at that time, as there appears to be a 44 proof stamp on the left side of the receiver.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peter Laidler
I'm not sure that the numbers/letters on the bolt and nose are those put there at Enfield! Look far, far to modern format to me.......... Others might have other views
-
owengun: Interesting rifle. Have you pulled the wood off to look at the markings on the barrel? Quite a history of trips back to the factory in evidence on the left cheek. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't re-proof for a bolt change (which was often done by field armourers) so maybe the barrel was replaced. You mention blueing but in the photos, to my eye, it looks like some kind of parkerizing. Maybe some more knowledgible type can comment on parkerizing during refurb in Great Britain. Finally, weren't '18 Enfield SMLE's manufactured without cutoff slot? That leads to another question: were cutoff slots milled in Factory repair post WW1? Is there any chance the original date is 1916? Threads like this are great as they usually help me ratchet my way a tiny little bit further up the learning curve.
Ridolpho
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ridolpho
owengun: Interesting rifle. Have you pulled the wood off to look at the markings on the barrel? Quite a history of trips back to the factory in evidence on the left cheek. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't re-proof for a bolt change (which was often done by field armourers) so maybe the barrel was replaced. You mention blueing but in the photos, to my eye, it looks like some kind of parkerizing. Maybe some more knowledgible type can comment on parkerizing during refurb in Great Britain. Finally, weren't '18 Enfield SMLE's manufactured without cutoff slot? That leads to another question: were cutoff slots milled in Factory repair post WW1? Is there any chance the original date is 1916? Threads like this are great as they usually help me ratchet my way a tiny little bit further up the learning curve.
Ridolpho
I haven't taken any of the wood off yet but will take the top wood off the rear of the barrel and take some more pictures.
From what I have always understood was that the original metal finish on the British military issue, WWI-era SMLEs was just the black oil quenched surface treatment finish and not the high gloss rust bluing of their commercial versions. Parkerising is more of a rough and grey treatment that was done during WW2.
It is indeed clearly 1918 dated on the socket, some manufacturers were still milling the slot for the mag cutoff after they were omitted with the Mk.III* model but post WW1 they went back to using them until they settled on the No.4 Mk.1 rifles. Even some of the very first No.4's had mag cutoffs fitted.
-
Well I took the top wood off and took some more pictures, it appears that the barrel was replaced by BSA as it has a small BSA logo stamped on it that I missed the first time I took my photo's.
The matching serial number stamped on the barrel is the same font as the bolt and nose cap so it appears that BSA was responsible for refitting this Mk.III rifle out post 1918.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...4697ceb8-1.jpghttps://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...669a10f4-1.jpghttps://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...3522dc0b-1.jpghttps://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...811f9ac9-1.jpghttps://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...c33c0710-1.jpghttps://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...3135d9e1-1.jpghttps://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...72984e3f-1.jpg
-
I don't think that finish is original 1918, it looks to me like its been bead blasted, the finish is very rough, and in my experience sight leaves were left bright. The bolt and nose cap stampings look a bit light and fresh to me as well. The clincher for me is the tip of the for end near the piling swivel has no serial number, a properly matching SMLE has a SN there.
The woodwork looks to me like the Late/Post WW2 SMLE spare woodwork produced by RSAF Enfield and is the only new old stock wood on the market for SMLE's
A recent post mentioned that the Indian army re installed cutoffs in to Sht Le III's RSAF Enfield certainly was not using cutoffs in 1918 and the supply of old actions would have bee used up by then.
The British liked their bayonets bright too, so the sun glinting off them would strike fear in their foe. (at least one ww1 attack was made at sunrise rather than first light because of this)
My 2c is that it has been refurbished in civilian life from a sporter with a load of new parts on it. but saying that, it has been beautifully done and i'd be happy to have it in my safe as its about as close to having a new SMLE as you can get. And as one of our Gurus say, with Enfields anything is possible.
Added.
Thats a BSA commercial barrel not a military issue, (you could buy a BSA SMLE from any outfitters for may years)
The 5's on the barrel have curved tops the ones on the nose cap and bolt don't.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Roy
I don't think that finish is original 1918, it looks to me like its been bead blasted, the finish is very rough, and in my experience sight leaves were left bright. The bolt and nose cap stampings look a bit light and fresh to me as well. The clincher for me is the tip of the for end near the piling swivel has no serial number, a properly matching SMLE has a SN there.
