Questions about ann odd Enfield by a newbie

[Arthur Lombardi]

Hi, another newbie here. I'd like some info from the experts here on a mail order Enfield I bought in 1962. According to collar markings it's a BSA Mark III*= made in 1917. All the metal parts have matching serial numbers and after replacing the sear it fires really well. My question regards the woodwork. The forestock appears to be a professionally cut down Mark III stock complete with volley sight, while the butt stock is from a jungle carbine. They are original stocks with markings and seem similarly aged. What gives? The obvious answer is that the gun was assembled from available parts, but is it possible that the rifle saw service as assembled. I don't understand why the importer would have gone to the trouble to modify and use original wood, although it's certainly possible. Also , what does the "=" indicate at the end of Markiii*= ? Any help you can provide will be greatly appreciated. I've been trying to upload photos from my Mac, but so far unsuccessfully. I'll keep trying!

Here are some photos

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[A square 10]

i just think it was 'available' nothing more , since you elected not to show a photo of the "=" i cannot comment ,

[paulseamus]

Arthur

Looks to me like Bubba has struck again. Given that you have had the rifle since 1962 perhaps it was Bubba Snr.

Either way some one has made a mess of what would otherwise be a nice rifle.

It is possible to bring the rifle back to its original look. You can source suitable a suitable butt, top hand guard and fore-end.

They do often pop up on eBay. Usually because someone is trying to make more by selling a rifle in parts rather than whole.

I would try EFD Rifles - The Enfield Specialists. These guys are trained Enfield specialists in the UK suppling quality reproduction/replacement parts.

There are lots of articles on this site that will guide you or your gunsmith in the correct way to fit the fore-end. It's fit is critical to the accuracy of the rifle.

I have found that the articles by Peter Laidler and the step by step photographic essays by tbonesmith are particularly worth reading.

If you need help, post more questions on this forum. There are so many members here who are very generous in sharing their valuable knowledge and sound guidance.

Whatever you choose to do, enjoy shooting the rifle.

Paul

[Arthur Lombardi]

Thanks, Paul, I'll have to think about returning it to its original dress or just enjoy it as it is. The bore is really good and the action is tight so it works well for plinking on the range. I'll try to upload a photo of the "=" on the collar piece.

[Homer]

Interesting. I was going to suggest the = was used to bar out the star but that looks excessive.

[Roger Payne]

Homer, you're exactly right. Many Mk3* rifles were retro-converted to Mk3's after the event & the asterisk was barred through, although as in this case the barring out often missed the asterisk completely! Note the cut-off provision on this rifle.

It's eminently recoverable with a few spares. Personally I wouldn't bother about a volley sight forend as it's unlikely this rifle would have originally been fitted with one, not if it was made in 1917.

ATB

[Arthur Lombardi]

Interesting, I wonder what was the reason was for retro-conversion. Thanks to you both for the insights.

[Bruce_in_Oz]

The "lll*" was essentially a "budget" relaxation for WW1.

Once the slaughter had stopped, the "lll" remained the standard, hence the retro-fiting of some rifles. I understand that Lithgow in particular, went straight back to the standard "lll" in the early 1920's.

Long-range "dial-sights" remained in vogue on the SMLE and P-14 until the 1930s. Eventually someone twigged that they were a bit redundant, even given the less than generous allocations of machine-guns in the inter-war period. The deletion of the windage adjustment on the rear sight may seem a bit of a step backwards. I suspect that the elimination of something that could contribute to wayward shooting under duress ("Sorry, Sergeant, I forgot to re-centre my sights."), was not a huge loss; see sights on the No.4.

If you are banging away at obliging targets at known distances and with the aid of range flags, precise windage adjustments as per the wondrous thing fitted to the M-1 Garand are a joy. However, once the rifle range has two-way traffic, the simpler, the better.

[Homer]

The "lll*" was essentially a "budget" relaxation for WW1.

Once the slaughter had stopped, the "lll" remained the standard, hence the retro-fiting of some rifles. I understand that Lithgow in particular, went straight back to the standard "lll" in the early 1920's.

Long-range "dial-sights" remained in vogue on the SMLE and P-14 until the 1930s. Eventually someone twigged that they were a bit redundant, even given the less than generous allocations of machine-guns in the inter-war period. The deletion of the windage adjustment on the rear sight may seem a bit of a step backwards. I suspect that the elimination of something that could contribute to wayward shooting under duress ("Sorry, Sergeant, I forgot to re-centre my sights."), was not a huge loss; see sights on the No.4.

If you are banging away at obliging targets at known distances and with the aid of range flags, precise windage adjustments as per the wondrous thing fitted to the M-1 Garand are a joy. However, once the rifle range has two-way traffic, the simpler, the better.

Volley sights were long gone by 1930.

[Arthur Lombardi]

My present thinking is that I will keep the rifle as is. The wood, while mismatched, is original and has a history of its own. To replace it with modern reproductions doesn't seem right to me. I was the first owner after the importer and I didn't modify the wood, so it was either done earlier or by the importer, though I don't know why he would shorten the fore-pieces. Perhaps to "sporterize"it, but it was sold so cheaply it couldn't have been economical to put much effort into it. If it was just assembled from available parts, there is still question why there were shortened forestocks to begin with. I suspect a lot of 90 year old rifles have very individual and unknown histories.