Theories on this Charger Loader?

Printable View

10-20-2018, 12:48 AM
smle addict

8 Attachment(s)

Theories on this Charger Loader?

Hello all,

I saw this rifle come up on auction last week, and really didn't pay much attention to it. I have a couple of charger loaders, and wasn't really in the market for another one. This one began life as an 1893 LSA produced Magazine Lee Metford Mk II. In 1909, it was converted to a Charger Loading Lee Metford Mk II, then upgraded to a Charger Loading Lee Enfield Mk 1*. But-something about it kept me looking..

I started looking at the pictures of the bore the seller posted, and a light bulb finally clicked; It's still wearing a metford barrel. I put in a bid and won. Rifle arrived a few hours ago. The rifle is in pretty good shape. It does have a seven-groove metford barrel. Not sure if its original, but the 1909 dated barrel matches the receiver (serial numbers). It even has the front sight protector correctly marked with an "M" denoting metford rifling. It is also marked with "EY" on the stock, forend, and receiver/barrel knox.

So, any theories why this rifle is incorrectly marked as a CLLE Mk I*?

Open to any and all conjecture/theories/WAGs!
10-20-2018, 06:01 AM
nijalninja

Guess I'll open the floor with the easiest and likely most incorrect possibility; someone goofed.
10-21-2018, 07:15 AM
Lance

7 Attachment(s)

No goof, it is correct. Please refer to "The Lee Enfield" p.85. In summary, in 1909 the CLLM was ordered to be discontinued and existing stock modified to CLLE Mk I* status. Some were rebarreled, some like yours were not. The biggest modification to CLLE I* status was the bolt with the safety catch was installed, originally the CLLM had the non-safety catch type like the MLM II. Your rifle is very uncommon, great pick-up! I have yet to come across a non-upgraded military CLLM Mk II (I have a civilian pattern).

My weird CL is a pattern CLLE Mk I (no windage rear sight installed thus a groove was put in the charger bridge and the battle sight heightened). Some were permitted to be fitted with metford barrels to use up existing leftover stores or if the barrel was still serviceable. So like yours, it is marked as and CLLE but has a metford barrel. My example is a VSM 1911 conversion with a 1911 barrel.
10-21-2018, 12:54 PM
smle addict

Thanks for the info. I had to re-read that section in the book. It finally made sense! I appreciate the nice comments as to its rarity. Like I said, had the seller not posted a picture of the bore, I would have passed on it, chalking it up as just another CLLE.
10-30-2018, 01:30 AM
Surpmil

I'm sorry, but to me that looks like very worn Enfield rifling rather than Metford.

Not a shadow of a doubt in my mind on that.
10-30-2018, 03:46 AM
5thBatt

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surpmil

I'm sorry, but to me that looks like very worn Enfield rifling rather than Metford.

Not a shadow of a doubt in my mind on that.

Metford rifling does indeed look like worn Enfield rifling but with 7 grooves not 5, this barrel has 7 grooves so Metford rifling.
10-30-2018, 11:23 AM
smle addict

2 Attachment(s)

Yes, the rifling does appear worn. But it is seven groove which indicates metford rifling. I took it to the range last Friday and was surprised with how well it shoots. I fired this 10 shot string (1st round sighting) and put the next nine rounds into a respectable 2-1/2 inch group at 100 yards with handloads off of sandbags. Not too bad for a 125 year old rifle. I did notice I had so seat the bullet way out to get respectable groups. There is a fair amount of throat erosion.
10-31-2018, 08:53 AM
nijalninja

Quote:

Originally Posted by smle addict

I did notice I had so seat the bullet way out to get respectable groups.

Do the rounds still fit in the mag that far out? Also I would be over the moon to see an old girl like that pull that performance. I bet you are glad you jumped at it.
10-31-2018, 09:22 PM
smle addict

The rounds barely fit... I have them seated to 3.080 overall. The bullets a just a hair form the mag, but they still feed. This rifle shoots .312 diameters well. Anything in .311, the groups opened up substantially.

Thanks for the comments! I was a little hesitant to buy it (I have a hundred "honey do's" to tackle), but it made me happy finding a rare rifle that still shoots.
12-02-2018, 02:04 AM
Surpmil

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5thBatt

Metford rifling does indeed look like worn Enfield rifling but with 7 grooves not 5, this barrel has 7 grooves so Metford rifling.

My interest level, or least attention level must be waning of late!;)
12-04-2018, 10:41 AM
jrhead75

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lance

No goof, it is correct. Please refer to "The Lee Enfield" p.85. In summary, in 1909 the CLLM was ordered to be discontinued and existing stock modified to CLLE Mk I* status. Some were rebarreled, some like yours were not. The biggest modification to CLLE I* status was the bolt with the safety catch was installed, originally the CLLM had the non-safety catch type like the MLM II. Your rifle is very uncommon, great pick-up! I have yet to come across a non-upgraded military CLLM Mk II (I have a civilian pattern).

My weird CL is a pattern CLLE Mk I (no windage rear sight installed thus a groove was put in the charger bridge and the battle sight heightened). Some were permitted to be fitted with metford barrels to use up existing leftover stores or if the barrel was still serviceable. So like yours, it is marked as and CLLE but has a metford barrel. My example is a VSM 1911 conversion with a 1911 barrel.

Very nearly the exact twin of mine down to the dates. !893 dated MkII converted to a CLLE MkI in 1911 by VSM with a Metford barrel. My barrel is also dated 1911, but in its case, that's the date it was installed on the rifle rather than a manufacture date. An LSA barrel with Victorian proofs.