The woodwork looks to me like the Late/Post WW2 SMLE spare woodwork produced by RSAF Enfield and is the only new old stock wood on the market for SMLE's
A recent post mentioned that the Indian army re installed cutoffs in to Sht Le III's RSAF Enfield certainly was not using cutoffs in 1918 and the supply of old actions would have bee used up by then.
The British liked their bayonets bright too, so the sun glinting off them would strike fear in their foe. (at least one ww1 attack was made at sunrise rather than first light because of this)
My 2c is that it has been refurbished in civilian life from a sporter with a load of new parts on it. but saying that, it has been beautifully done and i'd be happy to have it in my safe as its about as close to having a new SMLE as you can get. And as one of our Gurus say, with Enfields anything is possible.
Added.
Thats a BSA commercial barrel not a military issue, (you could buy a BSA SMLE from any outfitters for may years)
The 5's on the barrel have curved tops the ones on the nose cap and bolt don't.
Thank you for your very informative post, this is why I posted pictures of it so those far more knowledgeable than myself may enlighten myself with their vast knowledge, and yes it is a very nice rifle.
Can you please explain why BSA would stamp a commercial barrel with the military broad arrow/crows foot marking?
The Broad Arrow
-
The last posters well thought out explanations leaves me with more questions than answers, so as a follow up to my last, was enfield still making and using late/post WW2 fore end wood with provision for the mag cutoff? I would have thought that they would have been making only wood work to cover up the slot as it was implied they did not use this feature anymore and only the Indians did?
Does this rifle look bead blasted to others like the above poster says? it appears finely and smooth finished to me, but I'm not a authority on these rifles by any means.
-
Well spotted Owengun, yes that is a military broad arrow on a BSA commercial barrel, something I have not seen before. RSAF Enfield were making spare woodwork with provision for the mag cutoff so that it would fit any model of SMLE, Even in 1940 BSA were using cutoffs, the elimination of the cutoff was a WW1 concession and was to be resumed once the war was over. 1940 BSA No1 MK III - Pre-dispersal? is a rifle to compare yours to. I do note the commercial BSA mark. With enfields you are always learning.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Roy
Well spotted Owengun, yes that is a military broad arrow on a BSA commercial barrel, something I have not seen before. RSAF Enfield were making spare woodwork with provision for the mag cutoff so that it would fit any model of SMLE, Even in 1940 BSA were using cutoffs, the elimination of the cutoff was a WW1 concession and was to be resumed once the war was over.
1940 BSA No1 MK III - Pre-dispersal? is a rifle to compare yours to. I do note the commercial BSA mark. With enfields you are always learning.
So maybe it was not a sporter rebuilt and put together by someone from parts in his garage and it could possibly be a BSA factory refitted rifle done post war for some reason unknown now? The serial number font on the barrel is exactly the same as the font stamped on the bolt and nose cap!
Also post war bayonets when rebuilt were given a blued all over finish, including the blade, they found it was not good to let the enemy know you were about to go over the top by flashing your shiny blades at them first. When I was in the army all of our bayonets had dark finished blades except the parade ones.
-
Is the font the same though?
-
No, the 4 on the barrel and the nose cap are vastly different.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Homer
Is the font the same though?
The font on the bolt handle, nose cap and barrel look the same to me, all have a H prefix like this (H) and the 4 & 5 in the serial like this (4 & 5 ) the recevier and front site have a H font like this - H and a 4 & 5 more like this - 4 & 5
-
The barrel and bolt are the same but the nosecap is different.
-
This 4
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...b17e9466-1.jpg
and this 4
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...1241968e-1.jpg
and this 4 look the same to me
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...032b650f-1.jpg
But heh, I only have the rifle in front of me so maybe I am wrong, and possibly the guy who put it together from a sporter and parts would have used maybe 2 different stamp sets to make it look that way for some stranger than fiction reason and to give everybody something off topic to talk about.
Lets all just for sh*ts and giggles suppose for a minute it was BSA who fitted the new bolt, nose cap and barrel at the same time they refitted it post war rather than the rebuilt in a garage from parts scenario, it does after all make sense seeing as the barrel's bore is also like new.
