SMLE date

[yperman]

I wonder if someone can help me ? I've recently bought a deactivated SMLE and would like to learn a bit about it. It is in a battered condition, its wooden furniture is mostly very dark and very worn except for the upper hand guard which looks relatively new. It has no magazine shut off but it does have a windage sight. It bears the following marks : BSA Co.and three rifles logo on the right hand side of the wrist and underneath the bolt on the wrist two 3s which are the same size and in line but some distance apart and a smaller "s" that is not level with the threes and is not aligned with them . It has 97486 on the back of the bolt handle and 9298 on the right side of the bolt (just by the rear of the upper hand hand guard). There is a capital letter M on its own on the bolt on the right hand side. There is also an indistinct tiny armourers mark which comprises a cross (the top where you would expect the flags is missing) an '11' at the bottom of the cross and an 'A' to the right. There is, finally a "111" on the left side of the hammer. There are no clues on the bayonet boss or other obvious marks apart from a "5" on the lower handguard near the foresight.

I will be very grateful for your advice.

[TonyE]

I will leave Chris to go into more detail about your rifle, but it appears to be a BSA commercial rifle, probably from the 1920s. The bolt is mismatched to the action of course, but I am not familiar enough with these BSA commercial types to know whether they produced hybrid Mark III/III* rifles.

Does the receiver have the slot for the magazine cut-off? Any pictures would help.

Regards

TonyE

[Lancashire Fusilier]

I wonder if someone can help me ? I've recently bought a deactivated SMLE and would like to learn a bit about it. It is in a battered condition, its wooden furniture is mostly very dark and very worn except for the upper hand guard which looks relatively new. It has no magazine shut off but it does have a windage sight. It bears the following marks : BSA Co.and three rifles logo

yperman,

The Birmingham Small Arms Company Limited ( BSA ) retailed a commercial version of the ' .303 Lee-Enfield Short Service Rifle ' which was available for purchase through their Catalogue.

Attached is a page from their 1908 Catalogue, which sold the rifle new for 97 shillings 6 pence each, with higher prices for the enhanced models.

The ' Commercial ' versions typically carried the BSA 3 piled rifles trademark, an example of which is also attached.

Regards,

LF

[4thGordons]

Agree with all above - it does sound like a commercial BSA

Dating it might be quite difficul because as LF illusustrates these were sold for much of the production life of the Sht LE.

Pictures would be helpful (plus I always like to see them!)

I suspect - as Tony says - that the rifle may well date from the 1920s but this is just playing the odds really if could be earlier or later.

Have you removed the rear handguard? This is held in place by spring clips and can be carefully prised off (lift up the rear sight first to give you some room - when you do this look and see if there is a serial on the underside of the sight)

Under the handguard (on the barrel knox form) you will often find marks (including another serial number) and sometimes a date and inspection marks. If this is (as it sounds) a commercial BSA sold in the British market it will [should have] proof marks on it.

From your description it sounds like the serial number will be 9298 (this is on the right side of the receiver not actually the bolt, is that correct?)

The M on the bolt head is a common mark as is the small indistinct proof stamp (crossed pennants)

Is the "111" on the left side of the hammer" (hammer?) actually on the safety lever on the left of the rifle?

I am intrigued by the description of the threes marked on the rifle you mention - that does not sound familiar.

Pictures would really help - if you have trouble posting them I would be happy to do it for you if you email them. They need to be under 100kb in size to post directly (or you can host them outside on flicka or photobucket and then post the link)

Chris

[TonyE]

Chris - The reason I opted for "probably 1920s" was the lack of a cut-off, but of course it could simply be missing. Pictures would help solve that.

Cheers

TonyE

[4thGordons]

Chris - The reason I opted for "probably 1920s" was the lack of a cut-off, but of course it could simply be missing. Pictures would help solve that.

Cheers

TonyE

Yes - quite right. My guess of the 20s is simply that most I have seen were from the inter-war period rather than earlier....

Chris

[4thGordons]

Apologies for the delay I got these from yperman - just got to posting them.

I have asked that he provide some general overview pictures and a picture of the wrist markings but these two do answer some questions.

These are the numbers mentioned - I am not certain of the significance of these (marks of this type are quite common - I think they are assembly marks - sometimes they are mirrored on the underside of the bolt handle matching the bolt to the action prior to serialling

This is a side view of the action below is my interpretation

A] partially answers the date question. The rifle is an SMLE MkIII* with no provision for the cut-off (no slot) so it must date to post 1915 reinforcing the likelihood it is of inter-war vintage

B]this M is a very common stamp here on the bolt head. It's official meaning is "difference in specification" for this component, this is also indicated by a U stamp here both are common.

C] this is the serial number

D] this appears to be an asterisk on the knox form and this usually indicates that rust has been found in the barrel.

I suspect there may be other interesting marks under the upper handguard just forward of this asterisk that may help us date the rifle but for now we have narrowed it down to after late 1915 as it is a MkIII*.

