Interesting MLM

Hi all:
I'm curious about this Lee Metford--it is an 1892 production, Mk I*, which at some point supposedly went back for conversion to 2, I assume, as it is stamped with a "2" on the right butt socket under the I* and also on the receiver (see photos). The buttstock was presumably restamped at that time, as the roundel has a 1900 date--I can't imagine that an 1892 production receiver would otherwise be wearing a 1900 dated stock, especially since it still has the steel buttplate. However, there are a few things I don't understand about this rifle. If it was upgraded to Mk II status, it should have had the bolt changed to the later pattern without the screw on dust cover, and should have had the magazine changed to the 10 round configuration. Perhaps the front stock would have been changed as well to lose the grasping groove, but maybe not, but certainly I would have expected that second piling swivel on the front band to disappear.

So, as you can see from the photos, this is an all matching 1892 production with the 8 round magazine, early pattern stock, twin piling swivels, steel buttplate, etc, but it's got a 1900 dated stock roundel and a "2" on the receiver, unless that means something different than an upgrade?? The issue disk in the buttstock is for 1900 as well; does anyone know what regiment EK would be? :surrender:

This isn't the only somewhat odd MLM I have--I have a 1903 production one as well with all early features, but I had an excellent reply from one of our members "Down Under" who stated that there were a number of production runs done using earlier parts, including a run for NZ in 1903, but those seem to have been datestamped for when they were made. Could this be one of those later production units, using an earlier dated receiver???? Lee Metford dates?--Photos added

Thoughts?

Thanks.

Ed

Attachment 63880Attachment 63873Attachment 63875Attachment 63877Attachment 63876Attachment 63878Attachment 63879Attachment 63871Attachment 63872Attachment 63874

I have a 1892 dated LSA MLM Mk I * also with the identical 2 stamp, and I have seen several others, my rifle originated from South Africa or Zimbabwe, and I believe the No.2 denotes a (South African or Rhodesian/Zimbabwe )second class arm mark. Your rifle is a standard MLM Mk I* with a later butt.

Re. Late dated Mk I* Lee Metfords,
I don't believe any completed MK I* were assembled after 1896 at Enfield or Sparkbrook, however large amounts of spare parts were produced every year at Enfield, including barrels with body, (receivers with bolts and barrel attached or barreled actions), up to at least 1904-05, any complete rifles would have been assembled anywhere other than the RSAF's using these barrels with body and other spare parts in store.1903 dated rifles in Australia must have been assembled there from these components.

East Kent Yeomanry. A pre-Territorial Army regiment incorporated into the the new Territorial Army?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stevesmle

I have a 1892 dated LSA MLM Mk I * also with the identical 2 stamp, and I have seen several others, my rifle originated from South Africa or Zimbabwe, and I believe the No.2 denotes a (South African or Rhodesian/Zimbabwe )second class arm mark. Your rifle is a standard MLM Mk I* with a later butt.

---

Thanks Steve:
That may make more sense. Nothing else does! I thought with the "2" stamped under the I* and on the receiver ring, it must mean an upgrade to a Mk II, but nothing was upgraded, which makes zero sense. A class designation stamp could explain it for sure. Either way, it's a nice find as these early MLM's are rare.

Ed

The Birmingham roundel dated 1900 on the butt means that it was refurbished at RSARF Sparkbrook in 1900 - should not have the clearing rod groove in the fore end.
The 2 denotes a second class arm as that was what they were by 1900 even though they were used by the British in South Africa in the Boer War.

Thanks all. These are the sorts of useful tidbits of information which can only be obtained through forums like these. I assumed that the 1900 dated butt would indicate being refurbished that year, although I also assumed that the rifle would have been upgraded at the same time, but that "2" stamp had me stumped. Being in Canada, I have access to various books on Canadian military arms and I have Reynolds' "The Lee Enfield Rifle" as well as every version of Skennerton's Lee-Enfield books, but nowhere have I found a reference to 2 being a designation for a second class arm!

Cheers

Ed

The UK MIlitary had a 'SUB STANDARD' class of downgraded rifle. There was an inspection standard for them as they were fireable/useable but the only markings was a 1" wide silver band around the butt and fore-end - similar to the non-fireable DP types. The Small Arms Information sheets (the Pre EMER info for Armourers) said that this practice will not continue with the introduction of the new (No4?) rifle. Whether that meant that the category of sub-standard will cease thereafter or whether it will not follow on to include the No4 isn't clear. But the sub standard No1 inspection and the marking criteria are all in the last 1956 EMER.

What all this is leading to is that certainly Rhodesian Army Armourers (and many other REME trades) were trained at Bordon until good old Smithy declared UDI. And being users of our Ordnance system/EMER's/interchangeability and tactical doctrine I would assume that they would also use our marking system too on their sub-standard small-arms. Just a theory based on nothing more than that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Bordon

---

Here at the moment Peter, probabaly a few more courses to run before it all gets shipped to ...... but I guess its a bit different now from when or if you were ever here?

Re Bordon

If you get a chance, have a look at the Artillery barrels especially the one that is split, I think there is also a L1A1 that failed as well

I have an all original 1889 Lee Metford MkI with the Lewes Sights, the action serial number is below the wood line.

Attachment 63911Attachment 63912

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon P

Re Bordon

If you get a chance, have a look at the Artillery barrels especially the one that is split, I think there is also a L1A1 that failed as well

---

Simon,

Didn't see the Artillery barrels but seen some of the other displays regarding split, bulged barrels and fractured damaged parts etc, can't really say too much regarding the rest but enjoyed the hands on.......