-
I didn't say it was put together although I did contemplate whether that maybe the case. Even if the nosecap was different style/font, it wouldn't necessarily mean it was put together anyway. I only questioned whether the nosecap style of numbering was the same as the other replaced parts. From those photos it does look a little different to me.
But you are right, you are sitting right in front of the rifle. Just remember that when you post, you open yourself up to comments and discussion about your rifle. That's the point isn't it, and there are some very experienced Enfield enthusiast here, as well as a few commonwealth armorers.
-
I decided to do some searching myself online about BSA refurb SMLE rifles and found a lot of info from many website/forum sources who state that BSA was during full FTR of SMLE's until at least 1954 and found this below info on other website forums, BTW my barrel has a 53 stamped on the left side that most probably means it was replaced by BSA in 1953 -
"The UK depot and armourers' system carried on repairing No1s into the 1960s. The rifle was actually obsolete in military service since 1945, and the "official" repairs only applied to No1s held by cadet forces and some units where the rifles were expendable - e.g. Sandhurst used SMLEs for swin test training as late as the 1980s.
The last actual government "FTR" or factory build for no1 rifles was the final, 1945, run of BSA "Dispersal" rifles. These last UK-produced No1s appear to use scrubbed receivers and other "use up" parts. Not much is known about this production, but at this time UK was handing over No1s to Australia, India, other commonwealth users - and as military aid to recently liberated countries (Austria, Greece, Italy, France, etc).
Your rifle was part of an "FTR" programme carried out by BSA in 1953/4. It is thought that this was a purely commercial FTR programme, with the rifles possibly being bought and distributed by the Foreign/Colonial office - ie not part of UK military funding."
And
"It appears as though BSA embarked on a large FTR program of No1's in 1953, there is conjecture as to why, popular thought is they where destined for far flung parts of the Commonwealth, but for reasons unknown it never happened. They where never used in the UK in a military role of any sort, not even for cadets apparently."
And
"Despite the Dunkirk myths, Britain was actually awash with rifles in 1940. About 2.7 million No1s survived WW1, out of the c.4 million produced. In the 1920s, a big refurbishment and inspection programme was carried out, leaving about 2.1 million new or mint condition rifles in store, with the remainder broken up for spare parts. An additional 250,000 P14s were also in store, although thousands of these were sent off to other countries as military aid (eg the Baltic states). Apart from the rifles used in France, North Africa, and the Far East, the majority of British No1 stocks would still have been in mint condition when they were handed over to India and Australia.
Sparkbrooke disappeared even before WW1. All WW2 British production and repair of No1s came from BSA - of No1 MkIIIs until 1940, and then "Dispersal" No1 MkIII*s thereafter. BSA also carried out a very large FTR programme in 1953. Its thought that this was a Foreign & Colonial Office contract in order to send new condition rifles out to various colonies."
And
"I'm not saying BSA necessarily re-installed missing cut-offs during the 53 FTR (although I actually think that might be a distinct possibility, given BSA's inclination to quality and "completeness"), but pointing out that cut-offs were re-installed en masse during official Britishicon military refurbishments of the 1920s, and that the cut-off remained part of the rifle spec until at least 1941 (e.g. BSA's production of the last full-spec British military No1s). Most of the No1 MkIIIs that BSA procured would have had cut-offs (indeed, most of them would have been "star barred out" rifles), and these would mostly have been FTR'd and sent out with the cut-offs in situ.
I think post-war EMER's do not contain any reference to the cut-off, as by then the whole No1 rifle was officially obsolescent, and its maintenance programme was simply adjusted down to a basic make-do/patch-up level as stocks ran out. If, by contrast, the in-service rifle (the No4) had had a cut-off, then the EMERs would have had specific instructions about the cut-off, its retention or removal, and any related stocking-up issues."
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Homer
I didn't say it was put together although I did contemplate whether that maybe the case. Even if the nosecap was different style/font, it wouldn't necessarily mean it was put together anyway. I only questioned whether the nosecap style of numbering was the same as the other replaced parts. From those photos it does look a little different to me.
