BSA Long Lee Target Rifles (Arms Heritage- Vol.10, No.6: December 2020

[Badger]

From Advisory Panel member jc5

I am attaching an article I wrote last year from the final issue of Arms Heritage (Vol.10, No.6: December 2020). You have my permission to offer it (a gift from "jc5”) on the Lee Enfield On-line Knowledge Libraries page. Consider it an appetizer for my upcoming Lee-Speed book.

As Arms Heritage concluded its run (the owners decided to retire), the content was given to Collectors Firearms (in Houston) and they have posted all the articles online (see AHM Volume 10 Issue 6). I retained the copyright to my article, so I think the Enfield community would benefit from my version.

The scope of the article is strictly limited to commercial Long Lee target rifles by BSA, specifically production history and markings. I did not discuss SMLE target rifles, or the offerings from the LSA company, or delve into the subject of the target sights that were fitted to these rifles. Each of those would require an article of its own, and all will be covered fully in my Lee-Speed book.

Even with its limited scope, the article offers some facts that have never been published, such as production figures for commercial rifles, exact dates for when patents expired, explanations for certain markings (the private government view marks, as well as the “Cordite Only” mark), and so on. There has been speculation about these things over the years, but my article is the first time that such info has appeared with citations to back it up. (It was a long, hard road to verify those facts). I hope that the Enfield community will find it useful.

Regards
JC5

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.

[superbee]

Thanks for posting!

[Jc5]

Just to clarify... all kudos to Collectors Firearms for hosting the Arms Heritage material. That is a great gift to the firearms community.

The problem is there were some bad results of whatever process they used to convert and host the material: some parts of the text were mangled (e.g., "BSA&M" was replaced by "B&M" throughout--an important distinction---and many of the footnotes were truncated or lost).

Therefore, the PDF version attached at the top of this thread should be considered the correct version.

FYI, the original version published in Arms Heritage magazine was correct, and the hard copies offered by Cornell Pubs are correct.