1916 smle

[Ridolpho]

Thought some of you might find this interesting. A mostly matching (forend doesn't, sight leaf renumbered) 1916 MkIII. This is one of the RSAF Enfield Rifles that Skennerton and Stratton mention as being built using a MK I action body (note the charger quide stop lug on the right). The two authors suggest that these were either re-barreled or that the body was formerly unused. I may be mistaken (generally the case) but I think there may be signs that this one was a used body and that it may have its original Mk I barrel. The proof marks on body and barrel are both quite worn but appear to me to be E. Rex- the one on the body is definite. Interestingly, there are two sets of wear marks mid-barrel- one is from the flats in the upper part of the inner band. The other is about an inch forward and where the band would have originally been on a Mk I (but on the lower side of barrel). However, to confuse the issue, there are two '18's on the barrel shank. Could those merely reflect late war modification to the small cone? The rifle is very usable with decent bore and a nice fitting replacement forend. This is the only wartime Mk III no-star I've managed to acquire so-far as they've become pretty pricey with all the current WW1 interest relating to the anniversary. So help me out- what am I missing with the markings on this one?

Ridolpho

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.

[5thBatt]

'18 is the barrel date, so the marks are likely to be a coincidence.
Here is my one, also with a barrel date of 1918 & a ER proof on the receiver, mine is a rebuild of a BSA Mk1, i think they could be rebuilds of battle damaged rifles but thats just a wag but based on some observations over the years.

[Thunderbox]

It'll be a MkIII originally built on an unused Mk1 action body. They are relatively common.

It has probably then been rebarrelled (and most likely also restocked without volley sights) in 1918.

If the forend has a different number from the barrel/action (and the nosecap as well?) then the rifle has almost certainly been "restored" recently by a civilian owner wishing to create a rifle with volley sights. The wear marks you mention on the barrel could be an indication that the rifle has spent some time as a sporter.

[Ridolpho]

Thanks for the comments guys. Mine does have a number matched nosecap, although the font doesn't match anything else so it may well have been sporterized. As to an unused body having been used in 1916- it wouldn't be proofed untill fitted with barrel, would it? The proof on my action body is definitely E. Rex. And 5thbatt: thank's for sharing the photos. I still wonder about my barrel- the font of the serial seems to match the action so perfectly along with hint of E. Rex proof. However, it can't be coincidence that yours also has the apparent '18 year stamped on it.

Ridolpho