I don't know if any commerical rifles were produced during the war.

Chris

[yperman]

Thank you very much for your trouble. I will come back to you if I may after I get my local gun smith to remove the upper rear hand guard - which has been bolted - I think- to the rest of the wood work in an attempt at 'restoration' - the wrist only bears the stamp BSA & Co and the usual piled rifles logo. Again many thanks to everyone.

[4thGordons]

I would be suprised if it is bolted but never say never!

The spring clips can be very tight and one has to be careful to avoid breaking the rather thin/narrow fingers on the handguard. These are often found trimmed off to avoid this issue although I do not believe this was a great war era practice (at least I have never seen any evidence of it) It is common on later Indian rifles.

So you can see what you "should" be dealing with

The top view that shows the rivets of the spring clip that attach the clip to the handguard. You can also see a thin insert of wood accross the grain to try and prevent splitting. These parts are a little fragile.

The underside that shows the clip - pretty strong spring steel that clips around the barrel.

One way of removing them is to insert something thin under the handguard and gently lever upwards (avoiding putting too much pressure on the front "fingers" of wood. Then once it is up enough to get some purchase on it lifting it straight up and off. As I mentioned before it is a good idea to stand the rear sight up out of the way as you do this. If you are uncertain I am sure your gunsmith can help you out.

Chris

[smleenfield]

BSA rifles normally had a single letter at the front of the serial number. In 1916 they produced a run with out a prefix letter which would leave me to believe this was probably made in 1916 as a MkIII* A large number of these went to the South African Government.

[Lancashire Fusilier]

yperman,

From their Sales Catalogues, we can see that BSA retailed a commercial .303 rifle, which they describe as their " Lee Enfield - British Service Pattern - .303 bore - Short - Mark III Rifle ( with the Charger Bridge ).

This model appears in their Sales Catalogue as early as July 1919 ( copy attached ), and they describe it as the rifle that " proved its superiority at the first battle of Ypres... ".

This Mark III Lee-Enfield continued to appear in their Sales Catalogue as late as the mid 1930's ( copy attached ), along with the bayonet.

It maybe that BSA gave their commercial rifles different descriptions, for as Chris rightly points out in his excellent presentation, the lack of the Magazine Cut-off usually indicates a Mark III*, whereas BSA just use, and continued to use the term ' Mark III '.

As this appears to be a BSA commercial rifle ( with the 3 Piled Rifles mark ), based on BSA's Sales Catalogues from 1919 to the mid 1930's, and I suspect even way beyond this date, this would seem to be a " BSA Lee-Enfield - British Service Pattern - .303 Bore - Short - Mark III rifle ", dating anywhere from 1919 to certainly the mid/late 1930's+, and probably all the way to the start of WW2.

LF

July 1919 BSA Sales Catalogue ( left ) - Mid 1930's BSA Sales Catalogue ( right )

[4thGordons]

BSA rifles normally had a single letter at the front of the serial number. In 1916 they produced a run with out a prefix letter which would leave me to believe this was probably made in 1916 as a MkIII* A large number of these went to the South African Government.

Whilst what you say is true for military contracts - I am not certain that it applies to commercial rifles. If this were a wartime produced MkIII* I am almost certain it would have had a crown/cypher/year on the wrist not a commercial mark. My money is still on an inter-war produced rifle (as per LF above)

Chris

[smleenfield]

After the war ended BSA returned to production of the MkIII as well as the MkIII*. Both were available on order. Also many MkIII* rifles were converted back to MkIII configuration. The * would simply be struck through and a cut-off slot added.

yperman,

From their Sales Catalogues, we can see that BSA retailed a commercial .303 rifle, which they describe as their " Lee Enfield - British Service Pattern - .303 bore - Short - Mark III Rifle ( with the Charger Bridge ).

This model appears in their Sales Catalogue as early as July 1919 ( copy attached ), and they describe it as the rifle that " proved its superiority at the first battle of Ypres... ".

This Mark III Lee-Enfield continued to appear in their Sales Catalogue as late as the mid 1930's ( copy attached ), along with the bayonet.

It maybe that BSA gave their commercial rifles different descriptions, for as Chris rightly points out in his excellent presentation, the lack of the Magazine Cut-off usually indicates a Mark III*, whereas BSA just use, and continued to use the term ' Mark III '.

As this appears to be a BSA commercial rifle ( with the 3 Piled Rifles mark ), based on BSA's Sales Catalogues from 1919 to the mid 1930's, and I suspect even way beyond this date, this would seem to be a " BSA Lee-Enfield - British Service Pattern - .303 Bore - Short - Mark III rifle ", dating anywhere from 1919 to certainly the mid/late 1930's+, and probably all the way to the start of WW2.

