Lee Enfield Cond IV

I saw this rifle, it seem to me a bit strange. How do you think about?

http://www.euroarms.net/ITEMS/C/CA252/CA252-4684.htm

I thought the conversion information was supposed to be on the left cheek (and spelled correctly)?

Here's what mine looks like:

Mine too have the conversion informations on the left side.

This is strange to me. Also date (1912) seem high.

Quote:

---

This is strange to me. Also date (1912) seem high.

---

Absolutely. It's already a MkIII...no need to "convert" it. At a quick glance, it looks like somebody defaced a perfectly good MkIII with spurious markings.

I would agree entirely. I have had a few Cond MkIV's over the years & all of the charger bridges differ a little from those as fitted as standard on MkIII's in that they project down a little lower than the ejector screw, being recessed a little to clear it. You can see in the photo that the charger bridge on the shown rifle finishes above the level of the ejector, typical of a factory produced MkIII.

Thank you all.

Roger: my ConD IV (Enfield 1908), a 1894 BSA Mk II, has the same charger bridge like the one in the link (with no project down).

This firm is the one who bought the italian navy Lee-Enfield. I don't know if this rifle is one of those: I am doubtfull. I asked them some informations, including this. When I get the answer, I'll, promptly, let you know.

Thanks giove. That's the first time I've heard of a cond MkIV like that......interesting. Keep us posted if you manage to find out any more.

Crazy thing! I am a bit confused.

The company told me that the rifle was in the lot of the "italian navy", and, given their seriousness, I can only believe them.

It seems to be an original!

The stock isn't serialized.

Your opinions are very welcome.

Photos of the marks:

- Deleted Sale mark;
- Also Lithgow inspection marks.

Why would the first two "I"s of the "Mk.III" be struck out in that manner?

Why would the marking be on the opposite side from other known examples?

Why was a "G" used for "Cond..."? :rolleyes:

Why can't people understand that their incompetent attempts to add value by fakery to a historical piece only succeed in reducing its value and exposing their venality and stupidity to the public?