A Query For The Collector Minded

[SpikeDD]

Gentleman....

As a collector, I have always been interested in the obvious, as well as the not so obvious, anomalies associated with rifle production. Flipping through the List Of Changes can be a dangerous read for a brain that works as mine does.

To The Point...

February 2, 1916 was the "official" date to adopt the (*) for the Mk.III which, as most of us are aware, translated to some feature omissions to speed up production among various other reasons. Over the years, I have acquired a couple of examples of 1915 dated MK.III* rifles of both BSA and Enfield production which seem to have "jumped the gun" on the production omissions. I have seen a few others so I know they are out there, my question is, how many? I'm thinking if they jumped the gun a few months early the numbers may liken to the SSA-NRF numbers but that is just a guess.

Without going crazy, and if you have an interest to do so, I would be interested to see some serial numbers for the 1915 dated Mk III* rifles from BSA/Enfield. At the same time, as there was "officially" 1 month of production in 1916 for the Mk.III, I would be interested to see any serial numbers for 1916 dated Mk.III's from BSA/Enfield.

Thank you for any interest.

David

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.

[Peter Laidler]

Simple Spike. It's a case of the paperwork finally catching up with the ITP's. Happens all the time, with exactly the same reply from the MAG's (not FN MAG this time but REME Maintenance Advisory Groups) especially when we were getting new build GPMG/L7 guns! A good recent example was with Triumph TR7 car bodies. They were being produced at PSF in Swindon and by Triumph at Canley (or Speke......, Liverpool again!). Speke carried on 'as they were' and badly, while PSF used different methods that hadn't got to Speke. Anyway, you get my drift!

In short, this was bad news if you purchased a Speke TR7....... or worry about wartime dating!

[gsimmons]

You mean there was a good Triumph doorstop?
To be fair they got right with the TR8.

[Peter Laidler]

If you got a PSF bodied TR7, you were home and dry. But get a Speke TR7 assembled at Canley and.............. I hear what you say about the TR8, but so very limited! They SHOULD have got it right with the TR7! I had a brand new PSF TR7 body shell for many years with very slight damage to the rear after it'd slid off a pallet.

[gc1054]

Spike,
My shooting buddy has well-matched (rcvr, barrel, forend, nosecap, etc) 1916 Enfield sn D5642 that is marked MkIII* but is fitted out as a MKIII with mag cutoff, etc.. Transition to a new rifle configuration in multiple factories in WWI England was probably very difficult to coordinate & the piles of parts on the production floor probably forced a "use until depleted" approach.

[Peter Laidler]

As I say, very often on this subject, there were occasions where manufacturers were told to simplify their production (Sten gun sears were a point in case) but for some producers, changing over from a machine-a-bar-and-chop-off-to-length method to a new punched-out, pressed and then folded item were neither cost effective nor a speeding up of production. The same applies to all production engineering! If you change, it WILL entail a break in production. The Mk1 Bren gun is another good example. And if a No1 rifle body producer used the cut-off slot and a datum or facility to, say, hold the part while another operation is carried out, then he carries on with what he's doing............ slotting!

[SpikeDD]

Peter, thank you for your input. I understand the logistic nightmare production changes must have been.

The examples I'm looking for aren't changes waiting to be implemented after the paper work fact, but rather changes made before they were supposed to be. They "technically" shouldn't have existed before February 1916 but clearly began turning up some time in 1915. I'm sure it is also not an unusual circumstance as the armories were probably happy to have any amount of work shaved off and given the opportunity, would start as soon as possible. I know there would be a mix of parts during the transition to the Mk.III* and things like stock sets that were relieved for volley sights but not final milled for them would be abundant and simply used until exhausted. This is just a personal inquiry for my own knowledge, to try to figure out when in 1915 did BSA/Enfield begin the Mk.III*... ie, not slotting for the cut-off and fitting of volley sights, etc...etc. Complete omissions of procedures. As futile as it may seem, I'm just throwing it out there.

My BSA example of a 1915 dated Mk.III* is serial number Y63353. It's been FTR'd in Australia in 1951.

My Enfield example is Q2066. Stock not relieved for cut-off but depression for forward volley sight present. No lightening cuts in rear sight protector. Apart from a barrel change in 1942, every part is matching and Enfield marked, right down to a single numbered rear sight leaf that still retains windage adjustment.

I know this is not going to be an exact science or follow any type of sequence at all. I am also holding a 1915 dated, Enfield manufactured Mk. III with serial number S9369 that has all of the early features, including it's 15' dated barrel.

gc1054.... Thank you for sharing your information. If you can, take another look at your friends rifle and see if there is a couple of lines through the asterisk( * ). I have several 1916 dated rifles with the cut-off slot in them and they are Mk III* with the asterisk lined out.

[Brit plumber]

What Peter is saying is that the order to change to Mk3* was issued in 1915, probably informally and then when they court up with the paperwork, it was 1916. We have lots of Technical bulletins that we get the heads up on but the paperwork trail of authority can take days or weeks to arrive formally. It's amazing how much longer paperwork can take over the length of time for the job. Just look at the LoCs after WW2.

[Peter Laidler]

Well put BP. Couldn't have said it simpler. Verbal authority comes first followed by ITP's followed by the paperwork/EMER - or equivalent. Sterling bayonet bosses were a good example. A verbal or tacit agreement was reached that if they were broken off, as they really served no useful purpose (in Malaya) the guns were to be retained and used without them. It wasn't until a couple of years later that a Far East Technical Instruction was issued on paper. And we'd seen them bayonet standard-less for a year!

[SpikeDD]

OK...lol. I had assumed that would have been the scenario but I couldn't pull that confirmation out of Peters first response. It seemed a bit opposite of what I was poking around at. Thank you both again! Good to see you are still out here, Peter. I realize, from your perspective in it all, it was just business as usual and believe me, I'm not trying to crack any kind of production code...lol...just a little curious as in just the 2 examples of 15' dated rifles I have, with a Q and S prefix, there are 2 different models of rifle. Obviously, for a short time, both models were being made side by side in 1915 and that must have been a pain in the ***.

For me, as a collector, these are the things that I find interesting. These rifles aren't out there in huge numbers and I feel they make up a slot for "transitional" pieces in any collection. Apart from the 15' dated pieces, I have always thought that one of the hardest examples to find is a BSA/Enfield 1916 Mk.III...no *.