No.1 MkIII - 1953 FTR query

[Kiwi]

Would a No.1 MkIII that was FTR'd in 1953 have been retained as a MkIII and not upgraded (if that's the correct term?) to a MkIII*?

I have recently purchased a 1940 BSA&Co ShtLe III that sports a beech wood buttstock, and no.4 buttplate, and rear sling swivel and a beech wood fore-end (cut down unfortunately). The fore-end has a low cut side by the reciever to accomodate a magazine cut off which seems odd to me as I wouldn't have thought that in 1953 they would have fitted a MkIII* fore-end to cover up the mag cut off and put a star (*) after the III.

I hope to restock the rifle in the future but don't know if I should be fitting a beech MkIII* fore-end or a MkIII fore-end.

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]

We had a rule of thumb. NEVER retro modify anything and if the mag cut-off has been removed then the slot in the side MUST be covered regardless of its mark/type. The last thing a squaddie needs is a magazine full of shi......, er......... debris! Dirt and dust being the arch enemy of magazines.

Annanuvverfing...... We were permitted to fit No4 butts and fittings to No1 rifles - and butt plates/sling swivel assemblies to Lanchester SMG's incidentally

[Thunderbox]

The No1 MkIII* specification was not an "upgrade" - it was a war expedient simplification of manufacturing. In fact the "standard" British military rifle specification for the inter-war years (and thus to the end of the service life of the No1) was a modified No1 MkIII pattern - with cut-off and narrow pattern piling swivel, but without volley sights or windage sights. The last "new build" military rifles from BSA were all to this pattern until 1941.

The 1953 FTR programme was carried out by BSA. As the markings do not follow military practice at the time (eg on FTR'd No4s), its thought that the programme was for private contracts, or for rifles being distributed to Commonwealth countries from non-War Office budgets.

Quite probably your rifle did have its cut-off plate when it left BSA after its FTR. Most likely it was removed by the same owner who sporterised it.

[Kiwi]

The 1953 FTR programme was carried out by BSA. As the markings do not follow military practice at the time (eg on FTR'd No4s), its thought that the programme was for private contracts, or for rifles being distributed to Commonwealth countries from non-War Office budgets.

Quite probably your rifle did have its cut-off plate when it left BSA after its FTR. Most likely it was removed by the same owner who sporterised it.

Thanks for the information. Now the delema is do I re-stock with a beech MkIII* fore-end and leave as is or modify the MKIII* fore-end to that of a MkIII so that a mag cut off can be fitted so it is true to the remaining parts of the rifle? Peter's comments about not retro modifying anything makes sense to me but the apparent evidence on the exisitng beech fore-end would suggest it retained a low sided fore-end at the time of FTR.

[ssj]

I suppose it comes down to your preference, I'd look for other examples of these after FTR and follow that. I would certainly re-wood it to full wood.

regards

[Peter Laidler]

Cutting to the quick Kiwi, in my time working on the bench, I have to say that I never lost a minutes sleep wondering wehat type of wood to fit to a service rifle just so long as it sort-of matched! And if it didn't, we made it all match - in the stain tank! We had a big stain tank at Ngaruawahia, right at the front of the door where we kept the workshop transit van!

[Bindi2]

Q for Peter.
If that rifle was naval would the cutoff be left on in a FTR in 53
Which also begs the Q any evidence that the rifle was naval.

[Kiwi]

Which also begs the Q any evidence that the rifle was naval.

No navy markings present on the rifle.

[Surpmil]

Recently had a LSA No1 MkIII dated 1918 which had been FTR'd in '53 with new beech wood. The cutoff was present and had obviously been so when the FTR was done, judging by the finish.

[Peter Laidler]

The Navy (and the RAF) were a totally different service to the Army and used their own for of small-arms instructions called BR's, Although they generally followed the EMER's, I can't really say anything about their kit except when it came through our huge workshops their No4's (they didn't have No5's or L1A1's then) and revolvers were all repaired to the EMER. The only 'service' No1 rifles I ever saw were hundreds of EY rifles in the late 60's/early 70's and those service and DP rifles with Cadet Forces. They would all be rebuilt to current EMER spec., that is Mk3/1