But you are right, you are sitting right in front of the rifle. Just remember that when you post, you open yourself up to comments and discussion about your rifle. That's the point isn't it, and there are some very experienced Enfield enthusiast here, as well as a few commonwealth armorers.
No problem, others did and my comment was more directed at that, It was getting a bit frustrating but I kind of found it funny how all these opinions came out of left field, I do have a good sense of humour.
Also in everyone's defence sometimes if the photos are taken at different angles it makes it hard for the people who look at them to see what I see the same.
BTW, I served in the Army for 12 years and worked in both the Ordnance Corps and RAEME and handled, observed and worked on many hundreds of small arms including Lee Enfields so I am not a Johnny come lately either.
-
As Homer said 'You are sitting with the rifle in front of you' What you can see can be different from what comes through a photo, I never knew of the major BSA commercial rebuild programme and would like to see another BSA rebuilt rifle displaying the same finish to compare it to. There are still odd things about the rifle to my eyes, which are those of a collector, mainly familiar with SMLE's in New Zealand which mainly are late ww1 and never went back to England
-
Yes I think most would be aware of the FTR program's post war and into the 50's. Were they not all engraved on the receiver to indicate this? What about forend numbering?
-
Were you a RAEMEArmourer Owen Gun? When and where? So was I.
It is simplcity itself to convert a high sided fore-end to a cut-off fore-end. We did similar things almost every day with the No4Mk1 and 1* type fore-ends to suit what we had Just cut the section out and make good! But in UK and Aust. Military service we would NEVER retro modify something*. It is a pointless exercise. When something is obsolescent, you use it until the item or parts to repair it are NLA, which as an Ordnance man familiar with the VAOS system, you'll know indicates No Longer Available or ultil the WSE initials crop up on the Ordnance return - When Stocks Exhausted. As for the continued manufacture of bodies with the cut-off slot, you must remember this. During the relaxation criteria for parts manufacture. if a manufacturer uses the slot during his manufacturing/machining process as a datum point, mark or fixture, then he can retain it. Much like the flutes in a Bren gas cylinder or the hole in a No4 bolt. Both obsolescent but continued to be produced like that until...........
You can believe what you like but I'll tell it like it is. The rifle ain't not original or factory fresh and they ain't not factory stamp numbers. A quick check with a micrometer will confirm this
(* I did it once on a Sten gun simply to make it look original/unmodified for display purposes)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Homer
Yes I think most would be aware of the FTR program's post war and into the 50's. Were they not all engraved on the receiver to indicate this? What about forend numbering?
I don't know but if it was done on the scale that is implied in other forums others will know and chime in I hope.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peter Laidler
Were you a RAEMEArmourer Owen Gun? When and where? So was I.
It is simplcity itself to convert a high sided fore-end to a cut-off fore-end. We did similar things almost every day with the No4Mk1 and 1* type fore-ends to suit what we had Just cut the section out and make good! But in UK and Aust. Military service we would NEVER retro modify something*. It is a pointless exercise. When something is obsolescent, you use it until the item or parts to repair it are NLA, which as an Ordnance man familiar with the VAOS system, you'll know indicates No Longer Available or ultil the WSE initials crop up on the Ordnance return - When Stocks Exhausted. As for the continued manufacture of bodies with the cut-off slot, you must remember this. During the relaxation criteria for parts manufacture. if a manufacturer uses the slot during his manufacturing/machining process as a datum point, mark or fixture, then he can retain it. Much like the flutes in a Bren gas cylinder or the hole in a No4 bolt. Both obsolescent but continued to be produced like that until...........
You can believe what you like but I'll tell it like it is. The rifle ain't not original or factory fresh and they ain't not factory stamp numbers. A quick check with a micrometer will confirm this
(* I did it once on a Sten gun simply to make it look original/unmodified for display purposes)
I served in the 1980's through to the 1990's at 21st Supply Bn & SME, 5th base workshops among others.
I know that the stock can be cut easily to fit, the funny thing is while everybody is coming out with wild theories about the rifles providence, I never asked for such as I was quite happy with it as it is, especially considering with the low price I paid for it. My reason for posting pictures of it was to show that these rifles are still around to be found in good nick and was inviting other to showcase their ones.
