Printable View
I picked up this BSA rifle some time ago, dated 1900, or so it appears.
Missing the dust cover, probably from when it was converted to .22.
Have thought it may have been a Lee-Metford before conversion.
Any other info would be appreciated.
Thank you
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...31915373-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...57159573-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...62863790-1.jpg
Looks like a modified Long lee. Probably MLE MK1 Appears to have a 25" SMLE-like barrel. The rear sight base may even be SMLE 3.
The 1900 date is too late for a military Metford rifle. It could have been converted from a commercial model. The bolt could be from an early Metford that would have not had the cocking piece safety, or was modified to remove it. The Metford MK1 had a receiver mounted safety like the SMLE. The Metford MK2 and MLE do not have any recess for a reciever safety.
No safety on this one. Has a half cock position.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...26409912-1.jpg
It's a typical Naval service Short Mk.II training rifle. They were converted from military MLM and MLE rifles and aren't uncommon. Is the bolt assembly serial number matching?
Bolt assembly does not match receiver number.
I recall seeing a photo on-line of a young Princess Elizabeth firing one of these off the deck of a ship.
Not sure if I "captured" a copy.
If I find it in the "unsorted" directory, or elsewhere, I will post it.
Here 'tis:
Attachment 131167
Here is one in the same configuration with South African marks.
https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=55013
Very nice rifle. Thank you.
---------- Post added at 08:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 AM ----------
Have not seen that before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz
The majority of these that I’ve come across have mis-matched bolts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by husk
Isn't that because of lack of knowledge of Lee Enfields by the US importers who, when they ship, them they have the bolts removed and shipped separately to the rifles, and then when they arrive the 'Saturday Boy' gets told 'take one of those bolts out of that box and put it in a rifle' without realising the importance of the correct bolt being fitted to the correct rifle..
Not as critical for a 22rf rifle, but potentially a serious issue in a 'full bore' 303.
The bolt looks too early for the rifle. If it was the right type of bolt for the original 303 rifle, wouldn't it have the cocking piece safety?
The bolt still has the fingers for the dust cover so it is for an early rifle that didn't have a charger bridge, which leads me to believe it's either modified, which looks possible, or an MLM I bolt, which would have been plentiful in spare parts bins pre WW2.
IMG-20230519-064018-HDR hosted at ImgBB — ImgBB
Image posting doesn't seem to work on mobile.
I've had several through here over the years. About 50/50 with matched vs mismatch bolts if memory serves. Most had the rear handguard replaced with modified Mk.III type. My Dad bought one when I was a kid at a Big Oak Trading Post auction in Florida. I still have it! I also imported a couple of the Long Mk.II trainers for clients in years past. They are much more difficult to find.