thenedster Posted 13 January , 2012 Share Posted 13 January , 2012 I have recently become the proud owner of a 1914 dated BSA S.M.L.E. Mk III. Although I have handled a few S.M.L.E.s in the past, I was struck by how slim the stock is, particularly toward the front end. I noticed elsewhere on this forum somebody suggesting that there was a difference in stock proportions between the earlier examples with volley sights, and subsequent Mk III* examples. Have I understood this right? Did the stocks become more 'blocky' later on? The particular thing that got me wondering was that the wood directly behind the front sight is almost flush with the top of the nose cap, with only a very small step down. I have been looking at some good line drawings in one of Ian Skennerton's books on the subject, and noticed that this part is shown with a very pronounced step for the MkIII. I would love to hear from anyone who can give me a bit more insight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted 13 January , 2012 Share Posted 13 January , 2012 I'm no expert but I know that there was a lot of variation in stock types. There were different woods for a start. Also it was expected that there would be an amount of hand fitting as well. In addition there are the exigencies of wartime production. Although its of a different era my SMLE is a 1941 Lithgow. At that time the Japanese were breathing down the Australians necks so the woodwork on my rifle is very roughly finished (with a pen knife by the looks of it!). When I bought a new butt for mine (a long one) it was about 2 mm oversize in all dimensions including, curiously, the butt socket. Took me quite a time to fettle it. Whether there were any design changes I don't know; as I said there are some real experts here that may be able to help us both! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenedster Posted 13 January , 2012 Author Share Posted 13 January , 2012 Thank you Matthew. i wondered if that might be the case. Given the vast range of time and geography over which they were produced I suppose it would be odd if they were perfectly uniform in dimensions and appearance. I might not even have remarked on the slim feel of the S.M.L.E. except that I happened to pick it up with one hand, while holding a No4 Mk 1 in the other hand. I believe however that the No4 was most definitely a 'fatter' gun than the S.M.L.E., regardless of manufacturing variations. Thanks for your reply. This is my first post on any forum, so it was nice to get a response! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted 13 January , 2012 Share Posted 13 January , 2012 Your welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 13 January , 2012 Share Posted 13 January , 2012 It sounds like you may have a replacement fore-end. Does it still have the volley sights or have they been removed? Also, is the serial number stamped on the underside of the fore-end just behind the nose cap? The Mark III* fore-end does not have the "swell" where the volley sights are/were and so feels thinner. Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenedster Posted 13 January , 2012 Author Share Posted 13 January , 2012 It certainly still has the volley sights, as well as the windage rear sight and the magazine cut off. It is not to hand at the moment but I don't recall there being anything marked on the woodwork. The colour of the wood seems to be pretty consistent throughout the length of the thing. At the moment I only have this rather grainy picture of it but I will try and take more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 13 January , 2012 Share Posted 13 January , 2012 (edited) At least five standard variations of fore-stock are usually identified on SMLEs 1) Those for the MkI are quite different having no provision for the charger bridge and some of the inletting for internal bands in different places (the inner barrel band under the outer which lead to a very weak point in the fore-stock) 2) For the MkI* and I** which externally is identical to the MkI but has different internal inletting for bands and rear handguard clips 3) The standard MkIII as above but with provision for the charger bridge (cut low for cuttoff, with volley sights etc( 4) The wartime MkIII* version (no provision for cut-off, no volley sights) THESE TEND TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY BULKIER IN CONTOUR THAN EARLIER FORENDS (there are also intermediate versions where "version 3" contoured forends were not inletted for the volley sights but retained the countours - the usual thinking is that these were during the changeover period between MkIII and MkIII* - the date of which varied by manufacturer)this was also the form returned to post war. 5) The inter-war version which returned to the slimmer profile but was without the volley sight "swell" In addition forestocks for the MkIII* manufactured in India post WWII and forestocks for the Indian 7.62mm 2A and 2A1 rifle had the rear reinforced with a thin metal backstrap (as seen on No4 rifles) and a transverse screw right to left through the forestock (this was retro fitted to many stocks in Indian service)There are also some variations in the profile of the hand-guards, especially around the band - early versions being markedly more "stepped" EDIT II - having looked at the picture it looks to me as though you have one of these early stepped front handguards (look at the band) - which would be correct for the rifle - which looks like an excellent early war example.