ConD II* to .22 Short Rifle Mk III to .22 SR Mk IV* Barrel match ?

I just got this interesting rifle but the barrel serial number is not matching.
The rifle is a (the way i make it out) ConD II* converted to a .22 Short Rifle Mk III converted to a .22 Short Rifle Mk IV*
Just like a No2 Mk IV* should be, it has a Mk III style barrel with Mk III rear sight.
The rifle and barrel both have New Zealand ownership markings (matching fonts)
However the serial number on the barrel doesn't match the rest of the rifle.
Serial numbers that match are on the receiver, the bolt, the nosecap and the forend.
On a side note, the nosecap is of the Mk III style.

My question is... is it possible a NZ trainer would have a non matching barrel ?
The knowledge i have tells me a non matching barrel was probably done post service... but i also learned to never say never with Lee Enfield
(pics to come)

Just looked at my three examples that are stamped like yours, all have matching barrels. All are NZ marked two with '22 disc dates with '21 dated barrels, the '24 has a '25 dated barrel so either it was a December gun or was rebarreled again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lance

Just looked at my three examples that are stamped like yours, all have matching barrels. All are NZ marked two with '22 disc dates with '21 dated barrels, the '24 has a '25 dated barrel so either it was a December gun or was rebarreled again.

---

Thank you Lance
That's what i thought...
Mine is has a '23 barrel... at least it looks consistent with the years the upgrades were made.

Does any of yours have a Mk III no windage rear sight, butt stock swivel and nose cap ?
Attachment 114155Attachment 114156
Attachment 114157Attachment 114158
Attachment 114160Attachment 114159

Oh I want!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tatou

Thank you Lance
That's what i thought...
Mine is has a '23 barrel... at least it looks consistent with the years the upgrades were made.

Does any of yours have a Mk III no windage rear sight, butt stock swivel and nose cap ?
Attachment 114155Attachment 114156
Attachment 114157Attachment 114158
Attachment 114160Attachment 114159

---

First, my mistake, all are 1922 dated, the 1924 I mentioned earlier is my NZ SMLE Mk III conversion to .22. The 5/22 rifle pictured is the one with the 1925 barrel, matching. All three were .22 Short Mark III that were upgraded to .22 Short Mark IV* with the change in nomenclature (event though besides the "IV*" they are still in factory Mark III form). All are different obviously, love my early .22's. In fact just purchased a new to me .22 Short Mk IV*, coming soon.

A spectacular collection of NZ .22's! I have a NZ Cond .22 though I restored it using MLE wood and MkI nosecap. Do any of these rifles have a NZ census/rack number on the top of the breech ring? all of my .22 have this as well as what used to be matched rack numbers on the bolt. possibly these new numbers were added when the rifles were converted to 'Trentham trainers' in the 60's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roy

A spectacular collection of NZ .22's! I have a NZ Cond .22 though I restored it using MLE wood and MkI nosecap. Do any of these rifles have a NZ census/rack number on the top of the breech ring? all of my .22 have this as well as what used to be matched rack numbers on the bolt. possibly these new numbers were added when the rifles were converted to 'Trentham trainers' in the 60's

---

One has the marking disc rack number repeated on the breech ring, one is blank and the third has this unit(?) number.

Very nice collection indeed Lance.
And thank you for the closeup pics they help a great deal in helping me figuring out what could be wrong with mine.
I'm pleased to see the nosecaps are of the Mk III model.
My rear sight is a late style one, without the windage adjustment... i do have a couple of spares so i might just swap it (it's non matching anyway so likely not original... i'll still keep the old one though)
The butt stock has a repair on the top so i'm guessing it could be the original MLE stock converted when a new butt plate without the thang was fitted.

Nothing on my breech ring Roy. It's smooth like an old lady's butt (don't ask)...

Hi Guys.
How ever your NZ rifles are is more than likely how they left NZ service that is their history. The KIWIS did not have buckets of new parts they would have acquired them as the Brits were going to a newer trainer. Enjoy them as they are they are unique and very collectable in their own right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bindi2

Hi Guys.
How ever your NZ rifles are is more than likely how they left NZ service that is their history. The KIWIS did not have buckets of new parts they would have acquired them as the Brits were going to a newer trainer. Enjoy them as they are they are unique and very collectable in their own right.

---

Thanks Bindi2,
i agree they are very collectable (that's why i purchased it in the first place).
How ever the more i investigate it and learn about it i'm starting to doubt certain aspects of mine are original to NZ service.
As much as i hate it.i also wont lie about what i have... it is what it is.

First issue is the barrel and the fact the serial number isn't matching... i'm willing to entertain the thought there is a possibility the swap was made in NZ service, at a later date (or in cadet used maybe) and they didn't change the serial number.
Although unusual, it is still possible.

Second issue concerns the bolt in general... there are several aspects that makes me really wonder.
The cocking piece is from a cutaway
The bolt head appears, to me, to have been modified to fit in conjunction with the Parker Hiscock magazine. I have one of those original bolt head on another rifle and this one looks different.
The inside of the receiver (were the bolt slides) have been sanded.

Lastly the case of the parker Hiscock magazine.
I think it might be from a MLE but i haven't look into that yet. More research needs to be done.
The cuts are also poorly made.

Like i said i hate to change anything original on a collectable but if i do find out the rifle was tempered with, post service (in other word, restored) that's a whole other thing.
It is still a collectable and i'm still ok with any of this considering how rare they are and the price i paid.