Anyone know of a source for a Lee Speed/Metford rifle top (dust) cover?
Printable View
Anyone know of a source for a Lee Speed/Metford rifle top (dust) cover?
There was just a complete bolt with one on eBay.
Can't find it again. I was going to bid on it but didn't. I must not have clicked the link.
Try royal tiger. They have a bunch of bottom of the barrel Metfords and Speeds. I wonder if they have the dust covers.
LOL, I just bought one from RTI and none of them have the dust cover. They had a flash sale of $200 off down from $999. I thought that was a decent price since they all come with volley sights and mag cut off. I am uncertain whether a cleaning rod or sling swivels are included. Im not even sure there is a cleaning rod on the Lee Speed/Metford rifle, but I thought I saw at least one pic of one.
So now the search begins! :-)
Try contacting this fellow in NZ:
(From the WTB/WTS forum)
https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=76866
He has a few MLM/MLE parts, and is pleasant to do business with
I might be able to help with a contact in Canada...PM if you want me to look into it
Beware on that RTI. I bought one before they raised the price to current, just so I could get an example of a long lee. If you haven't received it yet, you are in for a greasy mess. Mine was mostly complete. BSA speed. No provision for clearing rod. My bolt has the notches for the dust cover, but it was not included. You should make sure yours is safe. Mine was not in Good/Very good condition, close to poor/parts. Bore is bad, no blue. Mine is downright unsafe. It was used for drills so much that the locking lugs on the bolt and receiver is ground uneven. I can send a picture if you want.
IMO not worth getting the dust cover for.
I can confirm that - real plesure to deal withQuote:
Originally Posted by smle addict
Ive bought many rifles from RTI and for the most part they have performed well enough (there have been exceptions, but they were resolved. They rate these latest Lee Speeds at fair to good and clearly state no dust cover. Looking at the condition of the examples in the pics Id rt them as poor to fair...but I like restoration. However the pics do show some differences (clean rod, no clean rod, swivels, no swivels), so we shall see. In any case I do not intend to shoot a 120+ year old relic. It is for a 103 rifle SA Wat to Cold War display at the Texas Veterans Hall of Fame Museum in Denton, TX to complete the WWI Brit section. As such investment in a dust cover, if one even exists, adds value to the rifle for display at a minimum, so the worth is best determined by the need and intended use. Surely you didnt expect to take yours out into the field and be ready for a fire fight! ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by BVZ24
I do have a bore erosion gage and headspace gage for the .303 Brit, so I will be curious to learn the actual condition of this rifle. However, knowing where these rifles come from my expectations are informed and realistic.
As to the cleaning rod, it is my understanding that there were variants with and without bayonet lugs. It is my guess that only the variant with the bayonet lug provides for cleaning rod, but thats just a guess. Does yours have the bayo lug?
In any case Im sure we would all like to see pics of yours. Please post.
It's worth noting, that in these pictures, there are some pieces missing.
The barreled action is at a barrel maker, for a reason that some of you Enfield restorers might be overjoyed to hear. I'll keep you updated.
IMG-20220915-170008-HDR — ImgBB
IMG-20220915-170022-HDR — ImgBB
IMG-20220915-170034-HDR — ImgBB
Mine has the 1897 pattern nose cap with a lug but no hole for the rod.
https://ibb.co/ZGJz6Jd
All long rifles had the bayonet lug - the clearing rods were abolished circa 1899Quote:
Originally Posted by 1903Collector
You may be thinking of the Lee Metford. According to the Wiki Lee Speed post (and it may very well be wrong) there were 3 variants; 1) Offices pattern with bayonet mount; 2) Officers pattern without bayonet mount; and 3) Trade pattern.Quote:
Originally Posted by waco16
Some confusion might come from the the designation "Lee Speed". Lee Speed is the actual name of the rifle family. It comes from the engineers who designed it, James Lee and Corporal Joseph Speed. When it was adopted by the British, the enlisted Speed's credit was given to Enfield RASF, hence all British government Lees are Lee Enfields.
For the commercial production, manufacturers were allowed to properly credit Speed. All rifles produced as sporter, target, and foreign military patterns are Lee Speeds.
