enfield evolution

[Khaki]

I just purchased this 1917 LSA Mk111, it has the slot for a cutoff, sans cutoff, I had believed that LSA did not produce Mk111* ,was their contribution to economy to just leave out parts such as the cutoff?

khaki

[4thGordons]

Is it marked MkIII* or MkIII I cannot see from the image posted.

For all producers there was a changeover period where a mix and match components can be found. There are plenty of bodies machined for the cut-off but also marked MkIII*

Also at various updates and FTRs cutoffs were removed (and in some inter-war instances resinstated) so to find a MkIII rifle without a cutoff almost a century later is more common than not.

Chris

[Khaki]

Thanks, it is a Mk3, I will watch out for a cutoff.

khaki

[4thGordons]

You will also need a screw for it. (Springfield Sporters in PA are a reliable vendor of parts I have used for years)

They are a royal pain to install - if you get a NOS cutoff they are often too thick to fit - you need to remove the action from the forend as the cutoff screw inserts from the bottom up though the cutoff so you have to line up three holes and slot the thin pin in....sounds simple right?

IMO you rifle is correct as is, the cutoff may well have never been installed and would almost certainly have been removed if the rifle was worked on at any point in service. Is the barrel original?

Chris

[Thunderbox]

As far as i know, no one has so far found an LSA No1 MkIII* - they appear to have simply continued producing full-spec MkIIIs.

The cut-off was back in favour all through the 1920s and 1930s, so I expect most MkIIIs in British service either retained the cut-off, or had them re-installed if they'd been removed. There was obviously a major effort to re-install cut-offs, judging by the very large proportion of "star barred out" rifles that exist today.

[5thBatt]

If the rifle is marked as a MkIII & has no * then it would have been fitted with a cutoff.

The cutoff was not deleted in 1916, that occurred in 1941.

The LoC of 1916 was in 2 parts, Part 1 was the list of certain parts to be omitted from the future production of the MkIII.

Part 2 was the introduction of the MkIII*, which was the same as a MkIII but without a cutoff or slot.

They are reasonable scarce but here's my 1918 LSA MkIII*

Not clear in the photos but there is no cutoff slot.

[4thGordons]

Thanks I was aware fo the content of the LOCs however it appears to me that there was some variation in how they were interpreted by manufacturers. BSA MkIII* marked rifles with pre LoC 1915 dates (changes predating LoC not uncommon of course), rifles marked MkIII* but with cutoff slot present and assembled in high-wood (MkIII*) foreends (originally, not as the result of a rebuild etc). This was what I was referring to by "mix and match" (see also comment below) Happy to admit you are correct that if marked MkIII it should have had a cutoff installed orginally - whether or not it did... I would be more hesitant about being definitive. Part of the reason I asked about barrel dates was precisely to do with seeking to establish if it had been worked on oficially later (even WWII etc) which might make the absence of the cutoff correct if not original.

Yours is a fantastic rifle and a little more than "reasonably scarce" I think! (I believe I saw yours on the gunboards forum?) and also illustrates something that I think is often misunderstood about the 1916 simplifications - the use of "may" as in "in future manufacture the above mentioned rifles MAY embody any of the following modifications" That is to say the simplifications were not "to be omitted" (ie required.)

In this case the cuttoff and volley sights are omitted but the trigger guard retains the swivel lugs rather than having a wire loop. A very very nice example -- like many you have. Thanks for posting it.

Chris

[Khaki]

You will also need a screw for it. (Springfield Sporters in PA are a reliable vendor of parts I have used for years)

They are a royal pain to install - if you get a NOS cutoff they are often too thick to fit - you need to remove the action from the forend as the cutoff screw inserts from the bottom up though the cutoff so you have to line up three holes and slot the thin pin in....sounds simple right?

IMO you rifle is correct as is, the cutoff may well have never been installed and would almost certainly have been removed if the rifle was worked on at any point in service. Is the barrel original?

Chris

Thanks for the tips Chris, yes the barrel is matching even the wood is numbered to the rifle.

khaki

[5thBatt]

Thanks I was aware fo the content of the LOCs however it appears to me that there was some variation in how they were interpreted by manufacturers. BSA MkIII* marked rifles with pre LoC 1915 dates (changes predating LoC not uncommon of course), rifles marked MkIII* but with cutoff slot present and assembled in high-wood (MkIII*) foreends (originally, not as the result of a rebuild etc). This was what I was referring to by "mix and match" (see also comment below) Happy to admit you are correct that if marked MkIII it should have had a cutoff installed orginally - whether or not it did... I would be more hesitant about being definitive. Part of the reason I asked about barrel dates was precisely to do with seeking to establish if it had been worked on oficially later (even WWII etc) which might make the absence of the cutoff correct if not original.