I never thought that it would cause a fuss, and as most knowledgeable collectors of Lee Enfields should know there are too many unknown variables out there for anybody to attempt to make definitive statements on how they were all made or refitted. I myself choose to believe that this rifle is a post war BSA refit of a Enfield made SMLE rifle, I never tried to pass it off as a genuine, all original from factory by Enfield Mk.III, unlike what others are insinuating I have and I invite all to show me were in this post that I did, I have been careful to say it was a post war refit right from the start. I did not care who refitted it as long as it was done while in the system.
I choose to only believe in the facts as they stand in front of me, I am not trying to make things up that are speculation only.
Lets all now move on from this aspect and direct future comments with these facts now in mind.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
owengun
I served in the Army for 12 years
Yes, many of us did and not just a few years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
owengun
all these opinions came out of left field
Not really, you asked...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
owengun
I never thought that it would cause a fuss
I don't think there's any fuss, you seem to want us to confirm your beliefs and now the senior armorer (just about anywhere) has instead told us how it is. But you can believe a 1918 rifle can still show up in as new condition if you wish. Don't get hot about it, you aren't the first to do that here. Yes, we like the looks of your rifle. Most of us would love to have it as is...
-
BSA FTR rifles done in the 1950's sport a big date and FTR engraved on the left right side of the body. I've seen many of them. I'd say yours is restored with nos woodwork. Nice rifle nevertheless. Enjoy.
---------- Post added at 11:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 AM ----------
Oops, should read: left front
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
browningautorifle
Yes, many of us did and not just a few years.
Not really, you asked...
I don't think there's any fuss, you seem to want us to confirm your beliefs and now the senior armorer (just about anywhere) has instead told us how it is. But you can believe a 1918 rifle can still show up in as new condition if you wish. Don't get hot about it, you aren't the first to do that here. Yes, we like the looks of your rifle. Most of us would love to have it as is...
I not getting hot at all, cool as a cucumber actually and while I know should be deferring to posters here who have more military time in service and therefore are by default more knowledgeable on these rifles.
I still have this problem with how the facts present themselves squarely in my face, so I just happened to have one of these definitive 1953 BSA FTR'd SMLE's in my collection, so I pulled my almost the same condition originally BSA made in 1917 and then re-barrelled/rebuilt and clearly marked as FTR'd by them in 1953 from my gun safe to double check again.
Well strike me pink!, who would have thought that it has the same 53 over a broad arrow on the left side as the above posted rifle and funny enough it also has a new serial numbered bolt, barrel and nose cap with the use of the same as London to a brick font stamp as on the original posted rifle, I be stuffed!
Fair suck of the sav! , How could this be? it clearly fly's against all the most learned wisdom previously presented logically before me in posts above.
Anyhow lets let this craziness die and move on, I don't want to argue anymore and if most people here do not, for what ever reason, want to believe it is a BSA 1953 FTR SMLE then so be it. What ever the majority want to believe it is I will go with and from then on forward will label it as such.
Anyhow for everybody's pleasure I submit these pictures of my originally made in 1917 and the FTR'd by BSA in 1953 SMLE Mk. III*
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...f39c0bf8-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...cdde1b74-1.jpghttps://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...bc777241-1.jpghttps://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...3b58fea9-1.jpghttps://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...cdad14e3-1.jpghttps://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...8b423b61-1.jpghttps://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...b8f1c94a-1.jpghttps://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...4bf1b887-1.jpghttps://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...c6b89ac8-1.jpghttps://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...26ff337d-1.jpghttps://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...9a5eb5cb-1.jpg
Also I also happen to have another excellent almost new condition BSA 1918 Mk.III FTR, so it is not like I am coming from left field with my thoughts of what this original posted rifle appears to be to myself, I guess owning 3 excellent condition post war BSA FTR SMLE gives me a little lee way in why I am making the statements I have. I have a collection of nearly 20 Lee Enfields and am not trying to convince anybody of anything I can not back up.
---------- Post added at 03:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 PM ----------
BTW the above 1917 rifle has a mix of walnut and beech stock work.