There are several variants of commercial rifle at this time, but for the sake of simplicity, it can be narrowed down to two. Customers can choose if they wanted cleaner stronger Enfield rifling, or weaker accurate Metford rifling for either variant. Commercial metford barreled rifles will have the No 1 Lee Speed action, without a E marked on the barrel.
The first is a sporting pattern. This is a shorter rifle without full wood. May not look much different than a sporterized SMLE, but very rare and desirable.
The second is the military model. These are almost exactly the same as produced for the British. The Ethiopian hoard is made up of these.
good summary
I've always wondered why commercial/sporting LE/etc always have the ten round magazine. I would have expected them to be sold with a flush fitting magazine.
ours is not to reason why! ;-)
The sporter pattern rifles had a nearly flush fitting 5 round. I have never seen one in person.
"Fish Belly" five round mags were more or less the standard fitting on "Lee Speed" sporters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daan Kemp
Done mostly for aesthetics and differentiation from military models I expect.
And some sportsmen might have been put off by the implied suggestion that they would need ten rounds on a hunt! :)
A little vanity some may have had cause to regret when things or animals did not turn out as planned. ;)
Let me help clarify a few things. There is actually a lot of info on Lee-Speeds online, searchable. Wikipedia is not a good source.
1. “Lee-Speed” is not the name of a rifle family. It is not even the model name of a particular rifle. Neither of the two companies that manufactured commercial Lee-Metfords and Lee-Enfields ever called them “Lee-Speeds.” WE call them Lee-Speeds because we are referring to rifles that are marked “Lee-Speed Patents.” That is a patent acknowledgment—not a model name. What about the commercial rifles (target as well as sporting) that lack the patent acknowledgement? Well, modern collectors call those “Lee-Speeds” too, which is perfectly OK, because we need terms that we agree on so that we can communicate. But not everyone would agree to call it a “Lee-Speed” if it lacks the patent acknowledgement.
There is one exception here…this will be covered more fully in the book… in the very earliest days of the Lee-Metford rifle (c1891), there is some use of the term “Lee-Speed” in the press…why? Because the earliest commercial rifles had the patent acknowledgement and also because the term “Lee-Metford” was not yet in widespread use. Remember, when first introduced, it was just called the “Rifle, Magazine (Mark I)” (see LoC 5877 and 6476). It was not even called the “Lee-Metford” until 1891. Many collectors (maybe even most) would use the term “Lee-Speed” to refer only to the sporting versions meant for big game hunting. For my part, I loosely use the term to refer to all commercial Lee-Metford and Lee-Enfield rifles, whether of sporting, semi-military, or military configuration.
2. Naturalized American James Paris Lee and Englishman Joseph Speed were both civilians. Speed was not a “corporal” nor was he “enlisted”— he was Assistant Superintendent of the Small Arms Factory at Enfield (a government factory--which never made Lee-Speeds). Lee was the primary designer of the Remington Lee rifles that were the immediate ancestors of the British magazine rifle. Lee's patents were still acknowledged on the British Lees. Speed (working separately from Lee) patented several improvements to it, and earned some royalties when a commercial rifle was sold. These gentlemen were not a partnership like Rogers & Hammerstein. They probably never met.
3. Not all British government rifles are Lee-Enfields—they were Lee-Metfords before that.
4. The E on the barrel is found on government rifles, not on Lee-Speeds. If you want to know what type of rifling pattern is on a Lee-Speed, you need to inspect the barrel and count the grooves. Markings won’t help.
5. There were basically three types of commercial rifles. First, the military pattern (better described as the “service pattern”). These were made for commercial sale to foreign governments and also to civilians, who mostly used them for competitive target shooting (see this link: https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=76034 )
Next, there were the “semi-military” group of commercial rifles, which were intended for (and purchased by) military officers for their private use while on active service. These rifles are often called the “Trade Pattern” and they were all carbines, usually (with one exception) being fitted for bayonets. They were not strictly of military pattern, but had full-length stocks so they cannot be classified as sporters either.
Finally, there were the well-known Lee-Speeds in sporting configuration, meant for big game hunting. These are the ones you see in “The Ghost and the Darkness,” etc.
