Lee Carbine Identification and stock disc ID

I've found a sporterized lee carbine I'm interested in but I can't tell what it was originally before it was cut down and I suspect the stock disc was just added to spice things up a bit. Unfortunately it is missing the nosecap, handguard, 2/3rds of the forend, the cutoff, the magazine and link and maybe the band if it had one. I know it was originally a Lee Enfield Carbine Mk1*, made at Enfield of course but I don't know if it stayed in that configuration or if was converted into an Irish Constabulary (RIC) carbine. It certainly has no New Zealand markings. As an aside though, why on earth would bubba need to sporterize something that is short and light already? Ridiculous.

Firstly, it is in the U.S. and I don't know if many Lee or Metford carbines made it here that were not later sales of RIC carbines (versus Canada). The numbers are all matching on what is left at least, but it displays no upgrade or additional arsenal markings anywhere or on either wrist. Wouldn't the RIC carbines have some kind of stamp added to the wrist when they went through Enfield/Birmingham again? The butt does not help in that regard either since it has the remnants of a roundel but it is illegible unless it could be enhanced.

The muzzle shows no discernible wear in the blueing that would hint towards which type of nosecap was on it or whether both were and it shows no sign of the bushing for the bayonet for the RIC carbines having been sweated or brazed on. This could be a sign since I would think this would have been a little hard to remove or at least too much work to bother with. Another contradictory sign is that the screw holes for the original carbine leather rear sight protector are filled in with rather old looking walnut. It has the wrong rear sight from a rifle apparently also, as I swear the sight leaf was only marked to 1800 yards rather than the 2000 yarder for the carbine.

The butt stock was cut out for a rear sling swivel on the bottom (not a Metford Bar) but I am a little suspicious of it not being from a legitimate RIC conversion. Firstly there is a matching longitudinal cut out in the butchered forend from the sporterization for a forward sling swivel and secondly the hole in the butt is cut very shallowly and milled very roughly in comparison to the many well made SMLE butts I have seen. Finally, the stock disc does not help in determining what the carbine was since it does not have marks for either a typical cavalry carbine or an RIC carbine and is dated very late for any Lee carbine. My guess is it is Indian and added when those got imported in because the original was missing. It is marked:

RP
3.17
(The Screw)
KL 105

I am pretty sure it was marked "RP" and not "RF", the rest was clear anyway.
Unfortunately I can't get any pictures again unless you all egg me into buying it...

Photos or it doesn't exist.

Do it. It's a LEC. They don't come up every day and... its a LEC!

If you buy it and decide you don't want it in 6 months time, you can sell it.
If you don't buy it and decide you want it in 6 months, it will be long gone.

englishman_ca can sort you out for most of the missing bits or point you in the direction of the info to make them.

As a start check out the illustrations at the bottom.

http://www.rifleman.org.uk/Instructi...20-%201897.htm

Magazine mods:

http://forums.nitroexpress.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=310879&an=0&page=0#Post310879

On the other hand, I would suggest caution = post pics here for the experts, before you buy. The rifle rear sight rings alarm bells that this may be made up of more than one rifle; also suggested by the March 1917 dated stock disc.

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=57200

Depends on what form you want it take when you are finished fixing it up, totally original and to spec or as a replica and tribute to your favourite flavour of carbine.

Absolutely anything is repairable with enough effort, just perhaps not restorable.

Being an LEC Mk.I*, it was not a Canadian service arm.

Butt stock disc might well be correct. RawalPindi Arsenal, India, March 1917.
King's Lancers (18th King George's Own Lancers) Rack number 105

The markings in the metalwork would give more clues to where it has or has not been.
You have not given us a lot to go on other than a general description. The story will be in the details. Sounds like it was a cavalry carbine.

The wood repair to the sight cover screw holes could be Indian. The Enfield factory RIC repair was a round plug.
I could tell you if the gun was once an RIC carbine with one glance.
The RIC conversions had one factory inspector stamp in one particular spot, which is not obvious unless you look closely for it.

If you are seriously considering buying, go get photographs so that we can identify. As a group, we are always happy to be of help.

I have a number of original and restored carbines and I also have a couple of sportered carbines.
The sporters work so well as bush guns, they will stay that way for the foreseeable future.

Go buy the thing.

Thanks englishman! If I do get it I would restore it to whatever is the most correct for it which is always my goal whenever I am restoring various items.

I assume you guys are mentioning magazine modifications because original 6 rounders are impossible to find?

Was the Indian Army using carbines that late? I always assumed that the first echelons such as the cavalry waiting on standby on the western front were fully equipped with the ShtLE in addition to the ANZAC cavalry and maybe only some artillery units had them. In comparison the Constabulary decided their carbines were obsolete just a few years after their last order of them (albeit after the war).

I have always been interested in the use of what American Ordnance would call substitute standard weapons in both World Wars; such as the use of carbines, long lees and Mk1's the first time around and examples like the rebuilding of trials rifles or the Home Guard using P'14s and MK Vs in World War II.

