1950 Ishapore No1 Mk3*

[Thunderstreak]

I have the opportunity to purchase a nice looking 1950 Ishapore No1 Mk3* rifle that appears to be original and matching. Not something I was particularly on the hunt for but it looks like a good piece. I am aware of the metal issues rifles of this period had. Anything I should know about these? Sorry, no pictures yet.

[Bindi2]

If in fact it is a No1Mk3 i dont think there was a metal issue. The 2A and the 2A1 had the issues with strength using the 7.62x51 NATO round

[Sapper740]

Something else to check into Thunderstreak is if this is a newly Ishapore manufactured No.1 or an FTR'd No.1. Ishapore had a penchant to scrub all previous manufacturer's marks on the rifle body and simply stamping the factory repair stamp over the date post WWII so this will tell you if it is a newly manufactured No.1 or an FTR'd older rifle.

[Alan de Enfield]

If in fact it is a No1Mk3 i dont think there was a metal issue.

It was the No3 Mk3 that had a material problem.

In 1950 Ishapore changed the specification for the bodies from that specified by the British to a 'local cheaper' steel grade, this resulted in the bodies twisting and bolts jamming on firing proof rounds. Rather that lose face the Indians changed the proofing requirements so that the rifle 'passed'
All No1s Mk3s were subsequently manufactured until the end of production, using the lower grade steel and were not tested to the correct proof specifications, (the standards were not modified but they were not the tests that were actually applied).

The problems with the 2A / 2A1 was that they just used the new steel that they were using for the Mk3 and it failed diasasterously. They admitted defeat, and changed the steel grade BACK to that specified by the British for the Mk3 and the rifle was just usable but 'operating on the edge'

The internet story that they changed to a superior steel was 'sorta true', but if they hadn't changed to a lesser grade of steel they wouldn't have needed to change it back to that originally specified by the Brits.

Source :

Extract from “Gun Digest 33rd Anniversary 1979 Deluxe Edition”
Article Author : Mr A G Harrison
Qualification : Former ‘Proof Master’ of the ‘Rifle Factory Proof House, Ishapore, India’

Mr Harrison goes onto reveal some real horror stories - one example where the proof house receives some 20 gauge shotguns to proof, but as they do not have any 20 gauge proof cartridges they bore out the chanber to 12 gauge and use 12 gauge proof rounds - the shotgun is then marked up as a 12g.

[Thunderstreak]

Thanks for everyone’s input. Alan, I had read that, thank you. Does that affect all 1950 dated No1 Mk3’s or did they change mid year? If so, is it possible to tell the good from the bad?
That said, if it is a bad one, are they safe to shoot? I assume they must be because they were still issued.

[Alan de Enfield]

Thanks for everyone’s input. Alan, I had read that, thank you. Does that affect all 1950 dated No1 Mk3’s or did they change mid year? If so, is it possible to tell the good from the bad?
That said, if it is a bad one, are they safe to shoot? I assume they must be because they were still issued.

My personal view - other opinions are valid.

Yes they were issued, but that doesn't mean they are as safe as earlier rifles - when tested to their own safety standards they failed, so they lowered the actual test standards to get them passed, but did not amend the 'written standards' or 'admit to the problems'.

If, for safety, the minimum recommended tyre tread is 3mm, are you happy with a dealer says "yes they have only 1mm but you'll be fine, loads of people drive on bald tyres" - what happens when the day comes & you get a greasy, wet road ?



You could argue they've managed to be fired for 50 years without 'blowing up' but as we know stress in steel is a cumulative thing, who knows that it won't fail next time you pull the trigger, or in 100 rounds or 1000 rounds ? The safety factor is lower than all other manufacturers.

For me, a 1950+ Ishapore is not worth the risk, there are 1000's of other No1 Mk3s out there without the potential weakness, at not disimilar prices.

[Thunderstreak]

I agree, even if it isn’t safe it may yet be collectable. I believe this one may have been issued to Indonesia.
Still wondering if it’s possible to tell the difference between the two, EN vs SWES 48? Are they marked differently? Do they have a different appearance or finish?

[Alan de Enfield]

I agree, even if it isn’t safe it may yet be collectable. I believe this one may have been issued to Indonesia.
Still wondering if it’s possible to tell the difference between the two, EN vs SWES 48? Are they marked differently? Do they have a different appearance or finish?

I am not aware of any visible differences between the two steel types - they would both have had the same protection/paint applied.

Ishapore has one of the longest manufacturing history of the Mk3 producers, starting in 1910 and still in production in the late 1980s, they even today manufacture a 'civilian variant' of the Mk3 in .315 calibre.

IOF .315 sporting rifle - Wikipedia

Unlocking the Potential of India Sporting Rifle (.315 Rifle) - A Professional's Guide

If you are looking for a 'collectible variant' look for one produced by the 'smaller' manufacturers such as LSA, SSA, or NRF.

But, as always, your money, your choice. Good luck which ever way you decide to go,

[Bindi2]

A d E
Can you give us some more info on the No3 Mk3 you mentioned

[Alan de Enfield]

A d E
Can you give us some more info on the No3 Mk3 you mentioned

A very very rare variant that Ishapore trialled to try and beat the US at its own game.

Alternatively,

It was a typo which I can no longer edit.

Which do you think it is ?