You could add the small bore (.22 LR, .300 Sherwood) versions of the Lee-Speed and end up with many more types. Also, any of these could be ordered with optional or customized features—so the number of legitimate variations is quite large.
As noted in the 2018 HBSA Journal article, the .375 Express version of the Lee-Speed differs sufficiently from the others that it can be considered its own model. And it has variations and options as well.
Also, keep in mind that the rifles in every one of these categories not only came in different grades, but they also changed over time. More than one person has been led astray (including participants in some threads on these forums) by assuming that something they saw in a 1912 BSA catalogue holds true for a rifle made in 1896, or 1931.
6. Fish belly magazines were not originally offered. They came later. The customer could choose which magazine they wanted. 5 and 10-round were both offered, and historical photos show both types being used in the field. Rifling type (Metford or Enfield) could be ordered to taste, even years after the latter rifling pattern had replaced the former in service.
As for the dust covers, it shouldn’t be too hard to find one from a government rifle, and it will probably look just fine on the commercial rifle (certainly on the service pattern). These come up now and then. It won’t have engraving like the higher grades of Lee-Speeds, and it might have government markings that you’ll have to ignore. I would find one and put it on and call it good. However, never say never. I once needed a spare dust cover for a No.1 Lee Speed (engraved), and eventually an engraved one turned up on auction. Hard to believe, but true.
This has struck a chord with me on some research I've been doing regarding a member of the 1908 Olympic military rifle team who later became MP for Chertsey in Surrey.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jc5
Described as "major" PW Richarson when he had a bungalow built at Bisley in 1902 I can find no record of him serving and my assumption for this title is that he served in the "Volunteer" force that eventually became the Territorial Army in 1907 rather than the regular army of the day.
It does beg the question, was Joesph Speed in the Volunteer movement at one time?
Philip Wigham Richardson's bungalow is still there in club row at Bisley, and its name has changed over the years from, Major Richardson's Bungalow, Richardson's Hut to finally Richardsons Lodge.
Interesting question. It’s certainly possible that Speed was in the Volunteers, but I haven’t found any evidence for it. What makes you think so?
Jc5, I have no idea if he was either, however if he is described as a corporal in some historic document, (was he?) then that description has to come from somewhere. Not unlike the description of my "Major" Richardson.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jc5
FYI: The rifle I bought was one of those offered by RTI that has the type designation as "Lee Speed Patents" stamped above the BSA Maker Mark on the right side of the receiver hub. "Lee Speed rifle" may be a misnomer, as it is intrinsically a Lee-Enfield Magazine Metford, but I dont think the reference to it as a Lee Speed and not a Lee Metford is incorrect? The rifle I am asking about is also NOT one of the sporting versions (I only collect old military rifles, besides, I find then fugly!)) but the Lee Speed military version (called Commercial Pattern???) of the Lee Metford . The barrel also has the E designated barrel indicating it is a later model with the Enfield rifling groove style. It is my understanding that the Lee Speeds were upgrades of the Lee Metford rifle sold to those who wanted the better rifling and a generally higher (finish?) quality level, but I am uncertain whether the "higher finish quality" applies to the so-called Commercial Pattern or the Sporting models.Quote:
Originally Posted by BVZ24
Ive acquired a signed copy of "The Lee-Enfield" by Ian Skennerton, but it is more of a "history of the development of" tome in the style of Hatcher's Krag & 1903 books or Ruth's M1 Carbine compendiums and in my opinion neither serves well as a collector's reference when compared to the books by Poyer, Harrison (1903, M1 Garand) and Larsen (M1 Carbine). Is there no other reference book printed about the Lee Speed/ Lee Metford/ Long Lee Enfield Magazine Rifles?
Most of the patent information I have associated with Joseph James Speed just gives him as being an Engineer at RSAF Enfield Lock.
I’m not the one who brought up the idea. Is there any evidence that he was?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strangely Brown
Ask BVZ24 who in post No.13 suggested he was a corporal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jc5
My post was merely to suggest how he might have been a volunteer given some research I've undertaken in another area.
