Is this a real sniper?

[Toxophilus]

Hi,i was doing research on this and other rifles to actually bid on this rifle and actually found some posts and images on reddit about this exact rifle. In the links/pictures you can see its the exact rifle from the serial number on the bolt and on the left side of the rifle the stock repair above the magazine is visible and the same. Anyway here are the links to post on reddit and also the photos of the rifle on Imgur which shows better close ups of the scope base and rings like you wanted. Was curious aswell what you guys thought:

Looks like Santa delivered early-- A 1915 Lee Enfield No.1 Mk. III Sniper with Periscopic Prism Company Scope : guns

Lee Enfield No.1 Mk. III Sniper with Periscopic Prism Company Scope. - Album on Imgur

[Roger Payne]

Many thanks toxophilus. Those additional photo's are a great assistance. Having better quality close ups unfortunately opens a further can of worms, at least IMHO.

The scope appears matched to this rifle, yet it appears to be a different scope to the one it is now offered for auction with. If you have the matching scope, why change it? Things don't get better than fully matching. Note the cleaned off to bare metal area evident on the current sale photo's is magically black painted on the older photographs. The wear on the focus adjuster looks different to me too. If it is the same scope, it has clearly been got at in between photo sessions! One way to be sure would be to ask Rock island about the rifle number engraved onto the scope rings, & preferably to get images of it.

The rifle now raises concerns in my mind. The fit of the wood to metal at the back end is not great. Look at the rear face of the forend & the degree to which the butt has been scraped - the wood is now appreciably below the level of the butt socket. Further, looking at the pix of the muzzle end of the rifle, the wood to metal fit is ok, but unless the rifle had been kept in a hermetically sealed dust free environment, those edges would be full of crud by now.

The same thing applies to the edges of the screws & the screw slots on the mount. The blue on the screws is also perfect - with routine handling & exposure over the years there's usually an element of oxidation/patination, or simply the tops (high points) get worn showing bare metal. Not so here - a little too perfect.

Again, it's difficult to be too dogmatic about things when so few originals have survived, but of the few bases that bore rifle numbers I can't recall seeing a letter prefix. I think they just stamped the digits IIRC, though I would not push this issue if someone thought differently.

If anyone is going to ask Rock Island for more photographs then it would be worth getting a look at the bolt guide way with the bolt drawn rearwards to show the ends of the 5BA screws that hold the mount base to the rifle. If they are original, put there a century ago, they will have oxidised to be a pretty good match (maybe not perfect due to variations in steel constituents). If they were inserted in recent years they'll be bright, or maybe cold blued.....

I'm enclosing a few photo's of my two rifles that both bear original bases. The rifle with the smaller thumb catch base is, IMHO, perfectly genuine, albeit the screws in the base have been in & out & no longer line up with the centre punch marks. When they were replaced it was clearly a long time ago, judging by the muck that has accumulated in them. (It is hard to realistically simulate this). The other rifle I made up but using another genuine mount base. This one has both lower ends rounded & has the larger thumb catch like the base on the rifle up for auction. This one never bore a serial number, but has an examiner's mark where part of the serial would have been. Note how 'clean' the screws are - I set this up about ten years ago for myself.

Anyway, just a few observations. No doubt others will have theirs.

[Surpmil]

Very interesting photos Roger. I personally don't think the screws on your first photo have been disturbed at all: I think whoever punched them simply took the lazy way of doing it and punched in the same place on each one, rather than in line with the slots of the screws. What chance that the slots all lined up on the same position originally after all??

A wise choice to leave it as found, rather than cleaning off the evidence of age and use.

Speaking of rotating screws, something seems to have happened between the two sets of photos of the subject rifle.

The little "T" stamp is most convincing also, but shouldn't there be one on the body side as well?

Any bets it will be withdrawn so the scope swap mistake can be corrected?

[superbee]

more pics they sent me.
Attachment 119470Attachment 119469Attachment 119468Attachment 119471Attachment 119472Attachment 119473Attachment 119474Attachment 119475Attachment 119476Attachment 119477

[Roger Payne]

Thanks superbee. I've just had a look at the earlier & these latest photo's, & I don't want this to turn into a witch hunt against this rifle, but there are some issues that I would hope to have explained if I were considering bidding on it.

It looks to me as though the rings & scope are the same, yet the black paint that was present on the forward (parallel) part of the brass ocular housing has disappeared between the two sets of photo's. There could be a plausible explanation for this, such as a repair on the scope that marred the paint, & the seller has never got round to repainting it.......but unless someone tells us we just don't know.