LF

July 1919 BSA Sales Catalogue ( left ) - Mid 1930's BSA Sales Catalogue ( right )

[smleenfield]

Whilst what you say is true for military contracts - I am not certain that it applies to commercial rifles. If this were a wartime produced MkIII* I am almost certain it would have had a crown/cypher/year on the wrist not a commercial mark. My money is still on an inter-war produced rifle (as per LF above)

Chris

Only rifles being produced to be used by the British military would receive the crown and date. Contract rifles for South Africa simply said B.S.A. Co on them since they were being purchased by another country. South Africa would then add their own proof and acceptance marks.

[smleenfield]

Only rifles being produced to be used by the British military would receive the crown and date. Contract rifles for South Africa simply said B.S.A. Co on them since they were being purchased by another country. South Africa would then add their own proof and acceptance marks.

Between 1913 and 1943 the only year BSA used a serial number with out a prefix was 1916. The serial numbers sequence was continued whether the rifle was a contract gun or for British use. The serial numbers were used in order to keep track of the number of rifles produced regardless of who they were being made for.

[4thGordons]

Only rifles being produced to be used by the British military would receive the crown and date. Contract rifles for South Africa simply said B.S.A. Co on them since they were being purchased by another country. South Africa would then add their own proof and acceptance marks.

I accept what you say as accurate (with the caveat that rifles produced for the Indian Army - organizationally distinct from the British - would also have had crown/date etc, I think the Iraq contract rifles also carried the cypher) but the issue is were commercially marked rifles produced during wartime?

Chris

Edit: Thinking about it the Iraq rifles may have been drawn from stores.

[4thGordons]

Between 1913 and 1943 the only year BSA used a serial number with out a prefix was 1916. The serial numbers sequence was continued whether the rifle was a contract gun or for British use. The serial numbers were used in order to keep track of the number of rifles produced regardless of who they were being made for.

How about the siam contract rifles? I don't think they had a prefix.

Is your source for this information Skip's book or do you have other records?

Chris

[smleenfield]

The Siamese rifles were produced on a specific order and the Siamese tiger crest added. They were also serial numbered in Siamese characters and not western type numbers. This was separate from their normal procedure for newly made rifles.

[smleenfield]

The info on the serial numbers comes from Skennerton and Stratton books.

[4thGordons]

Couple more pictures from Yperman

Not many markings under the handguard except this UK Birmingham proof mark. Don't seem to be any indications of foreign use or ownership here.

I suspect if the action were removed from the forend the barrel may be dated under these proofs but given the condition here it may not be visible

Underside of rear sight indicating it has been renumbered - but neither of the numbers match the rifle serial

General overview.

I am sure others will have observations but to me it looks as though the front handguard is of the earlier style - which in my limited experience may also have been reverted to in the inter-war period where then handguard is higher and thicker behind the band and markedly thinner in front of it giving the appearance of a "hump" rather than the consistently chunkier wartime production handguards on MkIII/MkIII*

The most interesting thing to me here is the front band (foresight protector/nosepeice) which I believe is a later Indian variant without the stacking swivel mount - that is unless this was an option on commercial rifles?

We have discussed these nosepieces before and although they are not mentioned in most of the standard reference works they do seem to be reasonably common.

Chris

Edited to amend proof info.

Edited 5 July , 2012 by 4thGordons

[smleenfield]

Looks like it went through more then one rebuild. MkIII stock with MkIII* sights and as you point out the later Indian nose cap. Also looks like black paint on the sling which could indicate a trip through India. Still sticking to my guns on serial number though as most likely 1916 for the receiver being made. After nearly 100 of being around it's hard to say where it may have been.

[4thGordons]

There is some interesting discussion of a very similar rifle here. (I think you will be able to see the pics without joining)

These also appear not to have prefixes.

I think "Thunderbox" who comments on the linked thread is also a member here, the discussion appears to suggest inter-war rifles for civilian sale did not have serial prefixes but the numbers seem much higher.

I don't know much about how it works but is it also possible what we are seeing is being confused by the deactivation process? IE a batch of rifles disassembled and deactivated then reassembled with not much care for what goes where?

Chris

[smleenfield]

There is some interesting discussion of a very similar rifle here. (I think you will be able to see the pics without joining)

These also appear not to have prefixes.

I think "Thunderbox" who comments on the linked thread is also a member here, the discussion appears to suggest inter-war rifles for civilian sale did not have serial prefixes but the numbers seem much higher.

I don't know much about how it works but is it also possible what we are seeing is being confused by the deactivation process? IE a batch of rifles disassembled and deactivated then reassembled with not much care for what goes where?

Chris

You could be right about deactivated rifles being just cobbled together to make them into something. I have one commercial BSA in my collection with South African markings that does have a letter prefix on the serial number that appears to have been done at the same time the rifle was produced. I have another South African commercial rifle that does not have the letter prefix. If records were not kept on production with or without prefixes by year we may just be blowing smoke here anyway. I'm sure that there is a lot of info that we will never really be sure of, especially on wartime production.

[yperman]

Thank you all very much, especially Chris. I really appreciate the trouble you have all taken.Yperman