-
No FTR marking on the first rifle...and the finish is completely different. This one's a paint over after and the first is just blue. How do you say they're the same? You can't possibly think the same numbers have been used between one rifle and the next...if you want to move on, go ahead...I'm just curious. Doesn't matter how long your...I mean how many rifles you have.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
browningautorifle
No FTR marking on the first rifle...and the finish is completely different. This one's a paint over after and the first is just blue. How do you say they're the same? You can't possibly think the same numbers have been used between one rifle and the next...if you want to move on, go ahead...I'm just curious. Doesn't matter how long your...I mean how many rifles you have.
I probably should have mentioned in the first post that the seller told me there was a chance that this (whatever the masses think) rifle was previously owned by Winston Churchhill and from his personal collection.
---------- Post added at 03:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:09 PM ----------
I have now think I have worked out what is happening here!
I think the problem with this rifle is that there may be some Jelly involved!
-
I didn't know Winston C did restorations. Something else I have to keep an eye out for now!;)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
owengun
I have now think I have worked out what is happening here!
Yes...you didn't quite get the reaction you wished for. And you're embarrassed. And don't get the jelly on your keyboard.
-
The OP rifle is a recent civilian rebuild, possibly of a sported No1 (hence missing nosecap). Very nicely done, but clearly different from a BSA FTR.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Thunderbox
The OP rifle is a recent civilian rebuild, possibly of a sported No1 (hence missing nosecap). Very nicely done, but clearly different from a BSA FTR.
Would 1953 still be considered recent?
---------- Post added at 05:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:28 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Father Ted
I didn't know Winston C did restorations. Something else I have to keep an eye out for now!;)
No, he didn't do the restoration, that's just silly talk, it was his butler who did it from a sporter he picked up at a gunshow then put together with assorted parts in his basement workshop.
-
It seems this thread hasn't gone particularly well.
Owengun I don't think anyone here gets pleasure in trying to prove your rifle is not an authentic 1953 FTR. Some of us, including myself just like discussing these things out of our own interest/curiosities and its assumed I think, because you've posted photos, you'd be open to this.
So for my curiosity, to you if you care to comment, and the other contributors, I ask this. Were all the BSA 1953 FTR's engraved to indicate this on the action?
-
On a purely practical note, I would imagine that they WOULD be marked Homer. I say this because while the BSA FTR'd rifles weren't for the UK Military, they were being done for someone, very probably post war emerging nations wishing to re-arm with good ex military weaponry. As such it'd be beneficial to see that their new weapons, albeit that some were very old in fact, were in fact factory FTR fresh. And what better than from the specialised rifle factory that made a good proportion of them in the first place. A FTR'd rifle was rebuilt to give a further 80% life
After the war, Westley Richards (WR) gained a reputation as THE place to go to for FTR'd Bren guns, for those governments wanting 'new' Brens. WR made a point of sending every FTR'd Bren out in a repainted chest visibly marked with their name and address for all buyers to see.
'new' Brens were impossible to obtain in thelate 40's/early 50's when these nations wanted them because guns from Enfield* were being produced for Korea so WR had a captive audience with their FTR'd guns. WR also pioneered the conversion of fitting Mk2 backsights to drum sighted Mk1 guns.
* Inglis and Lithgow were required to cease production of complete guns immediately due to licensing agreements
Just as an afterthought, when the UK MoD were formulating the current L59 and 60 DP programme for the No4 and No1 rifles still in Cadet Forces and training roles, one of the big stumbling blocks for the No1 rifle was the jigs required to clamp the bodies for the machining process. There were just sooooo many minor variables, even from the samples obtained as test pieces, that after a few false starts, the No1/L60 project was cancelled. And the L60 designation handed over to the DP L1A1. There, another bit of useless Enfield info.........
-
Several of my friends own Winston Churchill's C96 Mauser Pistols, the one he lost near Colenso.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Homer
It seems this thread hasn't gone particularly well.
Owengun I don't think anyone here gets pleasure in trying to prove your rifle is not an authentic 1953 FTR. Some of us, including myself just like discussing these things out of our own interest/curiosities and its assumed I think, because you've posted photos, you'd be open to this.
So for my curiosity, to you if you care to comment, and the other contributors, I ask this. Were all the BSA 1953 FTR's engraved to indicate this on the action?
