Magazine Lee-Enfield

[Ridolpho]

Have had this BSA for about a year and finally got around to stripping it to inspect for corrosion, etc. Appears to have original '96 barrel but bolt doesn't match and clearing rod is missing. Generally in good condition, with a fair bore, I'm impressed by the fit of the forend and buttstock (not to mention the nice wood). Doesn't appear to have ever had any upgrades from Mark I status (including the original sights that I believe were the main problem with this model in service). Markings are all BSA (other than bolt) plus lots of "WD" with arrow. The "Militia and Defence" stamp on the butt indicates this was sent to Canada, but I'm curious as to whether they were used in British service first and then transfered over. My main reason for posting is out of curiosity about the bedding of the barrel- as shown in one photo there is a metal post with concave top set into the forend near the lower band. Judging from the appearance of the forend prior to re-oiling, it appears this post holds the barrel clear of the wood although on the sides of the barrel there is virtually no gap. The underside of the barrel shows pristine bluing whilst there is rust above the woodline. At the end of the barrel, there appears to be virtually no clearance between barrel and nosecap. Is this the standard setup for the barrel/ forend with an MLE? I'm looking forward to shooting this, now that I've had a good look at it, and it will be interesting to see if it has the zeroing issues of the Boer War guns. Appreciate any comments and Merry Christmas!

Ridolpho

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.

[5thBatt]

The "post" in the forend is the retaining nut for the clearing rod.

[Ridolpho]

5thbatt: Thanks, I missed that (due to not having the rod). Do you know if it's supposed to play any role in supporting the barrel- mine definitely is holding the barrel off the wood. As to the missing rod, it sounds like many were removed/ discarded at the time of the Mark1* upgrade which saw the end of the rod and channel for it in the forend.

Ridolpho

[boltaction]

That's a very nice rifle! Nice clear Militia and Defence cartouche in the buttstock too! Enjoy it.

Ed

[Warren]

Nice bit of kit....We should start a "Matchmaking thread" or utilize "Angels" thread in an attempt to match up these old girls along with the LEC carbines. Other than NWMP issue
Canadian rifles were stored with the bolts separate hence the huge number of miss-matches.
I think I only have one or two carbines with matching bolts and probably a half a dozen miss-matches. The book Arms and Accouterments of the RCMP lists the miss matched issue carbines, but the M & D rifles are not included.

[Ridolpho]

Warren: It would be interesting to try to re-unite bolts and rifles although I wonder if the original would still be a good fit after long term use of a different bolt. Is it possible that the military at the time didn't consider matching bolt/ action important? Skennerton, in his big book, mentions that one of the "items" considered for improvement of MLE accuracy was more careful balancing of lug and rib aginst their respective shoulders. Did procedures (including the second proof) change dramatically with the SMLE? Thanks,

Ridolpho

[Warren]

One of mine is two rack numbers away from yours !!! and also a miss match. Plus, it came out of western Canada. Hmmm.
I'll go down and the the numbers and pop them off in a PM.

Attachment 39198Attachment 39199Attachment 39200

[browningautorifle]

I think the rods probably just shot loose and were lost. No malice there, the inner block seems to bear against the barrel in every case I've seen, so it may indeed be part of the "bedding " process for these ones. There IS a thread here for re-uniting mismatched parts...

[Ridolpho]

Jim: Thanks for the comments and Merry Christmas!

Bill