My mistake. I might have had Captain Sergei Mosin on my mind when I was writing that, as his design is presently giving me headaches. J.Speed was the manager at RSAF Enfield.
Wasn't Enfield state owned and only produced rifles for the British government?
A commercial rifle would be produced by the private companies such as L.S.A. and B.S.A., and would only be stamped LE1 if it was for the British government. All other rifles would be stamped Lee Speed.
I stand by my argument that the rifles produced after the Metford MK2 could be considered the Lee Speed family, from a commercial standpoint.
But I guess if my argument was right, we'd be calling Remington Lee rifles Sharps Lee.
I agree that Skennerton's book is mainly a history ( a good one), but it can serve as a collector's reference if you look at the last 1/3 of the book, pp.431-554, which catalogs every major model and variation, and good coverage of markings. Not sure what else you are looking for in a collector's reference. Skennerton has also published several SAIS paperback booklets that contain just the basic facts on various models (including the Lee-Metford and a good one devoted to changes in parts), and also a small "Lee-Enfield Buyer's Guide" which is a pocket size reference. Some years ago Charles Stratton published a good collectors reference on the SMLE and another on the No.4--although they don't cover the Long Lees--these detail the variations in individual parts, useful to collectors who need to identify the correct part for a rebuild. They do not follow the standard British military nomenclature for parts, which might lead to some confusion, but they are useful books.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1903Collector
As for a collectors guide to the commercial rifles, I'm working on it. It will mainly be a history, but will include a catalog of all variations. Let me know what you want to see specifically, and I will try to include it,
No worries-- I thought maybe there was a biographical reference to Speed that I had somehow missed.Quote:
Originally Posted by BVZ24
Yes, that is correct...RSAF Enfield was state-owned and (with very rare exceptions) only produced arms for the government. I mentioned above that they did not produce commercial rifles ("Lee-Speeds").Quote:
Originally Posted by BVZ24
Well, yes and no. Yes, they were made only by LSA and BSA. However, LSA commercial rifles were marked LE I, so that is not the best way to distinguish a commercial from a government rifle by LSA. Yes, they would be stamped "Lee-Speed Patents," but only during such time as the patents were in force. See the article linked above.Quote:
Originally Posted by BVZ24
Call them whatever you like. It all depends on how you define your terms, including "family." BSA and LSA never called them "Lee-Speeds." We call them that as a convenience. I'm not sure you'd want to draw a distinction between "rifles produced after the Lee-Metford" versus earlier, because commercial Lee-Metfords were certainly produced and sold., and they were stamped “Lee-Speed Patents.”Quote:
Originally Posted by BVZ24
For someone who is really nit-picky, you'd have to call them the "Remington-Sharps-Lee-Metford-Enfield-Speed-Borchardt-Diss-Penn-Deeley-Rigby-BSA" design, but that's too long for me to get out in one breath! I said as much to Gene Myszkowski once and we had a laugh over it. (RIP Gene)
JC5, Outstanding! Id love to see the final book!
In my opinion, the best collector's reference book today is The M1 Carbine by L. C. Larsen. Its unlikely there are records extent as comprehensive or the with the same level of detail that is available for the M1 Carbine, but, as a collector I appreciate the quality of the color pics, the individual parts by mfr and type labeled and pictured, the year by year, manufacturer by manufacturer, production block by production block, and part version by version detail, and all the separate sections for part markings, accessories and others is just outstanding!
For me, the distinction between Lee Metford, Lee Speed and Long Lee military pattern rifles is still unclear. There seems to be many Lee Speed military pattern rifles used in conflicts including WWI. Or am I mistaken? So to me, commercial vs. government rifles, after all thee years, seems unimportant, or vague at least.
I confess that I have only skimmed thru Skennerton's book. I will look into the section you suggested, but the standard I compare collector's books is Larsen's.
