stephen p nunn Posted 19 January , 2014 Share Posted 19 January , 2014 Just had a really constructive meeting with the curator or Maldon's Combined Military Services Museum about my GW equipment collection. (See Equipment Forum about bayonet frog and 1908 web). As part of this he reviewed my SMLE. I thought it was possible an Indian re-issue. However, it turns out to be a 1918 issue that he believes saw active service, was collected and returned to the UK (possibly Colchester) for a re-build. The re-build included parts from 3 or 4 other SMLEs. It was the sold out of service - "BO X" being Board of Ordnance with the "X" or two arrow mark. The bolt and fore-end are later. It was then converted to a .410 and finally de-activated in 1989. The most fascinating thing is that he thinks one of the serial numbers might tell us the unit it was originally issued to - "11091". Regards. SPNMaldon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 19 January , 2014 Share Posted 19 January , 2014 Sounds like an Indian service rifle that has been through their rebuild and rework program before finally being converted to .410 musket. Photos will be helpful here. With a few more details provided, I am confident the chaps here will soon set you straight regarding the history of your rifle. I would back their knowledge the full 100%. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen p nunn Posted 19 January , 2014 Author Share Posted 19 January , 2014 Thanks S S. I always thought so, but apparently not Indian service after all. The serial number research could help. Will keep you posted. Regards. SPNMaldon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waggoner Posted 19 January , 2014 Share Posted 19 January , 2014 Maldon, I look forward to learning more about your rifle. However, I have my doubts about whether or not researching the serial number will help to identify the unit it was issued to. Maybe it will. All the best, Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T8HANTS Posted 19 January , 2014 Share Posted 19 January , 2014 One of the ways around Britains firearms legislation in the 1970's was that there was little restriction apart from getting the certificate, on holding ex-service rifles that had been smoothbored. Most retained their original chambering, but some were fully rechambered to accept a standard shotgun case. So not all .410"s are ex-military conversions, some were simply done by the gun trade. 16 bore Martini's were another favorite, before they were re-classed as antiques. G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 19 January , 2014 Share Posted 19 January , 2014 To my knowledge, no records of issue by serial number were kept. Except in exceptional cases where the full provenance of an individual weapon is know it is very hard to know anything reliably about the specific details of the service life of an individual weapon and where these things are known it is not through the serial number. Serial numbers can sometimes be used to confirm manufacturer (through prefix) or date of manufacture/conversion if sufficient observed records exist to identify blocks. They can also sometimes be used to identify blocks of rifles supplied by contract to foreign powers (there was a thread recently on a Gulf States / Bahrain rifle from the 1930s that illustrates this). But I know of no way (and the mode of issue - supplied to a central dept then out to units would also count against this) of going from serial number to unit. If (for example in small pre-war units for example cadet forces, warships or perhaps even TF units) armourers or other records survive where serials are listed, it is conceivable that you might go from unit to weapon based on the serial -- but not vice versa. This is purely a hypothetical I have never heard of it happening, nor have I seen unit documents with serials listed (but I supposed they could well exist) So in this regard I think you are out of luck. Who was your rifle manufactured by? A 1918 rifle with a serial number without a prefix letter (you don't list one) would suggest it is a Enfield produced rifle -- is that correct? (in 1918 BSA were using H I J K, LSA were using O & P) The other possibility is it is a SSA rifle some of these also have no serial prefix in 1918) Observed serial data taken from Stratton/Enfield Research Associates. As noted above -- it would be interesting to know if the conversion was a UK civilian one or an official one -- the proofing should tell you this I think. If it is not a civilian UK conversion then the rifle almost certainly saw service in India as they converted thousands and thousands to .410 musket configuration but it entirely possible it was a UK conversion - They used to be advertised in Exchange and Mart! I would also be interested to know how it was determined that the mix and match of parts was a result of an FTR (do you know how Colchester was identified or was it just suggested as a possibility?) rather than the later conversion process or deactivation process, I think I would struggle to make this distinction. I too would be interested in seeing pictures of the rifle overall and the markings in particular those on the barrel knox form. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen p nunn Posted 19 January , 2014 Author Share Posted 19 January , 2014 Thanks Chris. It is a MkIII* by Birmingham Small Arms. The prefix to the serial number is "I". The .410 conversion is indicated by a "410" in a diamond. The Colchester stuff and the re-build came from the Museum chap today. Any firther thoughts? Regards. SPNMaldon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 19 January , 2014 Share Posted 19 January , 2014 As Chris says above, I know of no way of tracing a rifle by serial number. The presence of ".410" in a diamond suggests a commercial conversion, not military. Are there any proof marks showing commercial proof on the barrel? Also I am suspicious of the "BO" marking, since the title "Board of Ordnance" was long defunct by the time your rifle was sold out of service. As ever, photographs would tell us far more than words. Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 19 January , 2014 Share Posted 19 January , 2014 Hi Maldon OK well I -11091 would fit with a BSA rifle in 1918, according to most records(Skennerton / Stratton etc) BSA made about 346,000 MkIII* rifles in 1918 so yours is one of a 1/3rd of a million! Are there other markings on the knox form around the 410 mark. This is (I think) the UK mark but I am not sure it tells us whether the rifle was converted in the UK or simply that the calibre/gauge was marked prior to sale in the UK. Others will know better. Is it the original barrel in the weapon (these are often dated on the chamber on left side low down) Most 96 year old weapons are a mix and match of parts - especially after a long service life followed by several conversions where the primary goal is functionality not the small matching numbers so beloved of collectors! As a result I would not be confident saying that the mix originated at one stage of the rifles life over another. For a weapon of this age it would be highly unusual if it had not been through several FTRs (factory thorough refinish - ie returning the rifle to the spec. of the day) -- so is there any indication that the * on MkIII* has been barred out? many rifles refinished in the interwar period were refinished to MkIII rather than MkIII* spec and the asterisk was struck through with one or two horizontal lines) in its service life. I am interested if there were markings on the rifle that allowed the curator to identify Colchester or if it was just a general suggestion. Couple of other questions -- what is the finish on the rifle like? Is it blued/smooth? It is black painted? Is it a matt black type finish? or a greenish finish? Or a mix? You mention the "later fore-end" by 1918 most rifles being assembled would have had the later variation (chunkier less refined and without provision for the magazine cut-off) and fore-ends are not usually dated so again I would be interested in knowing what distinguished this. It might be the wood it is made of. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen p nunn Posted 19 January , 2014 Author Share Posted 19 January , 2014 Hi Tony. believe it or not I never been able to crack adding pictures - try as I might! It has the original military proof of the Crown/GR/Crossed Pennants/P and looks like a 1916 barrel judging by the inspection marks! Regards. SPNMaldon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen p nunn Posted 19 January , 2014 Author Share Posted 19 January , 2014 Hi Chris. The other mark says "3 1/4 tons per square inch". and a serial of 3278R. The fore-end has Slaz 46 - which I thought was Slazenger for 1946? Regards. SPNMaldon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 19 January , 2014 Share Posted 19 January , 2014 OK -- so a 1916 barrel and an Australian post WWII fore-end (which is also probably made of a different lighter coloured wood?). Curiouser and curiouser. Can you send me some pictures at chrisjmcdonald [atsign] comcast [dot] net and I will try and post them. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen p nunn Posted 19 January , 2014 Author Share Posted 19 January , 2014 Thanks Chris - email on the way. Regards. SPN Maldon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trenchtrotter Posted 19 January , 2014 Share Posted 19 January , 2014 A dealer once told me ( or possibly a poster here) that most 1918 SMLEs never made it to theatre as by then there were so many rifles about that they were salvaged / refurbed and issued locally? Is this true or a myth? TT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 19 January , 2014 Share Posted 19 January , 2014 A dealer once told me ( or possibly a poster here) that most 1918 SMLEs never made it to theatre as by then there were so many rifles about that they were salvaged / refurbed and issued locally? Is this true or a myth? TT I do not know the answer to this but Given the losses in Spring of 1918 I think it likely that certainly some 1918 produced rifles did go but, given how large production was in 1917 and with the nature of inspection/supply/transport etc I would think it is a reasonable assumption that few rifles assembled after "mid" 1918 would have made it into the hands of serving troops but I am not sure I would be confident enough in these guesses to distinguish between some/many/a majority/most! It would seem to be a reasonable assumption but I think that probably some of the @a million rifles produced by Enfield and BSA in 1918 would have made it to theatre. Far less likely that a Lithgow produced rifle of this date did I suspect. TonyE will have better knowledge on this based on his research on production/supply of small arms and he (or Thunderbox) might be able to give a guess at the time from production/acceptance to issue. I suspect it will be difficult to prove one way or another but it would seem to me (ceterus parabus) that there is a higher likelihood of of a 1914/5/6/7 rifle having made it to the front than a 1918. beyond that I am not sure I would be confident at guessing. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 19 January , 2014 Share Posted 19 January , 2014 Here is Maldon's rifle Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen p nunn Posted 19 January , 2014 Author Share Posted 19 January , 2014 Thanks Chris - that looks good. Very proud of it whatever the story! Best wishes. SPNMaldon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 19 January , 2014 Share Posted 19 January , 2014 Also I am suspicious of the "BO" marking, since the title "Board of Ordnance" was long defunct by the time your rifle was sold out of service. As ever, photographs would tell us far more than words. Likewise, but something keeps niggling that I have seen it before, I think on Indian rifles. As in the form of the Indian inspection quadrant markings ie. B^O over I (IIRC) Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 19 January , 2014 Share Posted 19 January , 2014 Likewise, but something keeps niggling that I have seen it before, I think on Indian rifles. As in the form of the Indian inspection quadrant markings ie. B^O over I (IIRC) Cheers, S>S I will check mine but that marking is not listed in Edwards' (no, not 'im, another one Robert W.) book India's Enfields in his list of "principle Indian marks 1905-1975" but I would never say never on Indian markings! All of my Indian .410 conversions have RFI .410 and a date stamped below the safety on the lower left side of the wrist of the rifle (Single loader rifles have S/L stamped in the same location). Upon reflection the apparent absence of that mark would suggest UK conversion to me but again...never say never.... Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5thBatt Posted 20 January , 2014 Share Posted 20 January , 2014 Apparently a lot of NZ troops waiting to return home at the end of WW1 handed in their battle worn rifles in exchange for brand new rifles & thats the reason for so many 1918 SMLEs in original condition compared with earlier dated rifles in NZ. 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