1918 Enfield Small Arms Factory made SMLE No.1 Mk.III* converted back to No.1 Mk.III

[browningautorifle]

I served in the Army for 12 years

Yes, many of us did and not just a few years.

all these opinions came out of left field

Not really, you asked...

I never thought that it would cause a fuss

I don't think there's any fuss, you seem to want us to confirm your beliefs and now the senior armorer (just about anywhere) has instead told us how it is. But you can believe a 1918 rifle can still show up in as new condition if you wish. Don't get hot about it, you aren't the first to do that here. Yes, we like the looks of your rifle. Most of us would love to have it as is...

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.

[owengun]

Yes, many of us did and not just a few years.

Not really, you asked...

I don't think there's any fuss, you seem to want us to confirm your beliefs and now the senior armorer (just about anywhere) has instead told us how it is. But you can believe a 1918 rifle can still show up in as new condition if you wish. Don't get hot about it, you aren't the first to do that here. Yes, we like the looks of your rifle. Most of us would love to have it as is...

I not getting hot at all, cool as a cucumber actually and while I know should be deferring to posters here who have more military time in service and therefore are by default more knowledgeable on these rifles.

I still have this problem with how the facts present themselves squarely in my face, so I just happened to have one of these definitive 1953 BSA FTR'd SMLE's in my collection, so I pulled my almost the same condition originally BSA made in 1917 and then re-barrelled/rebuilt and clearly marked as FTR'd by them in 1953 from my gun safe to double check again.

Well strike me pink!, who would have thought that it has the same 53 over a broad arrow on the left side as the above posted rifle and funny enough it also has a new serial numbered bolt, barrel and nose cap with the use of the same as London to a brick font stamp as on the original posted rifle, I be stuffed!

Fair suck of the sav! , How could this be? it clearly fly's against all the most learned wisdom previously presented logically before me in posts above.

Anyhow lets let this craziness die and move on, I don't want to argue anymore and if most people here do not, for what ever reason, want to believe it is a BSA 1953 FTR SMLE then so be it. What ever the majority want to believe it is I will go with and from then on forward will label it as such.

Anyhow for everybody's pleasure I submit these pictures of my originally made in 1917 and the FTR'd by BSA in 1953 SMLE Mk. III*




Also I also happen to have another excellent almost new condition BSA 1918 Mk.III FTR, so it is not like I am coming from left field with my thoughts of what this original posted rifle appears to be to myself, I guess owning 3 excellent condition post war BSA FTR SMLE gives me a little lee way in why I am making the statements I have. I have a collection of nearly 20 Lee Enfields and am not trying to convince anybody of anything I can not back up.

---------- Post added at 03:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 PM ----------

BTW the above 1917 rifle has a mix of walnut and beech stock work.