Does anyone have any recommendations for books which cover that sort of thing?
Random samplings of archival photographs are not quite the same.

Figuring out the past history of any service arm is often like detective work. There could be any number of scenarios with that carbine.
But after generations of civilian ownership, who knows what is actually original from service or what has been switched out by previous owners or has been replaced to keep the thing shooting.

The butt disk could be from another rifle, yes, as could the butt. We can only scrutinise and make our best guess. No solid reason to think that it was ever in India, but it is possible. That is why we need to see any and all markings on the thing to figure out where it has or hasn't been.

Does it have any govt ownership markings? Any civilian proof markings? Any import marks? Anything struck out? What fonts were used in any of the markings? Are there any markings in the metal or are they in the wood?, and where in the wood? Lots of questions....

The carbines although obscolete in the British Army at that late a date, were still doing service with the colonies and other members of the Commonwealth.

Canada still had carbines in stores until the great purge in 1925, but even then, the Mounties still used cav carbines for mounted training right up into the 1960s.

THE book to get is 'A century of Lee Metford and Lee Enfield rifles and carbines' by Ian Skennerton.

'The Lee Enfield Rifle by major E.B.Renolds', it is a bit dated now, but it can be found in digital form.

Charles L Stratton has written other great resources too.

Check the resource section of this site.

Lots of information on the net, lots of miss-information too!

Oh yeah, had those you listed for a while now. I try to make it a habit to buy the book before the expensive mistake...

I was thrilled to run across a copy of Skennerton's "The Broad Arrow" at a show just today since I wanted a copy, until I opened the leaf and saw they wanted 200 dollars for it! I knew they were out of print but I did not think they were that rare.

Two hundred dollars is not unusual for that book.

I have been on the hunt for one, that is probably what I will end up paying.

Ha! Bringing this thread back because I answered my own question perusing through Skennerton one day:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AD-4NA

and is dated very late for any Lee carbine

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AD-4NA

Was the Indian Army using carbines that late?

---

On P.363:
[Indian rifles were approved for updating to Mk VII ammunition on 31st May 1920]

"Somewhat similar alterations were applied to the Lee-Enfield Cavalry Carbine, for the .303 Mk VII ammunition; it was approved on 3rd April 1924 and the required changes effected at Ishapore. This conversion comprised-
1. Barrel: small cone enlarged.
2. Sight bed: graduations deleted and re-inscribed for ranges at 200, 300, 400, 500 and 600 yards, according to the
sealed pattern.
3. Sight leaf: the graduations deleted and re-inscribed at 7, 8, 9 and 10 as on the pattern.
The carbines were marked "HV" and "SC" immediately behind the back sight."

So the Indians at least were still bothering with Lee Enfield carbines, even at this late date. Not that means anything about the stock marking disc in this particular case. I don't believe the carbine from a couple years ago was Indian and I rarely trust the authenticity of a butt marking disk.
But it is interesting that the carbines were still in service somewhere in the empire.

The really rare though is that India was rebuilding everything during WW I so that a LEC was still in service and escaped is amazing. They stopped their "IP' conversion in the early '20's which is the only reason I think this one survived. I will have to dig her out to see if the barrel was HV or HV/SC marked.

Gorgeous Lance!

That puts it in the time frame that we might see those changes. This could get interesting!

Any results on the "HV" marking?

Sorry about that, surprisingly no HV markings! I did forget to check the ramp profile to my other carbines along with the rear sight calibration. I Will let you know today.

Lance

Interesting. The rear sight base and sight remains set up as original. Why this is I have no clue. Rear sight is m/m but has been on the rifle most likely since its rebuild.

Hey guys I have undated Lithgow but the serial number is in the 3500 region (1914) era that was sent to India and went through ftr in 1932 at the factory it was rebarreled and has all matching serial number to the original Lithgow serial it has been refurbished with Indian parts. My theory is it was picked up by an Indian in ww1 as they served with the Aussies then and bought back to Indian it still has the Lithgow shield on the receiver which is also strange .the stock is also number tot he rifle as well . No volley sights and sighted for mk vii ammo . I will did it out of hibernation a post some picks .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smerdon42

Hey guys I have undated Lithgow but the serial number is in the 3500 region (1914)

---

The Lithgow accounting year was June to July.
Up to End June 1913 Lithgow produced 40 rifles.
From July 1913 to June 1914 Lithgow produced 4,760 rifles.

That would suggest that your rifle No 3500 was made (probably) Q1 / early Q2 1914

Alan I have a1913 serial number 160 then the 1914 is in 3500 group another is 5669 and then I have a 10000 series numbered 14 as well I will have to pull them all out to look a t serials again . The 13 shoots really well and is still sighted for mkvi ammo serial 5669 ended up in British army for ww2 the back to Australia the 10000 series was in Aussie service but ended up being sent to Austrian police post ww2. It’s crazy how some rifles where reserialed with the original number in other countries