There are clearly traces of a rifle serial number under the existing serial number on the mount base. From what we can see of the partially effaced number, it looks as though it is probably one & the same number. There is evidence of file marks on this flat area as well. Assuming the serials are one & the same why would one erase the number only to reapply the same one? The 'T' has moved forward a screw hole & the second application looks more neatly applied than the first. It could be armourer done, but it could also have been done for less legitimate reasons.

As pointed out the screws have been out, or at least slackened off, between the two lots of photo's. Why would you do this, given you have a fully matching original rifle? (I haven't touched my original rifle other than for an occasional wipe over & Youngs 303 patch ever since I acquired it in 1996). The screw slots align with the centre punch marks on the earlier photo's, but not on the later.

It might be an original rifle, but if it is, & it already has its matching bolt & matching scope, why has it been tinkered with in recent years? And the photographs clearly show this. It is possible that it could perhaps be an original rifle that had lost its mount base & has had a replacement (or even conceivably the same one) retro-fitted? This would explain why the rifle serial number on the receiver ring looks ok, as does the serial on the scope rings, but the serial number(s) on the base look iffy............ In fact the more I mull over this rifle the more I think this may explain the conundrum. Still a bit of a mystery why two goes at serial numbering the mount base though.

It would be nice to handle it in the flesh & to see the bolt way with the bolt drawn back.......plus views of the base with the scope off.

[Promo]

Stamps may bounce and leave double traces, but a few times and different stamps on the same part - really?! The additional pictures superbee has posted, IMHO the base clearly is cold blue finished.

Anyway: at best, a restored original sniper rifle (and if restored and a base was re-issued as Roger had suggested, what are the chances that you lack the base but you still have the original matching numbers scope to the rifle?), at worst a well done fake. Nothing I'd spend $ 5,000 to 7,500 plus BP upon!

[Roger Payne]

Good points Promo. Mind you, I am sure many of us have come across a rifle that has perhaps changed hands from the original person who brought it back, or bought it when first surplussed, only to end up in the hands of a subsequent custodian who poorly appreciates it, & who decides to mess about with it. The original mount base could have been lost or at least mislaid. I'm not saying it was.....but it is possible. My view has changed a little from viewing the better photo's & from studying the serial numbers on the rifle receiver ring & on the scope rings. To me, they both look genuine & unmessedabout with. It is hard to reconcile this rifle as an out & out fake if these numbers are indeed unaltered.

[Surpmil]

It is interesting to compare the immaculate engraving of the numbers on the scope rings with the much less precise, battered and worn looking "Periscopic Prism Co...." engraved down between the rings.

The PPCo. markings are of course much better protected from bumps and wear in that location than the pristine markings we see on the more exposed rings...

And the old(?) paint in the former markings is curiously absent from the the latter.

The PPCo. markings are in fact hand-engraved whereas those on the rings are not.

Just reviewing saved photos of original PPCo. fittings I have, I don't see any where the markings on the rings are not hand-engraved - unlike this case. And if it matters, several of those were S and T range serial numbers.

The wondrous absence of wear and pitting on the scope rings is quite mysterious, as is the very fresh looking blue, though I do see an attempt has been made with something like a piece of corduroy(?) dampened with some suitable liquid to do a bit of "antiquing".

I will resist the temptation to post some of those photos of original markings; let these people do their own homework!

[boltaction]

All of the above issues aside, I find it irritating that the description is SO poor for such a potentially rare and pricey rifle. The photos do not show the buttsocket marks--we had to find out it was a 1915 rifle from another site. One would think that RIA could at least state the year and the manufacturer; that is pretty basic information. I would thumbs down it for that reason alone. Sometimes a lack of information is "convenient"

Ed

[Promo]

My view has changed a little from viewing the better photo's & from studying the serial numbers on the rifle receiver ring & on the scope rings. To me, they both look genuine & unmessedabout with. It is hard to reconcile this rifle as an out & out fake if these numbers are indeed unaltered.

Roger, it seems we were talking of different things. I did not want to claim the base as being not original. What I pointed out though was the fact that a stamp may bounce, but someone who does this on a daily bases will not get the stamp to bounce 6 times in a row. Combine this with a scope base that carries what appears to be non original finish (cold blue?) it may be a mixture of original parts, but refinished and force matched to the rifle in question.

This however still puts the outcome at what I had already said: at best a restored original, at worst a fake with some better and some worse parts. And at least to me neither of the two are worth the estimate. To someone else it might be, the question though remains if this person has the information available in this thread, and if yes, if he considers it the same way as I do.