(like to see some more pics!) If it is of interest I can probably provide photos of these variations. As noted there was also a variety of wood used. In the UK forestocks were almost always walnut, with the exception of some WWII produced stocks which can be found in beech. Australia used Queensland Maple and Coachwood (WWII), Ishapore used several different forms of Mahogany and Teak (the exact forms are debated). Both the coachwood and some of the Indian woods are sigificantly more brittle than the tight-grained Walnut used originally. Cheers Chris Edit: Tony - I am not sure I agree that the MkIII stock feels thinner - although it is without the swell at that point overall I think they are significantly "chunkier" and EDIT III - where are my manners - sorry, Welcome to the forum Nedster! Edited 13 January , 2012 by 4thGordons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenedster Posted 13 January , 2012 Author Share Posted 13 January , 2012 Dear Chris Thank you very much for providing so much detail. I love knowlege!! What you say suggests that my example might perhaps conforms to description 3 in your list. Just to be clear, when you say: "Edit: Tony - I am not sure I agree that the MkIII stock feels thinner - although it is without the swell at that point overall I think they are significantly "chunkier"" do you mean that the MkIII* stocks tended to be chunkier than the MKIII stocks, or vice versa? I will certainly take some more pictures as soon as I can, and post them here. Although I am a long term arms and militaria enthusiast, and find the Lee Enfield family of rifles particularly compelling, I have only recently become envolved in shooting/handling them, and so I am a novice when it comes to judging the relative merits of particular examples; but the one I have seems quite nice to me, and I would love to know what other people think of it. You say: "If it is of interest I can probably provide photos of these variations." In fact it would interest me enormously to see such pictures, and I would be most grateful if you were to provide some in due course. Many thanks to all of you for your kind interest in this thread. Ned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 13 January , 2012 Share Posted 13 January , 2012 Just to be clear, when you say: "Edit: Tony - I am not sure I agree that the MkIII stock feels thinner - although it is without the swell at that point overall I think they are significantly "chunkier"" do you mean that the MkIII* stocks tended to be chunkier than the MKIII stocks, or vice versa? I am saying that Wartime MkIII* forestocks are a more chunky, thicker profile than the earlier MkIII. The MkIII stocks have a "swell" shape where the baseplate of the volley sight pointer was mounted - this is what Tony was referring to. After the Great War the stock profile returned to the thinner variant but the swell for the volley sight which (unlike the cutoff was not refitted)was not present. Actually that reminds me of one other difference I failed to mention the sidewalls on the MkIII forends were lower alongside the reciever to allow for the cut-off. On the MkIII* forends the location of the slot is covered by wood. I will try and take photos of the different types this weekend. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenedster Posted 13 January , 2012 Author Share Posted 13 January , 2012 Brilliant - that I what I thought you meant - thank you for confirming. I, likewise, will dust off my canera this weekend, and post some pictures as well. All the best Ned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 14 January , 2012 Share Posted 14 January , 2012 Ok - couple of quick snaps: This was harder to photograph than I thought. The difference in profile is marked in the hand. Here is an attempt to demonstrated the difference between the 1st form (thin but with swell for volley sight), intermediate (sight deleted but swell still present), MkIII* form - thicker (straight) no swell, WWII production version of MkIII*, 1960s Indian production on 7.62mm 2A1 rifle. Variations of sidewall low and high (all installed on rifles marked MkIII* none with cutoff present. A slot covered, B no slot but low cut furniture C slot shown but no cutoff installed, Finally, Indian modifications (post 1948 usually) - transverse screw and metal reinforce at reat of stock, standard on the 7.62mm2A and 2A-1 but very common on .303 rifles in Indian service post 1948. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbox Posted 14 January , 2012 Share Posted 14 January , 2012 I have a few rifles and bits of wood where the profile is incredibly slim - the wood line virtually flush with the middle band socket and the front handguard metal cap. These wood parts don't appear to have been surface scraped (a common military process for cleaning up scratched wood), so I have a feeling that some very old woodwork simply wore away over time - particularly at the front part of the forend and the front handguard.Possibly this might have occurred because the front part of the forend is the bit most often handled in drill, and also the part of the rifle where you can rub hardest with a rag if you're cleaning up after rain, etc - lower down you hit the rearsight and other obstructions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 14 January , 2012 Share Posted 14 January , 2012 I have a few rifles and bits of wood where the profile is incredibly slim - the wood line virtually flush with the middle band socket and the front handguard metal cap. These wood parts don't appear to have been surface scraped (a common military process for cleaning up scratched wood), so I have a feeling that some very old woodwork simply wore away over time - particularly at the front part of the forend and the front handguard.Possibly this might have occurred because the front part of the forend is the bit most often handled in drill, and also the part of the rifle where you can rub hardest with a rag if you're cleaning up after rain, etc - lower down you hit the rearsight and other obstructions. I think this indeed might be part of it, clearly wood does wear over time. I also think there was quite a bit of variation in production. I have a 1936 dated MkIII* from the Iraq contract which is very slim but a 1940 rifle which is very chunky indeed. I have seen some NOS surplus Indian furniture sold in the US in the last couple of years (a very dark brown colour and quite brittle wood) which seems to me to be 10 or 15% larger in all external dimeions.I saw a rifle that had been stocked in it and there was 3mm lip around everywhere and the middle band was almost out of sight it was so deep! Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenedster Posted 16 January , 2012 Author Share Posted 16 January , 2012 Hello again, and thank you Chris and Thurderbox for the additional input. I think that between you all you have pretty much cleared the matter up for me, but I have taken some picture, which I will upload, in case they are of interest. This one best illustrates the point about the top line of the wood being almost flush with the top of the nosecap, rather than being higher than it, with a step down at the front end: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenedster Posted 16 January , 2012 Author Share Posted 16 January , 2012 Here is a longer shot including the front volley sight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenedster Posted 16 January , 2012 Author Share Posted 16 January , 2012 I'm sorry for the poor quality of these pictures, and the fact that they appear so huge - I need practice at this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenedster Posted 16 January , 2012 Author Share Posted 16 January , 2012 Three more for luck! Many thanks again to all who have responded. Thank you Chris for the helpful photos that you supplied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 16 January , 2012 Share Posted 16 January , 2012 It looks to me as if the furniture on this rifle has been refinished. It is difficult to tell in photos of course but the pattern of bruising of the wood and the fact that it is significantly darker in areas aound some of the fittings suggest that to me. It is also relatively light - where you would expect 98 year old walnut to have darkened quite considerably. If it has been refinished, it has been done sympathetically and carefully - the usual tell-tale is the edges of the pieces are rounded rather than sharp as a result of sanding. Either way it is a great example of the classic Great War rifle and if the same care has been taken with the bore as and mechanics as with the exterior then I suspect it will also shoot accurately. Be careful....20 years ago I purchased a battered 1917 Lithgow And now I am a certified(able), anorak wearing, Enfield saddo. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenedster Posted 16 January , 2012 Author Share Posted 16 January , 2012 Thank you Chris. I agree - the wood looks as though it has been refinished. Regading the barrel, that is the one part that I know, in fact, to be a replacement. It had just been replaced when I bought it, but I am happy with that because I bought it in full knowledge of the fact, and I do intend to shoot it. I believe, however, that all the other parts are original, and certainly the mechanical elements all seem in good nick. I am not yet a full fledged Enfield anorak - but I am looking forward to becoming one!!! 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