I have a No I Mk III* that was given to me several years ago. It is a 1916 BSA with the s/n 6262, no prefix. Would this rifle be considered an early production rifle?
Thanks
Jon
Printable View
I have a No I Mk III* that was given to me several years ago. It is a 1916 BSA with the s/n 6262, no prefix. Would this rifle be considered an early production rifle?
Thanks
Jon
Not sure what your asking but I'll say this. The Mk III* came into being in 1916 so if that's the angle your looking at then yes. Not everyone spun over from MkIII to Mk III* on a specific date but the Brits moved over as quickly as feasible. If your looking at SMLEs in general than I would not consider a 1916 rifle to be early.
Thanks P264. I guess what I'm trying to ascertain is, is it an early production No I Mk III* model? I know it was preceeded by the Mk III. What I'm trying to get at is this: using Stratton's book for parts ID. He'll say "........on Mk III and early Mk III*.................". Does that make sense to what I'm asking? Should it have the rounded cocking knob? The trigger guard/housing has the swivel boss in front of the trigger guard and is cut for the little piece riveted to the magazine. Would/could that piece be correct or does it need to be replaced? It's been rebuilt at least once. The upper wood is English walnut and has the proper British stamps but the fore end and butt stock are either Australian Coachwood or Queensland maple.
Thanks
Jon
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...60f591f8-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...08012fef-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...22e15571-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...c38b759e-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...bb06f762-1.jpg
In my opinion any first year production ((1916 British manufactured) MK III* would be considered early production. Keep in mind many were rearsenaled and lost many or some of their original parts. Is yours still in full wood or did it get sporterized. Pics are always welcome.
---------- Post added at 08:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:33 PM ----------
Ah thanks for the pics, how bout an overall of that old girl
The Mk III* was being produced by both BSA and Enfield in late 1915. They are the only arsenals that produced both the Mk.III and Mk.III* in that year. What I would consider one of the more difficult rifles to find is a 1916 Mk.III...no *
I have a BSA & Co Mk3* with cutoff slot from 1917, from what I have observed, BSA were knocking out Mk3* guns with and without the cut off slot upto that year. What I need to check is if it's marked as MkIII or MkIII*. What ever it's marked as, I'm sure it left the factory as a MkIII*.
Many of the Mk3 & 3* rifles being sold in the UK over the last few years are from ex Naval stores & were provided to the Italian Navy, prior to being surplussed. The RN seemed to dislike the absence of the mag cut-off on the Mk3* & retro-modified its rifles back to Mk3 in the inter-war period. I have several 'Mk3' rifles with cut-offs that date from 1917 & 1918. Of course they left the factory as 3*'s but were subsequently modified back, with the '*' on the butt socket being barred out. Most of them also bear a 'N' Naval property stamp on the L side of the butt socket near the safety.
I seem to recall reading the initial intent was to post-WWI return the rifles back to No. 1 Mk. 3 standard. After WWI they restarted production of No. 1 Mk. 3s just without the volley sights.
Did I read correctly? Is the rifle an English rifle and have Australian wood? That would make it at least a rebuild if not a put together later. I'd just leave it alone for now. You can't increase the value by cobbling together an "Original"...
It's so hard to figure out what's service related or what's been swapped out and changed in 70 odd years of public ownership.
If its seen Australian service (coachwood is a strong sign it has) then you would expect to see the typical Aussie markings on the butt.
I would imagine among the ex Italian Navy examples, there must be some really good original sleepers.
Astonishing they kept them in store for so long really, the Italians clearly arn't fans of the spring clean!
The Brits returned the same No of rifles after WW1 that Australia sent them at the beginning. These rifles were rebuilt and returned to stores, this means there are British rifles with Australian furniture and other parts with Aussie marks, that rifle maybe one of those. The Butt will have the rifles history stamped in it so photos of the markings will tell us. I should also say that Aussie troops also came home with Brit rifles on their shoulders.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
There are indeed some very nice rifles amongst the 'Italian' batch. I am very fortunate that one of the bigger dealers (no names mentioned but they sell most of their stuff deactivated), now & then allows me to go through his supplies to select nice examples. I picked up a 1905 Mk1*** to Mk3 conversion a couple of years ago, as well as one of the first FE prefix No5's off the production line shortly after. I've known the proprietor for thirty-odd years so he trusts me enough to leave me in the cellar with 500 Enfields & to pick out what I want in my own time. I even get a cup of coffee brought down to me periodically! I suppose it's a sort of Enfield heaven! Just a shame that you know all along that nearly all of the rifles which you don't buy are going to get chopped up!
But to stick to the OP's posting - he has a nice complete fairly early Mk3* by BSA. It's all there & a nice looking rifle, even if it has been re-stocked & acquired some black protective paint in places at some point in the past - it was well worth what he paid for it!
Absolutely agreed and understood. Nothing wrong there either...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindi2
It was given to me by a very good friend of mine several years ago. No money changed hands. Cheap is good but free is better. As it sits, with my reloads it will group under 2" all day long at 100 yards as long as I do my part. Not sure trying to "accurize" it will do much good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
Jon
---------- Post added at 07:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:40 PM ----------
Unfortunately, there are no stampings whatsoever on the butt stock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindi2
Jon
Unfortunately, there are no stampings whatsoever on the butt stock.
Jon[/QUOTE]
Has it been sanded back. The wood should be proud of all metal not flush or the metal proud.
It doesn't appear to have been sanded. The grain is not smooth as if sanded or handled a lot. I'm thinking maybe modern replacement wood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindi2
Jon
It sure looks to have been sanded and covered with something...