I very much appreciate your posts on this issue. I will receive the rifle tomorrow and start restoration evaluation and plans. I found a good bayo and scabbard at a "good" price but no frog. I will get a repro frog from Savage. He does excellent wok in my experience. I have yet to follow the one or two leads on the dust cover (the original topic of this entry), but my expectations are low. As I may have mentioned, this rifle is the 103rd, and likely the last for a time, long arm in a collection of long arms of each major belligerent (battle and sniper rifles, and carbines) from the Spanish American War thru the Cold War that is on display at the Texas Veterans Hall of Museum in Denton, Texas north of Dallas (often considered an extension of the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex). I need all the help I can get as I am sure Ive got errors in my collection (e.g., I recently determined that an Arisaka T44 in my WWII section was a 1914 WWI rifle!. That was actually an exciting find for me!!)
Thanks for sharing the recommendation of Larson's book. I do not own it, but I have seen it at shows. I am not an expert on M1 carbines, though I have read Ruth's 3-volume set. (IMHO, one does not become an expert by reading a book---though that certainly gives you a strong foundation of knowledge---but by examining hundreds of rifles and comparing them). I admit that I am partial to Ruth's approach, though of course there are problems with it. I see what you mean about Larson's book---I cannot agree with some of the choices he (or his publisher) made, but I can understand why a collector would appreciate seeing the information laid out in that way. I will definitely keep that in mind for the Lee-Speed book, and try offer something that collectors can use to identify the rifle they come across. I am grateful for this insight. It's hard to make one single book that will satisfy all readers and be useful both to collectors and historians, but there's probably not a market for two books.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1903Collector
The arms collection project at the museum in Denton sounds like a very ambitious project! All respect and congratulations to you for undertaking it! If I am down near Dallas I will try to check it out.
Regarding the various terms for Lee rifles, see the last section of Skennertons book... all the government models are laid out there. "Long Lee" is just an informal term for the original rifles that had the long barrels... versus the carbines and (later) the SMLE, which were short rifles. The Lee-Metford was the original British military Lee, and "Metford" refers to the rifling. When they adopted 5-groove rifling in 1895, they adopted the name "Lee-Enfield." The term "Lee-SPeed" does not refer to rifling or to a model, but to patent acknowledgement markings that were found on commercial rifles. By "commercial rifle," I mean one that was produced for sale to anyone besides HM Government. Sometimes these commercial rifles were sold to foreign governments (with War Office permission) or to civilians. They were made on the same machinery as the government rifles, but only the "service patterns" were made to government specifications. There were other models (which I described above) that were "semi-military" or "sporting" (for big game hunters) and also smallbore versions (for smallbore target shooting). The service pattern rifles that were made for target shooting were of the military pattern by were often a higher grade of fit and finish (these are the ones you hear about being of a higher grade---please see the article I referenced above for a fuller discusson of the Lee-Speed target models). But as a customer, you paid extra for that---if you wanted one that was plain grade, you could get that too. I hope this makes it all less vague.
Yes, Lee-Speeds saw action is various conflicts--- not as general issue of course, but in the hands of some officers, and in certain other circumstances. Jameson Raid, Boer War (both sides), Rhodesia, WWI (as sniping rifles), and some purchased by the Royal Navy (complicated story).
While we are on J.J Speed, in 1887 he was listed as a Mechanical Engineer, his patent applications made no reference of affiliation with any organisation.
His patents for the volley sights and Magazine cutoff were listed that year.
By 1903 he was just listed by name after the superintendent, in 1906 he was listed as Engineer and again in 1907 and seems to disappear from mention at Enfield Lock by 1910.
LoC 5877 Rifle Magazine (Mk. 1) dec.1888 lists these additions.
Jc5, again, thanks for your time and knowledge sharing.
Regarding the museum. It is essentially there to honor of Texas veterans, past and present, and to collect their stories into our data base for posterity. The story of many a soldier is either never told due to reluctance of the soldier to recount such events least they relive it, or due to their passing without leaving any legacy. It was started by two Vietnam Air Force non-com vets for that very reason. They approached me over a year ago to display part of my collection for a time to help raise funds and patronage. I saw a win-win there since I could count on two hands the number of people who saw my collection in my display room at home. My biggest flaw and asset, both, is my tendance to share my growing knowledge of the history that the firearms represent as well as the firearms themselves. I still notice the look in the eyes of some of a deer staring into headlights while I prattle on about any aspect of the collection when I am attending the museum, but work on reading which want to hear info and which dont.
