Decoding SMLE markings

[Wainwrightbagger]

Just been trying to decode the markings on my SMLE No1 Mk 3. Think I've figured most of it out but was surprised when I looked at the year stamp through a magnifying glass that it has been very clearly initially stamped as 1917 with an 8 very precisely overstamped on the 7. Without magnification it is hard to see this over stamping.
Just wondering why this would happen? Simple error on the production line or was it held back over a Christmas holiday period? Am I being naiive imagining a Christmas holiday in Sparkbrook towards the end of the war?
Any thoughts gratefully received.

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]

I would say that that is the only explanation. A late 1917 body finished in 1918 although in the big wide world, the date on the body has no bearing on it. Seen Brens dated 1942 with a proof date of 1943 so clearly late '42 production

[Colonel Enfield]

I'd suggest they were churning out action bodies as fast as they possibly could, then basically pouring them into giant parts bins from which they were taken as needed on the assembly line. Quite probable the action was made and stamped in 1917 but didn't actually come out of the parts pile and become assembled into a full rifle until 1918.

I know Webley & Scott certainly did something like that - it's not at all unheard of for Webley revolvers to have serial numbers from a particular production year, but manufacture/proof markings from years (sometimes more than a decade!) later.

[Wainwrightbagger]

Thanks Peter and Colonel. I must admit to being impressed by the standard of the stamping, it is absolutely spot on, it really does look like 1918 to the naked eye (well mine anyway) and the 7 can only be seen by use of magnification.

[Peter Laidler]

At the ROF's, '.....as soon as practicably possible following final inspection' (the words used), the allocated serial number was marked on the body. At this point onwards, the part became registered and accountable

[5thBatt]

There are plenty of rifles out there where the barrel date is a year later than the receiver, the receiver was made one year & then assembled into a rifle the following year, quite common & the year on the receiver is unaltered, the over stuck year is more likely due to the stamp not being changed as the year changed over & then had to be corrected to keep the books straight, the most commonly encounter examples of over stamped years are 1918 BSAs

[Colonel Enfield]

Looks like that rifle was originally intended to be a Mk III (no star), too - the * looks like a later stamping, presumably from when the date was remarked as the gun was assembled?

[5thBatt]

Looks like that rifle was originally intended to be a Mk III (no star), too - the * looks like a later stamping, presumably from when the date was remarked as the gun was assembled?

The whole of the III* is centralized below the markings so was a III* from the start, if not the middle I in III would be central as on these MkIIIs



a 1917 MkIII*

[browningautorifle]

Love those early marked rifles. Those would resemble artwork...