1917 Mk III* (* struck out)

I don't post here much but I want to change that, so I am starting with this. This rifle was one my dad had bought at a gun show years ago for $150. It had cut down wood but still had a functioning windage rear sight as well as installed cut-off. It is a 1917 Enfield-built Mk III* with the * struck out. My dad had me restore it which I did with bits bought from Springfield Sporters. It is in an Indian DP stock set and some other Indian marked bits, but the cut-off and rear sight came with the rifle. The cut-off works well as does the windage adjustable sight. The bolt does match the receiver, the barrel is 1917 dated and the rifle shoots quite well. A couple years ago my dad sold off most of his collection but I had first pick and chose this one as well as a few other rifles. It's not perfect but it is a decent representation. The last picture is just a shot of the windage knob in relation to the offset rear sight protector for those new people who may wonder why it was offset.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...01620007-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...01620005-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...r20sight-1.jpg

I thought mag cut offs were deleted from production some time in 1916.

They were. 1916 was the transition year where the cutoff was eliminated and the windage adjustable sight was simplified but bodies with the cutoff slot were used up until stores were exhausted. Then, between the wars it changed back to Mk III and then the star was struck out. Usually this meant just a cutoff was fitted. Why this rifle retained a windage adjustable sight is beyond me, but it did have it when the rifle was purchased at a gun show in South Dakota. I am betting the sight was retrofitted after service since the old serial number was struck out and no number reapplied.

Nice restoration!
I fitted a windage adjustable rear right to my BSA No 1 Mk III too; I shoot it at the range, and it made setting it up much easier.

I should drag my 1916 Lithgow out and see if it retains the serial to the rifle maybe a weekend job it too has the mag cut off when in 1916 the were ceased I do not know maybe mine was just prior to it.

The Lithgows are a bit different on that. I would have to look in my books for the dates, but the specs were adopted differently for Lithgow rifles, that much I know.

Both Lithgow & LSA produced the MkIII with cutoff into 1918, the cutoff was neither deleted or omitted in 1916

In 1916 the MkIII had certain features such as the Volley sights, windage rear sight etc omitted from production, the MkIII still retained the cutoff, this is covered in part 1 of the LoC.
Also in 1916 the MkIII* was introduced, this is covered in part 2, this model was the same as the MkIII but without a cutoff or slot & so the modifications made to the MkIII that were listed in part1 also applied to the MkIII*

The first sentence in the LoC applies to the MkIII, you will notice it says "May embody any of the following modifications" at the bottom in part 2 on the MkIII* it says "like the MkIII, may embody the modifications"
This means after 1916 both the MkIII & the MkIII* could be made with or without any of the modifications listed in part 1 of the LoC & still be correct

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...LoC19161-1.jpg

Nice rifle Bear, good to hear from you mate.

Thanks, muffett. Trying to stretch my legs and get around to a few more forums lately. Got to get out and about a bit once in a while. :)

5thBatt, thanks for posting that. I figured someone would have it handy.

Re Post 7. Or to put it another way, the possession of volley sights, windage rear sight &c is neither here nor there in determining whether a rifle is a Mk3 or Mk3*; it is the possession or otherwise of the cut off.

It does illustrate how ambiguous some things can be worded though. As apprentices we were not permitted to use certain words during out written exams. Words like '...it can be tightened onto the shaft' were taboo. It was '..... the retaining or locking nut can be tightened on the shaft'. If something can be mis-interpreted, guess what WILL happen?

I was tasked to re-write the L2A3 Sterling EMER as a small project many years ago with strict instructions to follow the apprentices technical authorship guide lines. To illustrate the point, I saw a deliberately ambiguously written set of instructions of how to use a car jack. Interpret it the wrong(?) way and you were crushed!

Bear,

Up here in Canada, we still see quite a lot of No 1 Mk 111's with the windage adjustable rear sight.
I think if they "weren't broke don't didn't fix it" so to speak.

I bet those dial sights on the fore-end played havoc with uniforms during the Order Arms and 'Unfix Bayonets' parts of the drill movement. I wonder if this was the reason why old SD's had a reinforcing patch on the shoulder.

Many of the old UK Army Apprentices will remember that we STILL wore old pre-war serge SD's right up until 1965 or so when we gradually changed to Battle Dress and then very late on, into the then 'new' No2 Dress. Our SD's were a mixture of open and closed neck

Bear: Nice rifle and nice job getting it back in shape. That Indian forend looks right- nice and dark and a bit used. Far better for restoration than a pristine NOS piece in my opinion. Any evidence that the action body is a recycled older part? My own 1916 Enfield was built with a Mk I body which I believe was salvaged and reused.

Ridolpho

Ridolpho; No, there is no sign of the body being anything other than an original 1917 body. However, I used to own a 1916 rifle that I wish I had back because it was a salvage. It was a Mk III* from BSA. The rear sight had been replaced (struck out serial and new one matching receiver), had a 1917 barrel, had a Mk I front handguard and a Mk I nosecap (ground and numbered to the receiver). It was a very interesting piece of history.

Peter, I always appreciate your thoughts and insight! The bit about ambiguous descriptions is excellent. I have written a few technical documents in my line of work (software programmer) and the principals do carry over. It must be explained precisely or someone will muck it up. I try and use the terminology and nomenclature as best I can but I am always grateful for the guidance and corrections provided.

I have wondered if the use of the term "may embody" in the LoC of 1916 is related to the fact some MkIII*s were produced in 1915 prior to the LoC & if those MkIII*s (or some) were made with all the Volley sights etc was the LoC was worded that way so those rifles would conform

I have always considered the time of 1915-1917 to be a "never say no" period of production where the exhausting of stores, etc., makes anything possible. That is a period of time that causes the most confusion for me.

I always maintain that ambiguously worded instructions and orders are done deliberately so that afterwards, when things have gone pear shaped, those WRITING the orders can always blame the other party. While those making a mockery of those same orders by misinterpreting them can/will always have a let-out clause.

Isn't it the clause of "All care - No responsibility."

I think 5th Batt is correct - it would make sense to word the LoC as it was, if only to reflect that all sorts of permutations may arise depending on how big a stockpile of various parts the different factories had on hand at the time of the acceptance of the Mk3*& rifle; it would be foolish to reject a Mk3* rifle (no cut off) just because it had been fitted with a windage adjustable rear sight or a Mk3 rifle that lacked one, for example.

And what about the stocks of spare parts in Ordnance depots and Armourers workshops across the world. I expect that somewhere in the stores VAOS lists these sight parts were listed as obsolescent. No more being made but use up existing stocks first.

I would imagine that it would take quite some time to run through all the stores of parts to get to where the replacements received were the most current prescribed. It kind of puts it all into perspective. It does bring up a couple questions for me though. There are a lot of windage adjustable sights that were pinned. Was this done at a local level? Was there a specification issued to do so? I am just curious and want to learn :)