Greetings, All! I'm making my rounds around the various sub-forums here looking to get some more information on several surplus rifles I've been purchasing recently. I've done a bit of research on both this and the SMLE No. 1 Mk III* I picked up, but I figured I'd post the photos I took before, during and after the cleaning process to see if anybody could tell me anything interesting about the rifle.
Namely I'm looking to decipher the various stamps and to determine what's original and what's not. What is obvious to me is that the bolt is not original and that it was imported by CAI. Otherwise, any input would be helpful and appreciated! Paid $400 for her.
Quite a mixed bag isn't it? The wood has beech butt and birch forend with a couple of Savage marked pieces. Looks like this one was either assembled or just worked every day until it retired. Nothing wrong with that.
Manufactured in 1942 at the Royal Ordnance Factory (RoF) at Maltby in Yorkshire.
Non-Matching numbered parts Body, magazine, & Bolt
It certainly would not have left service like that so I'm wondering if it is a rebuild of a sporterised rifle which is certainly one way to account for the assortment of parts and differing wood types.
Ideally you should have the FIT of the bolt checked for locking lug contact as the bolts are NOT plug & play and need actually FITTING (work needed - not just pushed into the bolt rails) The reason the bolts were numbered was that they are not interchangable between rifles.
Mine are not the best, but they are not too bad. I can think of lots of Enfields I'd rather have but instead of constantly striving for more, sometimes it's good to be satisfied with what one has...
It certainly would not have left service like that so I'm wondering if it is a rebuild of a sporterised rifle which is certainly one way to account for the assortment of parts and differing wood types.
Interesting. So while parts may have been replaced while in service (overhauls, etc...), components that are marked with serial numbers (the receiver, bolt and magazine) should be matching if it were done in service vs. post service? For example, a bolt could have been replaced while in service, but the serial number would have been applied to said bolt? I assume the same goes for the magazine?
Interesting. So while parts may have been replaced while in service (overhauls, etc...), components that are marked with serial numbers (the receiver, bolt and magazine) should be matching if it were done in service vs. post service? For example, a bolt could have been replaced while in service, but the serial number would have been applied to said bolt? I assume the same goes for the magazine?
Yes, all parts numbered MUST match the body (action) as that is the master component - all parts must be FITTED to suit that body.
Any mismatch will result in (as a minimum) poor or inconsistent loading, inaccurate to (at worst) being dangerous to use.
If an Armourer fitted replacement / new parts to a rifle they would be altered to fit the body and then numbered to match so they should never be separated.
Particularly in the US, when they were imported the bolts and rifles were separated and whe sold, young Joey (on his saturday job) was told "take one of those rifles out of that box, one of those bolts out of that box and slide it in, then wrap it up for despatch"
Only knowledegable dealers knew the importance of 'matching numbers'.
Once a rifle was out in the wilds of civilian life and as it only cost $12, it was cut up and sporterised and used as a truck gun, when old man Jethro dies his family just disposed of it not knowing where the extra parts (bolt and magazine) were.
It was bought by an Enfield enthusiast who decided to rebuild it back to its former military glory and sourced parts from all over and 'stuck it back together'.
Its a bit like the car Johhny Cash built "one piece at a time"
Names, characters, places and incidents are products of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental
Mine are not the best, but they are not too bad. I can think of lots of Enfields I'd rather have but instead of constantly striving for more, sometimes it's good to be satisfied with what one has...
Thanks for the explanation for why it's likely mix-matched. I chuckled at the Johnny Cash reference!
It's a little disheartening to learn this is likely why it's in the condition it's in, but I just need to remind myself I didn't buy it to be a museum piece! Hopefully the $800 I spent in total on this and the SMLE No. 1 Mk III* puts me somewhere in the ballpark of a reasonable purchase. I'll have to get that one cleaned up and posted here soon. I've put it off because it's covered in cosmoline.
Based on what I found while cleaning, I'd say the rifle has been shot before so hopefully it's still safe to do so. I'll have to see if there's a local gunsmith knowledgeable on the Lee Enfields that can check it out. I've otherwise had a hell of a time finding the gauges here in the U.S. I've found a few (expensive) ones, but they are SAAMI spec and what I've read leads me to believe I need those made to British "military spec."
Hopefully the $800 I spent in total on this and the SMLE No. 1 Mk III* puts me somewhere in the ballpark of a reasonable purchase.
I would say so.
Originally Posted by JeffreyJ5
Does anybody have any leads on some gauges?
If you type "303 headspace gauges for sale in USA" in your search engine you get no shortage of sources. Also a WTB in the correct forum in this site may glean you a set.
There is no way of knowing who, when or where the miscellaneous parts were assembled to the rifle. Where was the rifle before it was disposed of as surplus?
Incidentally, the safety assembly is Canadian.
Lee Enfield No. 4 Mk I - Seeking Info
Register To Reply
Originally Posted by 