Yours is a fantastic rifle and a little more than "reasonably scarce" I think! (I believe I saw yours on the gunboards forum?) and also illustrates something that I think is often misunderstood about the 1916 simplifications - the use of "may" as in "in future manufacture the above mentioned rifles MAY embody any of the following modifications" That is to say the simplifications were not "to be omitted" (ie required.)

In this case the cuttoff and volley sights are omitted but the trigger guard retains the swivel lugs rather than having a wire loop. A very very nice example -- like many you have. Thanks for posting it.

Chris

There has been some 1915 BSA MkIII*s & a least one 1916 BSA MkIII* all without cutoff slots but all with the early features eg Volley sights (how complete to original manufacture is open to debate) noted over the years, if these rifles were in fact produced prior to the 1916 LoC, this would help explain the wording in the last paragraph of the LoC

1915 BSA MkIII*

This has a mis-matched barrel, rearsight & bolt

[5thBatt]

1916 BSA MkIII*

This is all matching, rearsight re-numbered, sorry not many photos for this one.

As for whether a rifle is maked MkIII or III* prior to 1941 & the deletion of the cutoff, if it was marked as a MkIII then it had a cutoff fitted, if not, it would not pass inspection.

[N White]

I just wanted to weigh in, regarding my numbers matching 1917 SSA mk III, star struck out, with windage adjustible sight, early cocking piece, cutoff, ...and a matching number post WW2 Indian foreend.

Do SSA usually have cutoff slot or not? I thought the program started well after the changes were implemented.

[5thBatt]

I just wanted to weigh in, regarding my numbers matching 1917 SSA mk III, star struck out, with windage adjustible sight, early cocking piece, cutoff, ...and a matching number post WW2 Indian foreend.

Do SSA usually have cutoff slot or not? I thought the program started well after the changes were implemented.

No, your rifle was original manufactured as a MkIII* with no cutoff, it was later converted to a MkIII by cutting a slot & fitting a cutoff, a windage rearsight (may have been fitted later, maybe when it was converted to a MkIII) on a 1917 rifle is not uncommon & in accordance with the LoC above, is correct.

One thing to remember, there is only ONE part that differentiates a MkIII from a MkIII* and thats whether or not it has a cutoff present, all other parts listed in the LoC can be fitted to either model.

The MkIII* of 1918 (or perceived MkIII* of 1918) did not just come in to being overnight in 1915/16 it evolved during the years & even then (1918) they were still fitted with 'earlier' parts, & in-case no-one has realized there was a war going on at the time!

[4thGordons]

No, your rifle was original manufactured as a MkIII* with no cutoff, it was later converted to a MkIII by cutting a slot & fitting a cutoff, a windage rearsight (may have been fitted later, maybe when it was converted to a MkIII) on a 1917 rifle is not uncommon & in accordance with the LoC above, is correct.

I am not disputing this, but cutting a slot in the reciever and tapping the screw thread to fit the cuttoff, and fitting a different forend has always seemed like a lot of work to me even during the low production years of the 20s and 30s. And certainly something that would (I would assume) have had to be done at the factory but I have never been able to track down any documentation of this process.

Chris

[N White]

For what it's worth, the FTR is 1929, at RFI.

When I get home I will post some close up out of stock pics.

I wasn't aware a cutoff could be added as an afterthought.

[4thGordons]

For what it's worth, the FTR is 1929, at RFI.

FWIW a high proportion of the barred out star rifles I have seen on the US market have been Indian FTRs from this period.

Chris

[5thBatt]

I am not disputing this, but cutting a slot in the reciever and tapping the screw thread to fit the cuttoff, and fitting a different forend has always seemed like a lot of work to me even during the low production years of the 20s and 30s. And certainly something that would (I would assume) have had to be done at the factory but I have never been able to track down any documentation of this process.

Chris

Yeah, felt the same for many years so understand where you're comming from.

[N White]

Everything look more or less normal?

Do the guns with a later slot look different at all?

[4thGordons]

As far as I can see it looks entirely normal. I know of no differences between MkIII and MkIII star in terms of the slot (perhaps others are aware of such?). The painted action is common on rifles that saw WWII service and can range from Khaki (as with yours) to pea green -- with everything in between. Painting was authorised as a wartime rust inhibiting expedient (all theatres) in place of annual disassembly and greasing of the parts under the wood.

Chris

[5thBatt]

Everything look more or less normal?

Do the guns with a later slot look different at all?

Generally the alignment of the III or III* under the ShtLe markings are an indicator of the original spec the rifle was made to, but this can be grayed because on the early MkIII* the * was added after the III which can be seen on the 1915 BSA & 1918 LSA above in my previous posts, which are both early MkIII*s for those manufacturers.