Question re Cogswell & Harrison

[boltaction]

As anyone come across a WWI SMLE with a C&h marked barrel before? The rifle is a BSA 1917, with a 1917 dated barrel which is marked to the company. I see in Skennerton's book that Cogswell & Harrison made fencing ,islet parts and in WWII were involved in refitting SMLE's by cannibalizing parts, but I see no record of involvement in barrel making in WWI. Or is that just an example of the typical chaos of wartime?

Thx and Happy New Year!

Ed

---------- Post added at 11:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:43 PM ----------

As anyone come across a WWI SMLE with a C&h marked barrel before? The rifle is a BSA 1917, with a 1917 dated barrel which is marked to the company. I see in Skennerton's book that Cogswell & Harrison made fencing ,islet parts and in WWII were involved in refitting SMLE's by cannibalizing parts, but I see no record of involvement in barrel making in WWI. Or is that just an example of the typical chaos of wartime? Thx and Happy New Year! Ed

Should read fencing musket parts, not ,islet. Whatever that would be. Spellcheck!!! I recall texting my wife to see how many zucchini she wanted me to pick up at the grocery store, and spellcheck changed it to zombies.... That got a rapid reply!

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.

[Thunderbox]

Post a photo of the marks?


It could just be a retail mark: C&G probably sold "sold out of service" No1s alongside other Enfield Rifles (eg Lee Speeds) from their Piccadilly retail premises.

Another possibility is that it is an inspection mark from the days when C&G were part of Interarms; IIRC they were one of the London gunmakers used by Interarms (Interarm Co) to store and sort military surplus.

[boltaction]

Here is a photo of the mark. You may well be right. Hadn't thought of that. Most of the marks I've seen from the trade are put somewhere visible, but under the wood would be a good place for a long name like C&H's.

Ed
Attachment 58931Attachment 58932Attachment 58933Attachment 58934Attachment 58935

[breakeyp]

Cogswell and Harrison was a gunsmithing firm that may have marked the barrel at any point in their business dealings. They were bought in the 1960's by Interarms (Interarmco) and converted a number of .303s to sporter configurations for sale in the US. They also converted .38 S&W revolvers to .38 special and .22 rf.

One sign of a converted rifle was the fitting of a stamped steel ramp around the front sight.

[Thunderbox]

That looks to me like a "selected" SMLE that has been retailed through their shop.

The forend looks as if it might have been reshaped a bit - or even stocked by C&H. It seems to have a straight taper on the underside.

[boltaction]

Thanks for the information. I wondered about a private market version, such as one sees on the commercial Long Lees, but this is a 1917 dated piece. If it was marketed by them post war, I would expect it to be sporter configuration or something like that. Everything matches. It's a nice piece. The fellow who's selling it doesn't have it marked cheap, but it may be worth it.

Ed


Attachment 58982Attachment 58981Attachment 58980Attachment 58979Attachment 58978Attachment 58977Attachment 58976

[browningautorifle]

Now that Ed, is a nice rifle...

[Thunderbox]

I'd be a bit cautious about the rifle - have you examined it close up?

The black paint finish would be extremely unusual for any rifle retailed by a British gunsmith (they'd sell either original finish rifles, or possibly re-blacked or re-blued), and it seems to me that the wear on the metalwork does not really concur with the apparently unblemished forend. To be honest - and without being able to see anything apart from those photos - the rifle has the look of a recent rebuild, possibly with ex-Indian parts.

The photo make the barrel appear a slightly different blue from the receiver. What are the markings on the right side - do the barrel and receiver numbers match (as in fonts and style)?

Is there a photo of the markings on the underside of the forend towards the front, or of the number on the boss of the nosecap?

Edit: oops, missed the forend underside photo. OK - its an Enfield forend, and almost certainly one of the new/unused ones which have been available in recent years. Its not a typical WW1 restock (different supplier, lack of rifle number, etc), so IMHO it is a recent rebuild by someone. I'm guessing that the nosecap does not have an original number on it, etc.

[boltaction]

That's why I haven't bought it yet! I have requested some more photos of the nosecap and stock mid section, and clarification of the numbers. The receiver and bolt do match, but I am not yet certain of the nosecap or the rearsight. I was told the stock matches but the photo sent did not include the number. I would have to see the nosecap before making a judgement, as I have seen re numbered caps before. As well, I have asked for a closeup of the rear top wood. It may be an optical illusion, but to me the bottom of that rear top wood looks quite worn compared to the pristine-ness of the rest of the stock.

My initial thought was that this was a sporterized rifle which had been restored, but then I was told the stock and nosecap matched, so that was why I wondered if C&H had contracted for barrels in WWI. Then the photos came in which do show the barrel to be original, but the stock looks really good and there's that oddness to the top wood. Just waiting for more photos before making a final decision. However, the fact that it seems the Cogswell stamp would have had to have been applied postwar is a significant strike against the rifle; why would a firm privately market a rifle post "the war to end all wars" and leave it in full mil configuration but put their company stamp somewhere where it would 't be seen? What makes the most sense is that this might have been sporterized, marked by C&H and marketed by them, then at some point refitted with new wood but the top wood was kept. Have to see. The price being asked is what one would expect to pay for a mint original WWI warhorse, not a rebuild. If this is a restored rifle, It would likely make a superb shooter and I certainly wouldn't turn my nose up at it, but not for the price.

Ed

[boltaction]

Here they are. I think the nosecap serial has maybe been restruck?

EdAttachment 59013Attachment 59014