alex falbo Posted 1 April , 2011 Author Share Posted 1 April , 2011 Thanks for that valuable bit of information Chris!! Before having read this I was scheduling a trip to a local gunsmith to make sure everything was in perfect order for shooting. I doubt my rifle has any issues similar to a DP but I plan on taking the precaution all the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 1 April , 2011 Share Posted 1 April , 2011 Thanks for that valuable bit of information Chris!! Before having read this I was scheduling a trip to a local gunsmith to make sure everything was in perfect order for shooting. I doubt my rifle has any issues similar to a DP but I plan on taking the precaution all the same. Wise choice IMHO. I would not think there are any problems of that nature either but either way the rifle is the best part of 100years old so it is worth checking - out of my selection of rather "more than is sensible", I have only ever run into an issue with two, one I suspected when I purchased it but it was an example I wanted - the other was a suprise - and suprises and firearms don't mix. When you do take it to a smith it helps if they are familiar with Enfields in the UK almost every gunsmith would be, not necessarily so in the US so it might be worth asking in advance. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 1 April , 2011 Share Posted 1 April , 2011 .........I'll have a shufti through the forum to locate the thread or just ask the blighter directly Well the blighter thought he would save you the trouble of looking! The introduction dates of the chargers are: Mk.I 16 January 1903 Mk.II 24 April 1906 Mk.III 15 February 1916 Mk IV 20 October 1917 There was also the intention to introduce a Mark V in 1918. This was a copy of the Russian 7.62mm Mosin Nagant charger (which was being made in large numbers in the UK during WWI) with the dimensions slightly changed to fit the .303 round's thicker rim. Pictures show Marks i to IV left to right and a Mark V. As someone who has been shooting in the UK for fifty years, the concept of having to buy .303 chargers is completely alien! I probably have about fity or sixty scattered around the house, and I only have a few specific ones in the collection proper. Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
18th Battalion Posted 1 April , 2011 Share Posted 1 April , 2011 The other piece that is often renumbered is the rear sight (on the underside) here the old number is usually lined out. Bolt handles are also renumbered, the rear flat refiled flat and numbers stamped into them - this is sometimes referred to as "forced matching" although I am not sure what is "forced" about it. Chris, my 1918 MkIII* has exactly what you've described on the bolt and rear sight and they have been re-numbered to match the rifle. Am I right in thinking that the butts came in different lengths? My one, right behind the trigger guard is stamped with a 2 over a crown and below that there is a P, is that related to the length, or to indicate, as I seem to recall reading, a rifle destined for hot climate that had its butt socket dipped in something to stop it drying out and shrinking in the heat and becoming loose? Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 2 April , 2011 Share Posted 2 April , 2011 Yes butt-stocks came in "Normal" (unmarked) "Short" (marked S) "Long" (marked L) and late in the war an extra-short (marked B for "Bantam") They are usually stamped on the underside. I do not think I have heard of the dipping to which your refer but I will check my references, it doesn't ring any bells - but it has been a long week! The mark you describe sounds like an inspection or proof mark to me- crown over crossed flags over P is used in several forms - the variations indicating the place of inspection. Is this stamped into the wood of the butt-stock or the metal? Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
18th Battalion Posted 2 April , 2011 Share Posted 2 April , 2011 Chris, it's on the wood, the 2 is closest to the trigger guard, below that is just the outline shape of a crown with a further unrecognisable indentation which is likely to be the crossed flags, and finally about 15mm below that is the capital P; so it does seem to be just an inspection mark as you described. My recollection of the dipped butt sockets comes from Snetterton's book The British Service Lee which I no longer have. I don't know if I am remembering correctly, but the end of the butt where it meets the action was dipped about an inch into hot petroleum wax which was presumably absorbed into the end grain of the wood. The treated rifles were for issue to troops destined for hot dry climates, the butt would be stamped with a letter on the grip section behind the trigger guard to indicate the treatment. Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 2 April , 2011 Share Posted 2 April , 2011 I have the book (Skennerton) so I will go an look. Thanks for that. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex falbo Posted 2 April , 2011 Author Share Posted 2 April , 2011 Well the blighter thought he would save you the trouble of looking! The introduction dates of the chargers are: Mk.I 16 January 1903 Mk.II 24 April 1906 Mk.III 15 February 1916 Mk IV 20 October 1917 There was also the intention to introduce a Mark V in 1918. This was a copy of the Russian 7.62mm Mosin Nagant charger (which was being made in large numbers in the UK during WWI) with the dimensions slightly changed to fit the .303 round's thicker rim. Pictures show Marks i to IV left to right and a Mark V. As someone who has been shooting in the UK for fifty years, the concept of having to buy .303 chargers is completely alien! I probably have about fity or sixty scattered around the house, and I only have a few specific ones in the collection proper. Regards TonyE Brilliant! Thank you Tony for saving me the trouble. Yes, I can see your point about the nature of purchasing these things. Thank you for also reminding me how young I am... BTW the earlier query still remains...Did the average Tommy keep or discard his charger's? I'm still assuming that it would largely be based on circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex falbo Posted 2 April , 2011 Author Share Posted 2 April , 2011 Hey lads. Quick query. I'm headed off to find a suitable gunsmith who's familiar with Lee Enfields this weekend. With that said, last week I had purchased some surplus ammo and was wondering if anyone could tell me if this is Mk. VII by a quick look at the back stamping. I've got the box but its not with me at the moment so I wondered if I could bother you lot with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 2 April , 2011 Share Posted 2 April , 2011 TonyE will confirm/correct but I think that is 1980s production South African ammunition. I would read the headstamp: A- South Africa 80- 1980 made 7.7- metric equivalent of British .303" RIM - rimmed 3Z -don't recall but I think it had something to do with primer and powder used? I do not think a round made that late would be corrosive. S.African surplus ammunition has a good reputation and I haven't seen it around for a while. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 2 April , 2011 Share Posted 2 April , 2011 A80 7.7 R1M3Z As Chris says, South African military .303 ball, equivalent to British Mark VIIz. Headstamp actually means: A - Armscorp, the privatised S.A. military manufacturer 80 - 1980 7.7 - metric equivalent of .303 inch R1M3 - South African equivalent of American M1A3 or British L1A3, i.e the third variation of the R1 ball round. As Chris says, this is probably a different primer or powder. Z - nitro-cellulose powder. It is interesting that S.A. still use this old British designator for NC powder. It is good ammo, but Berdan primed so hard to re-load if you are in the States. Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 2 April , 2011 Share Posted 2 April , 2011 OOOhhhh nearly.... C+/B-? in "Headstamps for beginners" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete1052 Posted 2 April , 2011 Share Posted 2 April , 2011 During the 1960s I had some military surplus .303 ammo Interarms had imported into the U.S. Interarms had replaced the bullets with soft-point hunting ones in about 180 grains. The ammo had a lot of misfires and hang-fires due to the primers having gone bad, in fact some of them had corroded green. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 2 April , 2011 Share Posted 2 April , 2011 Question for Chris Were any MkIII* rifles produced without provision for the piling loop? I.e a cleaner nosecap? John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 2 April , 2011 Share Posted 2 April , 2011 Question for Chris Were any MkIII* rifles produced without provision for the piling loop? I.e a cleaner nosecap? John Hi John Yes and No - later WWII ('44 on?)and postwar vintage no1 Rifles made at Lithgow (Australia), and Ishapore (India) rifles made from about 1941 - had the piling swivel boss but it was not drilled or tapped (so it was just a solid "bump") so no provision for the piling swivel but not really "cleaner" in profile. Post WWII Ishapore produced SMLEs and 2A and 2A1 rifles did away with this entirely so cleaner - but they also squared off the foresight protector ears. Pics to follow. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 2 April , 2011 Share Posted 2 April , 2011 Hi John Yes and No - later WWII ('44 on?)and postwar vintage no1 Rifles made at Lithgow (Australia), and Ishapore (India) rifles made from about 1941 - had the piling swivel boss but it was not drilled or tapped (so it was just a solid "bump") so no provision for the piling swivel but not really "cleaner" in profile. Post WWII Ishapore produced SMLEs and 2A and 2A1 rifles did away with this entirely so cleaner - but they also squared off the foresight protector ears. Pics to follow. Chris Thanks Chris. The one I have is identical to a 'normal' SMLE nosecap but is without the piling boss and is stamped SAF on the underside. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 2 April , 2011 Share Posted 2 April , 2011 Thanks Chris. The one I have is identical to a 'normal' SMLE nosecap but is without the piling boss and is stamped SAF on the underside. John Interesting - I will look into it. So rounded foresight protectors... does it have a serial number stamped on the bayonet boss? (if so what is it?) SAF would (I assume) stand for Small Arms Factory but the absence of the R(oyal) would immediately have me looking at India. I wonder if there is an intermediate version? or perhaps one of the single loader versions had this pattern. I will consult the great books! Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex falbo Posted 3 April , 2011 Author Share Posted 3 April , 2011 Well chaps I've stupidly misplaced the washer that goes on the inside thread of the safety lever while disassembling the rifle. Does anyone have recommendations for acquiring a replacement or is willing to sell me a spare? On the subject of ammo...The dealer who I bought the rounds from actually has three more boxes of the stuff, 50 rounds each. I was worried it might have been Mk.VIII ammo. Also ordered 6 vintage Mk.II chargers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 3 April , 2011 Share Posted 3 April , 2011 Alex - the easiest way to identify non British "Mark VIIIz type" .303 inch ammunition is to pull one and look at the bullet. The Mark VII is flat based and the Mark VIIIz is boat-tailed. However, AFAIK the South Africans never manufactured Mark VIIIZ rounds. By the time that they were using the "R1M1" style headstamp they had converted their Vickers guns to 7.62 x 51mm NATO so had no need for .303 Mark VIIIz ammo. Returning to your SMLE, it would not harm it in any case to fire a few rounds of Mark VIIIz. Most of what is written about so-called hot machine gun ammo is nonsense anyway. The ordinary Mark VII ammo gives a pressure of about 19 tons whilst Mark VIIIz gives 20-20.5 tons. Admittedly this is slightly higher, but your rifle was proofed at 24 tons so it is still well within the pressure envelope. The confusion about using Mark VII and Mark VIIIz ammunition is to do with the very different burning and erosion characteristics of cordite and nitrocellulose powders. This is really only apparent at the temperatures that machine gun barrels reach when used for sustained fire. A Vickers barrel that has been used to fire Mark VIIIz will become rapidly inaccurate if only a few rounds of cordite Mark VII are fired. However the reverse is not true, so firing NC Mark VIIIz in a rifle will, to quote the British manual "produce no deletrious effect". The firing of Mark VIIIz in rifles and Bren guns was allowed when less flash was an advantage, e.g. on night patrols. However, that applied to WW2 as the Mark VIIIz was not introduced to 1938. REgards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 3 April , 2011 Share Posted 3 April , 2011 Well chaps I've stupidly misplaced the washer that goes on the inside thread of the safety lever while disassembling the rifle. Does anyone have recommendations for acquiring a replacement or is willing to sell me a spare? On the subject of ammo...The dealer who I bought the rounds from actually has three more boxes of the stuff, 50 rounds each. I was worried it might have been Mk.VIII ammo. Also ordered 6 vintage Mk.II chargers. PM me your postal address and I will send you one. Chris EDIT: trying out a new toy - a cheap digital video microscope (purchased to play with my son looking at things - but it now ocurrs - might have use for examining parts and markings!) Is this the washer (early type with groove) and here is the end of the safety! (just because) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbox Posted 3 April , 2011 Share Posted 3 April , 2011 Interesting - I will look into it. So rounded foresight protectors... does it have a serial number stamped on the bayonet boss? (if so what is it?) SAF would (I assume) stand for Small Arms Factory but the absence of the R(oyal) would immediately have me looking at India. I wonder if there is an intermediate version? or perhaps one of the single loader versions had this pattern. I will consult the great books! Chris SAF (and IS) is Ishapore manufacture. As well as the crude nosecap with square ears, they also made normal nosecaps with round ears and decent quality black blueing - one model with a solid piling swivel boss, and one with no boss (intended for GF rifles, which have a binding retaining clip there instead). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 3 April , 2011 Share Posted 3 April , 2011 SAF (and IS) is Ishapore manufacture. As well as the crude nosecap with square ears, they also made normal nosecaps with round ears and decent quality black blueing - one model with a solid piling swivel boss, and one with no boss (intended for GF rifles, which have a binding retaining clip there instead). Ahhha - so GF rifles? Thank you Thunderbox Both of my wire-wrapped Ishapore GF rifles have standard(solid boss)nosecaps on them, but your explanation makes perfect sense. John do you think you could post/email me a photo? This is not a variant I have encountered. As an aside, I am a big fan of Ishapores and although many have been battered by long service lives - I would put fit and finish on well preserved pre 1940 Ishapores up against any manufacturer. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex falbo Posted 3 April , 2011 Author Share Posted 3 April , 2011 I really appreciate that Chris. PM sent. I've got the early type outside grooved washer. The washer I'm speaking of fits on the thread spacing the main thumb lever with the catch. Right now without it, the safety barely functions but very loosely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 3 April , 2011 Share Posted 3 April , 2011 I really appreciate that Chris. PM sent. I've got the early type outside grooved washer. The washer I'm speaking of fits on the thread spacing the main thumb lever with the catch. Right now without it, the safety barely functions but very loosely. I am a bit confused In its usual configuration, the components of the safety group are: The locking bolt (the large thumb catch) The safety spring (the figure 8 shaped spring) Safety catch washer (the thick washer pictured in my post above which replaced the peep of the volley sight on the earlier models) Safety catch (small internal catch which threads onto the locking bolt) Safety spring screw (that attaches the bottom of the safety spring to the action). The trick with assembling and reassembling the safety is working out how to thread the safety catch onto the locking bolt! So which component are you missing there should not be a washer on the thread? Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 3 April , 2011 Share Posted 3 April , 2011 I'm trying to add a photo but without success. I'm not sure what's wrong. The rifle is 100% BSA with Birmingham proof marks all over. The nosecap may be a replacement but is numbered to match the rest of the rifle. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now