It has been my practice that once I buy, or decide to buy a new type of firearm I invest in the best book or books available, if available, and study the subject as time allows. I am blessed with near photographic memory so once read, I seem to both grasp the content as well as retain it with the ability to recount the info relatively accurately. I cant say my library is vast, but it is growing and is getting close to filling a 6' tall x 3' wide 5 shelf book case. It was in this practice that I came across Larsen's book after working on about 50 carbines. I had acquired the works of Reisch, Ruth, Harrison, and one or two others but never found answers to all my questions in one single book. In my experience Larsen's work is the closest thing to a "stand alone" reference book on any of the 88 different long arms in my collection. I worked on almost 100 more carbines afterwards and used and abused the edition I first bought to the point that I "had" to replace it this year with the latest edition. I would be grateful if you could elaborate what you see as the negative issues of Larsen's book. I try to maintain an objective approach to everything, never latching on to any opinion, but always challenging my perceptions and on-going conclusions.
The Lee Speed I acquired (and hope to pick u today) came from Ethiopia. That is the only provenance available at the moment, but it was in the hands of a soldier (perhaps combatant is more correct) and COULD have been involved in one of the conflicts (in this case WWI) and used by one of the countries I count as a primary belligerent (in this case, the British Empire). In addition to this criteria my collection is limited to non-automatic long arms of the modern era (smokeless powder cartridges). It is not 100% complete, but Im getting close.
I expect the Lee Speed will need a lot of work and likely repairs to at least the lower hand guard, but for my purposes, it fits nicely to the theme of the collection. There are no museum queens in my collection. A few are in VERY GOOD to EXCELLENT condition, but all have clearly been in the hands of a soldier and are likely to be used by the country of origin during the subject conflicts (I just have no way to know if it saw any actual action).
What is your opinion of "The Lee-Enfield Rifle" by E. G. B. Reynolds?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jc5
It is a great book. Generally considered to be be superseded by Skennerton, but still a great read. Kudos to Reynolds for being the first one to publish a full book on these rifles. That is quite an achievement, with no precedent to follow.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1903Collector
I agree, "upon the shoulders of giants we often stand!"
Some ironic trivia concerning Major E.G.B Reynolds:
During the course of some research I found E.G.B. Reynolds name in the 1930 NRA (UK) prize book which lists all the competitors of that years Imperial Meeting. This was the year Marjory Foster won the Kings Prize and was denied the medal on account of her being a woman!
The entry simply says Corporal E.G.B. Reynolds late 11th Rifle Brigade, in view of our discussion further up on this thread concerning corporals it made me smile!
While looking larger than life by having done so! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by 1903Collector
Thanks for sharing pics of your rifle. Congrats on getting this interesting, classic rifle. It is really quite wonderful—though it needs some restoration.
Here’s what I can see from your photos. It is not a commercial rifle at all—it is a government rifle through and through, with one exception: the bolt head (not necessarily the entire bolt) has a commercial patent stamped on it (Patent 19145/90), which means the bolt head was from a commercial rifle. First thing to check is if there is a number on the bolt handle and if it matches any other number on the rifle. If it does not match, then you have a commercial bolt (from a “Lee-Speed”) that is mismatched. If it matches, then for some unknown reason, the manufacturer (LSA Co.) used a commercial bolt. We know the rest of the rifle is not commercial because there are no commercial proof marks on it—only Gov’t proofs. For information on what the 19145/90 patent means, see the article here: https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=76034
So what do you have? It is a CLLE Mk I* (pronounced “Mark One Star”). CLLE stands for “Charger Loading Lee-Enfield.” These rifles were conversions of the Lee-Enfield Mk I* (beginning in 1907), to convert them to charger loading (i.e., to enable them to be loaded with stripper clips, or “chargers” in British parlance). So, your rifle was originally a “Magazine, Lee-Enfield Rifle Mk I*” made by LSA (London Small Arms Co., Ltd, located in Old Ford, Bow, London) in 1902. That is what the right-side markings on the butt socket tell you. You are correct that “ER” stands for Edward Rex (he had just become king after Queen Victoria died in 1901). This rifle was always a Lee-Enfield (with Enfield 5-grroove rifling in the barrel)—it was never a Lee-Metford.
