Strange mk3

[Chainsaw311]

Trying again for more pics

[Alan de Enfield]

If there are only 2 known examples you would not be able to replace it for $5000, or $10,000 or ..................

So what is the 'value' ?

[Roger Payne]

Quite a find. Yes, some things are so scarce replacing them is not an option, no matter how deep your pockets! The stuff is just not there to be had......

[Peter Laidler]

We had a couple of these rifles at Warminster, one of each 'variation. The Mk3 conversion was costed at 18 shillings and 6 pence to convert the body while a new build body would come in at £1 - one pound and one shilling. There was a bit of a corresponfdence about the cheapest option but the rifles were all old and by many different manufacturers and could standardisation be maintained. The only true way forward was new-build. But something better was already on the drawing boards

[Chainsaw311]

Well,I sent a bunch of pics to the rock island auction hoping for possible numbers of these thought to exist and maybe a value.cross ing my fingers they come up with something.

[Chainsaw311]

I dont think ria took a very close look at the pictures,they valued it at a normal mk 3 price.Looks like I get to keep searching for info.

[Surpmil]

Curious how the long range sight is bent, and from the wear was a long time ago.

Sadly Bubba just couldn't resist having a go at sanding the wood, but still rare as hen's teeth.

Congrats on finding it!

[Terry Hawker]

Curious how the long range sight is bent, and from the wear was a long time ago.

Surp,

Good eye, surprised you're the first to notice, but the rear volley sight arm isn't actually bent. Being identical to my example, it is actually formed with a bow in it to clear the rather bulbous, but easier to manipulate, locking catch thumbpiece (or "safety" to most of us).

This is the feature that led Paul B. to suggest that this rifle was more likely to be a concept rifle (sights and safety being the concept under consideration), than a trials rifle. As usual, Paul's assessment is probably the correct one, I believe.

[Surpmil]

Surp,

Good eye, surprised you're the first to notice, but the rear volley sight arm isn't actually bent. Being identical to my example, it is actually formed with a bow in it to clear the rather bulbous, but easier to manipulate, locking catch thumbpiece (or "safety" to most of us).

This is the feature that led Paul B. to suggest that this rifle was more likely to be a concept rifle (sights and safety being the concept under consideration), than a trials rifle. As usual, Paul's assessment is probably the correct one, I believe.

Funny sort of after-thought isn't it? Or were they actually trying to make it easier to grasp and raise the long range sight, as well as the safety?

If not you'd wonder why they didn't lengthen the shank of the safety, put L.R. sight arm under the safety rather than over it, and put a slight outward bend on close to the aperture?

[Warren]

I was told over 60 years ago the true price of anything is the second highest price at an auction sale.
Just like you never pay to much, you just buy too soon.