BSA Commercial No1 Mk3.

[Bindi2]

BSA built no1 Mk3 and Mk3* rifles to military specs without the crown stamp. To shoot at Bisley you needed a rifle of military spec to compete. The only way to do this was by buying a BSA get it passed and stamped so you could compete.
BSA also supplied other countries these rifles as well. who applied their own stamps.. This has created a huge area for collectors.

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.

[Sapper740]

BSA built no1 Mk3 and Mk3* rifles to military specs without the crown stamp. To shoot at Bisley you needed a rifle of military spec to compete. The only way to do this was by buying a BSA get it passed and stamped so you could compete.
BSA also supplied other countries these rifles as well. who applied their own stamps.. This has created a huge area for collectors.

I'm working on collecting all the models BSA made for competition rifles and so far have found a M.L.E. MkI*, a C.L.L.E. MkI*, and a No.1 MkIII. I'm amazed at how well cared for these rifles are and some have almost as varied a history, judging by the stamps, as a service rifle had. Interestingly, the M.L.E. despite being rebarreled at Lithgow just prior to WWII still sports the longer barrel. I've read that after the S.M.L.E. entered service that all competition rifles had to shorten their barrels to S.M.L.E. specs to be able to enter competitions.

[Alan de Enfield]

I'm working on collecting all the models BSA made for competition rifles and so far have found a M.L.E. MkI*, a C.L.L.E. MkI*, and a No.1 MkIII. I'm amazed at how well cared for these rifles are and some have almost as varied a history, judging by the stamps, as a service rifle had. Interestingly, the M.L.E. despite being rebarreled at Lithgow just prior to WWII still sports the longer barrel. I've read that after the S.M.L.E. entered service that all competition rifles had to shorten their barrels to S.M.L.E. specs to be able to enter competitions.

It is quite interesting that in comparison tests done at the time 0f the Mk111 being introduced the results showed little difference between the 'long rifle' and the 'short rifle'.
With the difference in FoM at 600 yards being about 1" and only about 1/2" at 500 yards.

[Sapper740]

It is quite interesting that in comparison tests done at the time 0f the Mk111 being introduced the results showed little difference between the 'long rifle' and the 'short rifle'.
With the difference in FoM at 600 yards being about 1"

Some interesting take-aways from your post: I often wondered if the longer barrel provided a greater muzzle velocity but according to the comparison done the shorter barrel has a higher muzzle velocity. I wonder if handloading with a slower modern powder would give the longer barrel the nod. Next, the two rifles swap having the best FoM back and forth at the various ranges until they're a virtual tie at 1,700 yds. As you pointed out, not much difference between the two.

[Alan de Enfield]

Some interesting take-aways from your post: I often wondered if the longer barrel provided a greater muzzle velocity but according to the comparison done the shorter barrel has a higher muzzle velocity. I wonder if handloading with a slower modern powder would give the longer barrel the nod. Next, the two rifles swap having the best FoM back and forth at the various ranges until they're a virtual tie at 1,700 yds. As you pointed out, not much difference between the two.

Some more comparisons - this was with the 'long rifle' vs the competition, and barrel life of the short rifle, along with speed of reloading.

[Sapper740]

Some more comparisons - this was with the 'long rifle' vs the competition, and barrel life of the short rifle, along with speed of reloading.

You can see the British emphasis on musketry in that table. Even the "ordinarily trained" shooters had an excellent shots fired/hits ratio.