Honestly I have not been getting upset or embarrassed about the confusion that this particular rifle is generating, it has been more humorous if anything to me. The thing that amazes me is I never was asking about what this rifle was but only offering to show this new to me example of a nice SMLE and that they are still out there to find, but almost from the start everybody starting trying to make it out as a fake and or backyard put together rifle from gunshow acquired sporters/parts (that I can not understand completely why) which it to me is clearly not as I have now have 3 pristine post war BSA FTR example SMLE's and have seen quite a few more that I have not acquired to compare.
I should post pictures of some of my pristine No.4's and see if the same happens, especially the ones that came directly from a ex Canadian Weapons tech's collection and see how many can tell me how they were sporters restored from parts!;)
From my observations of these many post war BSA rebuilds I have noticed that all have been restocked to varying degrees, most have had their barrels replaced with a new BSA marked barrel (all so far around 1953), most also have had their bolts replaced with a brand new BSA bolt, same with nose cap and all have had all these parts re-stamped with the original rifles serial number.
Also while the majority have been painted black (Suncorited) some have been refinished in the oil blacken treatment common for wartime BSA rifles and so far only the ones that were painted black are marked FTR 1953 on the receiver.
While I never attempt to proscribe myself as an expert on anything, let alone Enfield rifles it seems that this is not the case with all.
I am happy to answer questions about the observable facts about this rifle I will refrain from now on to replying to posters unproven assumption's.
So going forward, if posters have other statements to make about this rifles heritage please follow it up with some form of checkable proof of such rather than proclamations of their personal belief's or assumptions which only detract from what this site should be about, FACTS and not quesstimations! guesstimation - Wiktionary
-
Just to add here is a picture of some of the other SMLE in the Mk.III Enfield original sellers family collection, as you can see they have more than one nice SMLE, he must have a monopoly on the market of SMLE replacement wood -
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...0259b284-1.jpg
-
owengun: One of the negative aspects of the internet is the proliferation of un-refereed statements or assertions. What attracts many to Milsurps is the feedback and polite, informative debate that exists here. People wishing to learn about specific rifles can come here and find the next best thing to peer reviewed publications. You must admit you did make some assertions in the opening post which did prove to be somewhat less than accurate and which could be misleading to future users if unchallenged. You should, indeed, post some of your other rifles here and continue to take part in the process- both learning and contributing.
Ridolpho
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ridolpho
owengun: One of the negative aspects of the internet is the proliferation of un-refereed statements or assertions. What attracts many to Milsurps is the feedback and polite, informative debate that exists here. People wishing to learn about specific rifles can come here and find the next best thing to peer reviewed publications. You must admit you did make some assertions in the opening post which did prove to be somewhat less than accurate and which could be misleading to future users if unchallenged. You should, indeed, post some of your other rifles here and continue to take part in the process- both learning and contributing.
Ridolpho
No problem, was I never polite (maybe not by Canadian standards)?
What did I state that is misleading or less than accurate? I thought I laid everything out as I saw it, I never asked for what it is,was or could be, I even backed everything I said with lots of pictures.
Is it not a 1918 made and manufactured by Enfield Mk.III* refitted to Mk.III status postwar FTR and then later determined to be done by BSA in 1953 after removal of top wood?
My feelings are not hurt, I'm an old school non-snag Aussie who doesn't get embarrassed, put off or pushed around easily with a good sense of dry humour.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
owengun
he must have a monopoly on the market of SMLE replacement wood -
rl]
A couple people in the states must have bought a shipping container full of them. 2 years ago on EBay, two different sellers in California were listing about one per day for what felt like a year (I know hardly a shipping container). Same late enfield stamps the that are on your forend. I just wish I bought more than one :(
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Father Ted
A couple people in the states must have bought a shipping container full of them. 2 years ago on EBay, two different sellers in California were listing about one per day for what felt like a year (I know hardly a shipping container). Same late enfield stamps the that are on your forend. I just wish I bought more than one :(
Would it be too much to ask for a picture of these stamps on your quoted forend to confirm that they are the same? you know just so it is not only me making statements with verifiable pictures.
-
these were being offered as NOS forends. Now that I have dug it out of hiding I see it has only two stamps: broad ^ and the enfield ED
cheers
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...4/09/640-1.jpg
*** not sure if these were somehow repro's snd someone owned a stamped set, but one of the two venders had a handful that were mk3 but the volley sight looked freshly routed. I got that one for $80, sometimes they went above $150.