The conversion details are indicated on the left side of the butt socket: converted by LSA to CLLE Mk I* in 1909. For details on this conversion (exactly what was changed) see your Skennerton book. He covers all this, so I need not repeat all that here. Basically, the charger bridge was added, the sights were upgraded, and the front sight got a pair of protective “ears” and the bolt cover was removed (it doesn’t fit anymore when you add the charger bridge). The barrel is stamped ’11, so this rifle probably got a new barrel in 1911, to accommodate the new MkVII ammunition, and at that time the front volley dial-sight would have been changed to a plate marked “CL” and graduated from 1700-2700 yards (you can use one from an SMLE, but it won’t be correct).
Keep in mind that all these changes were legitimate Government-authorized conversions… not someone monkeyng around. They were official upgrades for use by the British military, and they were definitely used. It is almost certain this particular rifle was used in World War One. Such changes do not make it less valuable or less desirable.
For details on how this rifle started life, see Skennerton page 450 (Magazine, Lee-Enfield Rifle Mk I*)
For details on the conversion it underwent in 1909, see Skennerton page 457 (Charger Loading Lee-Enfield Mk I*)
Anther great book from Skennerton (inexpensive) that is extremely useful for collecting or for restorations is “Lee-Enfield Parts Catalogue”—No.23 in the Small Arms Identification Series (S.A.I.S.) It illustrates the changes in every part from the first Lee-Metford all the way to the No.4 rifle of WWII. You can find it here: http://www.skennerton.com/sais.html. That little book is money well spent.
As for the markings on the butt plate (HQ/ASC/SMD), I’m not an expert on those, but you can look them up in the Skennerton book, or in his other book “The Broad Arrow.” Or ask on the forum—someone will know. I am not an expert on all those unit markings. My area of expertise is the commercial rifles (Lee-Speeds).
You observed that it has a "B.E. crown and date”— do you mean the stamp on the left side of the action, where it meets the barrel? Looks to me like it is actually Crown over X (rubbed out or lightly struck) over 88. The letter x (as you can see in other inspection marks nearby) is the factory code for LSA. These are all Government marks. I do not see any commercial markings on this gun, except for the bolt head.
As for the restoration, I am not an expert on that sort of thing—I’m mainly a historian and researcher. I have examined a large number of Enfields, especially the commercial models, but I’m not the best guy to advise you on where to find the missing parts that you need for the restoration. I think the first step is to determine exactly what you need (now that you know it’s a CLLE MkI* it should be easier) and ask on the forums. Someone will have it or be able to help. Be patient—the part you need will turn up eventually. I can tell that you will need the correct volley sight and the rear sight slide. As for the bolt, it is the correct pattern (despite having a commercial bolt head) so I would just leave that as it is. Still, I would like to know more about that bolt. Please let me know what other markings are present on the bolt handle and the cocking piece. If it is a mismatch, and you want a Government bolt, then it won’t be hard to find one (with Government markings, maybe even an LSA one), and you can sell me the commercial bolt—I’ll find a use for it on a Lee-Speed. However, we do not know yet whether the bolt is incorrect—it is unusual, but not necessarily incorrect. Maybe LSA just used a bolt that they had in the bin, and "commercial vs Govt" didn’t matter for some reason. The commercial bolt head (although incorrect for a Gov't rifle) is actually more scarce and desirable by people who are restoring Lee-Speeds, so you kind of lucked out on getting that.
Good luck with this restoration—an admirable project. This fine rifle deserves a proper restoration and display. The guns of the London Small Arms Co. have been a special interest of mine.
This is enormously helpful and quite impressive! I cant thank you enough! :-) I request permission to quote you in our museum literature that may eventually be in a book that I started a year ago about The Journey of Collecting Vintage Military Surplus Firearms - Battle and Sniper Rifles, and Carbines from All Combatants of Conflicts Involving the US During the Modern Smokeless Powder Era. A mouthful, I know...Ill have to work on a more succinct title with a hook! ;-) Ive started two industry books in my field of expertise back in 2009 and still haven't finished them, so we shall see! :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jc5