Modified Mk III* Handguards

[ROCK]

I have three MkIII* Rifles in which the front and rear handguard wood, that runs alongside the rear sight base, has been removed. These rifles all have Century Arms import stamps. I am assuming these were imported from the same place and that the modifications were done there.

Does anyone know who was doing these modifications and when they were done?

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.

[Peter Laidler]

This was an official UK Military modification authorised during the late 50's. I don't have the exact date or EMER reference but it was there somewhere. It was suggested as an option where spare parts were in short supply or not available and patching was not a viable option - I presume due to oily wood!

But if one leg was removed, they ALL had to be removed.

[Frederick303]

Capt. Laidler,

I have noted that here in the US a large number of dispersal rifles with dates from 1941 to 1943 seem to have cut ears. There are also a number of reworked rifles from this era with 1940 to 1942 barrel replacement dates that seem to have the same cut handguard legs. Now many of these rifles that came in during the mid 1990s seem to have never seen any use, the bores are pristine. Based on that observation I had wondered if the allowance for cut handguard legs dated from the post Dunkirk, post BSA bombing era when there was a need to get any and all rifles back in into serviceable use, and the production of rifles was at a low point. By the by, none of the rifles I am referencing have any noticeable Indian modifications or spare parts on them.

Now since it is likely that many of these dispersal rifles ended up somewhere else than the UK prior to entering the US, it is possible the ears were cut later on in the 1950’s. But at least the observed examples I and other US collectors have seen does not seem to correlate to the rifles having been modified, most of the dispersal rifles I have seen with cut handguard legs seem to have no sign of use.

Is there any possibility that the original mod was approved in 1940 to 1941?

A lot of folks seem to think it was primarily an Indian practice, when few if any of the pictures I have seen of Indian guns from the 1940 to 1961 seem to have this modification. Very few of the Indian guns that came in the mid 1990s through Springfield Sporters had cut handguards either, at least that is my recollection. The latest batch of 19,000 drill rifles that came into the US of A have had examples of rifles with cut handguards, and I gather these rifles were sourced from India, so I do not doubt at least some were so modified in Indian service. But at least from my non-scientific samples it seems far less common on Indian guns then dispersal and rebuilt SMLEs with dates from 1941 to 1943.

If the original EMER does date to the 1950s I am curious as to the exact date. I seem to recall that the SMLE MK III* was obsolete in UK service from 1947 to 1954 when it was returned to current stores for some reason. If the original EMER does date from that period, does the reintroduction to stores have anything to do with it?

Once again, thank you for the unique knowledge that you bring to these very esoteric history points and questions.

Regards

Frederick303

[Peter Laidler]

Myth 1: It is a myth that the No1 rifle was obsolete in Britain in 1947 to 54. In any case, it wouldn't occur between dates, it would be declared obsolete at a date! It might have been declared obsolescent and obsolescent isn't the same as obsolete by any means. Further to this, if anyone tells you that it WAS declared obsolete, then just ask them why the UK Military EMER (authorised by the Army Council no less........) was still being upodated and issued afresh in 1956 AND amended/updated in 1958 AND the SMLE was still in service (as an EY rifle) in 1970 - although I never saw the dischargers..... and still in service with Cadet Forces until the 80's. Although as we learned when the L59 programme was in hand, this was probably by default or poor housekeeping.

There. Simple answer to a looooooooooooong question

As for the ears on the No1 rifle handguards, Para4, EMER C-308 dated January 1956 simply states that '........front handguards repaired by the removal of the legs will be accepted' Later this is amended to delete the word 'FRONT' so as to read '.....handguards repaired by the............'

[Thunderbox]

So at least we know they were officially called "legs" and not the commonly used "ears".....

[Peter Laidler]

To be honest TBox, I call them ears too. But we still learned how to replace them while we were apprentices. By cutting off the old broken ones, undercut, dovetail, glue and peg then make off. I wish I'd known then that there was already an EMER instruction out that stated that those with cut off legs were acceptable. I suppose they'd say that it's character building! I have to admit that when one of mine cracked I just cut the lot off and replaced them in the 70's and they're still going strong

I've just read the EMER fully and it also states that regardless of the mark/type of the rifle, the dial sight recess will be made off, the hole plugged and made off and the parts removed, returned to Ordnance. Returned to ordnance in this case means that they are to be placed into the bin! Returning stuff to Ordnance was a paperwork exercise like nothing else you've ever seen...........

[Frederick303]

Many thanks, that explains something I had wondered about.

Regards

Frederick303