Cheers
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Father Ted
these were being offered as NOS forends. Now that I have dug it out of hiding I see it has only two stamps: broad ^ and the enfield ED
cheers
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...4/09/640-1.jpg
*** not sure if these were somehow repro's snd someone owned a stamped set, but one of the two venders had a handful that were mk3 but the volley sight looked freshly routed. I got that one for $80, sometimes they went above $150.
Cheers
Thanks for the pictures, close but not exactly the same stamps as my posted Mk.III. Where is the crown military acceptance stamp? Does anybody know what 9/l\9 means?
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...a19c7f5c-1.jpg
There is a guy in Canada who also makes up SMLE stocks but uses American Walnut as English walnut like my Mk.III has is very expensive and hard to get nowdays. It is a bit hard to tell from your pictures but what type of wood does it appear to be? if they are recent made up versions and are walnut I suspect them to be commonly available American walnut - English Walnut | The Wood Database - Lumber Identification (Hardwoods)
Those SMLE stocks if original must be very old NOS specimens previously long hidden in some warehouse as the Brit's and others (except the Pakistanis) switched to other more commonly available but not as desirable hardwood's during the war.
Was that vendor also selling NOS matching wood top guards and butt stocks like my Enfield has to complete a all matching set?
Once again thanks for taking the time to post pictures to convey what you thought were the same stamps.
-
Can't recall if they were selling handguards and butts. The only other stamps this one has is a 5L at tip, J in barrel channel as well as 3 and something else in channel. Appears to be walnut but definitely not American.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Father Ted
Can't recall if they were selling handguards and butts. The only other stamps this one has is a 5L at tip, J in barrel channel as well as 3 and something else in channel. Appears to be walnut but definitely not American.
Probably genuine NOS English walnut wood then that was not stamped as accepted into service yet until it got it's final fitting. I will not be stripping mine down to find any other marks until after I shoot it first, don't like stripping these Enfields before I get a chance to see how they shoot first.
-
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
owengun
Probably genuine NOS English walnut wood then that was not stamped as accepted into service yet until it got it's final fitting. I will not be stripping mine down to find any other marks until after I shoot it first, don't like stripping these Enfields before I get a chance to see how they shoot first.
Yes this one requires fitting, and even after a preservative linseed coat it still retains a "storage" smell similar to surplus slings or scabbards. I prefer to strip every enfield before I shoot it to make sure draws are serviceable or on their last leg. Just my .02 :)
Cheers
-
1 Attachment(s)
This NOS stock came from EFD rifles in 2010, I was in Blighty and visited them in Kent to pick up a Sht LE 1 stock, I was offered the NOS one for 20 quid. their price has increased considerably since then!
My .22 trainer lives in it now
-
There ya go...yes, they're around. Now we see the replacement wood is scattered world wide...not hard to find. There's a man near Ottawa that specializes in rebuilding #1 Mk3...5th Batt's looks to be marked for N/Z though.
-
Full set on eBay right now. Item #
281438055757
Paste it in search. A few of these have sold recently. This isn't the seller I bought mine from but this seller is in same location as the other seller back then which had a stack of them as well; safe to say probably the same guy. They are definitely floating around.
-
Thanks father,
Wow, He sold one last month in auction for $520 USD, not much less than what I paid for my rifle.
"Best stock set I've ever seen!! Fast o/s postage!! Thank you so much!! A++++++++ Buyer:
i***u ( 42Yellow star icon for feedback score in between 10 to 49)
Past 1 month
Lee Enfield Rifle SMLE Furniture Wood Stock Set No.1 Mklll Mk3 plus Brass Disk (#281408623576) US $520.00
-
Here in NZ there is a SMLE top wood set bid up to over $200NZ! Ive seen these NOS EFD stocks inletted for volley sights so I'm sure some less knowledgable people are join going to get duped.
-
Maybe I should make some quick coin and break my ex-sporter down and sell the individual parts and wood for double what I paid. :madsmile:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
owengun
Maybe I should make some quick coin and break my ex-sporter down and sell the individual parts and wood for double what I paid. :madsmile:
You wouldn't be the first!
