4thGordons Posted 23 October , 2015 Share Posted 23 October , 2015 I would value the input of members on this example I bought it knowing it was odd. The rifle also came with a story - but based on the old adage "buy the rifle not the story" I will just ask for opinions of the weapon. Numbers match on Bolt, receiver, barrel, nosecap and fore-end. The barrel is obviously later than the receiver (and dated 1927) Thoughts appreciated. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 23 October , 2015 Share Posted 23 October , 2015 Wow an unusual one, that's for sure.! Well for starters I believe an original MLE Mk.I* action that was possibly converted into a SMLE Mk.IV Cond. format.??? No conversion markings visible on the left side wrist, however I think a partially visible IV marking crossed out over the receiver.? Perhaps replacement wood.? I note the current forestock was built to accept the charger bridge mounting, but no charger bridge currently in place. Everything else matches a Mark IV Cond. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terrylee Posted 23 October , 2015 Share Posted 23 October , 2015 4th Gordons, It appears to be a South African conversion dating from WW II when 4250 were produced. Once the supply of barrels for the Long Lees were exhausted it was decided to convert those rifles needing replacements into what was termed the "No.1 (Converted)". South African manufactured No.1 barrels were used. It appears that they were mainly issued to the Defence Rifle Associations and used for training purposes. If you are interested I can send you copies of documents I found in the South African Military Archives. These rifles are not uncommon and I have seen conversions made from both Lee Metfords and Lee Enfields. Some retain the dust cover, others do not. The forends came from the UK and it seems that like the barrels the nose caps were locally manufactured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogilwy Posted 23 October , 2015 Share Posted 23 October , 2015 Chris, Nice rifle, I hope it's not been castrated (de-ac). If it is a shooter the standard to which it performs would be interesting. I'm sure Paul (.303Man) will pounce on this, and his encyclopedic knowledge should help. Paul, That's set you up now over to you!! Rod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 23 October , 2015 Share Posted 23 October , 2015 Terrylee, would not the '27 dated barrel liberally stamped with Enfield inspections and Broad Arrow be a constraining factor for a South African WW2 period conversion.? Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 23 October , 2015 Author Share Posted 23 October , 2015 Thanks Terrylee/SS I would be very interested in seeing the documents you mention, is anything known about the rifles that provided receivers. This weekend I will properly disassemble and photograph the rifle. Glad to hear your observation because it fits with the story that came with the rifle. Although there was nothing to substantiate it, I was told that the rifle came from South Africa and was imported into the US from Botswana (pre 1968 I assume as it has no import stamps) It looks very similar to the lower rifle you posted in format etc. Is there a particular serial number block for these - as you can see mine is numbered U1657 I wondered about the barrel too SS, but if assembled with barrels supplied from the UK (or salvaged from other damaged rifles) I suppose that can be explained. I have an early WWII "dispersal" rifle which has an inter-war dated barrel and a post WWII assembled Ishapore rifle with a 1930s barrel so not unheard of. The struck through mark on the top actually appears to be TV (as opposed to IV) although I do not know the meaning of it and I have not found any additional references. Rod, it is not deactivated and the bore, although used, looks to be in good shape. It will probably be a while before I get to shoot it though as I do not get out to the range much these days. Thanks for the information and responses Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terrylee Posted 23 October , 2015 Share Posted 23 October , 2015 The information that these rifles used South African barrels came from the archives. However, one of mine also has a British barrel dated 1941. I expect that when converting the authorities actually used what came to hand. These rifles are still fairly often encountered and the examples I've examined indicate that apart from having earlier South African military markings, the Long Lees selected for conversion have no common attribute. I guess that the only selection criteria was having a worn out barrel. I've seen converted Lee Enfield Mks. I and I* and also Lee Metford Mk.IIs. The upper of the two rifles in the photo that I posted was originally a Commercial Magazine Lee Enfield. This tells me that prior to Union it was a Cape Government rifle purchased shortly before the Boer War. Sadly, most of these conversions are are very worn. Chris, I have sent you a private message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 23 October , 2015 Author Share Posted 23 October , 2015 Thanks very much for the added information Terry. Greatly appreciated. Chris 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