4thGordons Posted 3 March , 2016 Share Posted 3 March , 2016 Funny how things turn out - given the discussion recently of naval marked p1907 bayonets and earlier p1888 bayonets. I just took possession of this. I took a bit of a gamble on an auction and although there are some oddities it is an interesting example I think....the bit the bayonets fit too An Enfield MLE MkI* dated on the receiver as 1899. The serial number on the bolt is mismatched and the bolt cover is has Sparkbrook markings. The rifle was downgraded to Drill Purpose (DP) and is so stamped on the barrel knox form and the side of the butt (which also has an Enfield 1908 roundel stamp) I am not sure if this is a replacement butt or if the date refers to the date at which is was downgraded or something else. Probably of most interest to folks here given the recent discussion are these two sets of markings on the butt-plate and opposite side of the receiver. The biggest downside of the rifle is that it is not operational.Not only had it officially become a DP rifle, but the chamber has been pinned and it appears the barrel has been smooth-bored. It is a little difficult to see because it is dirty and because the pin in in the way but it is either very very worn or has indeed been smooth bored. When I removed the handguard I found the following stamp which I have not seen previously but which appears to be a British civilian proof stamp indicating it was smooth bored .303? Perhaps Thunderbox or someone else could confirm this? I believe this was relatively common practice at one point in the past to allow rifles such as this to be held on a shotgun certificate as opposed to being deactivated or on a full FAC? One additional oddity which I shall have to investigate is that it appears to have a drift adjustable foresight (as fitted to CLLE and later SMLE) which I do not believe was usual on MkI* or MLEs generally until the CLLE so I wll have to check if there was a specific naval version Anyway - there you go -- so if anyone has a spare RN marked Pattern 88 (actually I am off to check mine to see - I don't remember), Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msdt Posted 3 March , 2016 Share Posted 3 March , 2016 Hi Chris, An interesting rifle. Is the barrel dated? Can you make out the crossed out unit mark on the butt plate? Cheers, Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 3 March , 2016 Author Share Posted 3 March , 2016 I have not removed the barrel from the forend but there is no obvious date although it looks like it might be a replacement barrel as it is numbered differently to the receiver. The rear sight is numbered to the barrel It has the usual line of proof marks along the left side - and looks like it may be a BSA barrel as many of the inspection stamps have the BSA script B, given that the bolt dust cover is Sparkbrook and the cocking piece is BSA I think it is something of a "bitsa" As to the butt plate unit markings My reading is inspection stamp (top left) Cown over 15 over V 12 12 struck through C H C H struck through (conceivably C I I but spacing looks too close/even to be I so I think H) meaning? possibly a unit but not sure what - possible CHesire Rgt?. 12 14 12 14 struck through (poss date? but no obvious sign of apostrophe) RM 270 270 Struck through Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msdt Posted 4 March , 2016 Share Posted 4 March , 2016 Hi Chris, Those markings do seem to tell a story. The first 3 lines (rack number, regiment, date) seem carefully struck and spaced and the dies look the same - the 1 and the 2 (indeed the 2 of the 270 as well). So it seems to indicate the rifle being accepted by the Cheshire Regiment in December of 1914 during the rush to arm units, and then subsequently being transferred to the Navy presumably as SMLE's became available to re-equip Army regiments. Interesting. One wonders if the 'bitsa' work was for 1914 or later? Are you in the US or the UK, Chris? I have a 1918 Austrian M1895 that has been smooth bored initially here in the UK when shotgun licences were easy to get, and then was later fully deactivated. The proofs for the smooth boring are as per yours. Cheers, Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 4 March , 2016 Share Posted 4 March , 2016 Anyway - there you go -- so if anyone has a spare RN marked Pattern 88 Who do you think would have such a thing Chris.? Do you really have to ask, haha ... See this old thread HERE for some illustrations of one of mine (particularly posts #5 and #32) Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msdt Posted 5 March , 2016 Share Posted 5 March , 2016 Hi Chris, Is this the barrel for a CLLE MkI (as opposed to the MkI* with protecter)? Cheers, Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 5 March , 2016 Author Share Posted 5 March , 2016 Hi Tony Sorry missed the previous replies. Rifle is in the US, thanks for confirming the stamping. I remember seeing such weapons advertised in Exchange and Mart in the late 80s I think. It may be CLLE barrel but I don't think so - and I am not even sure if the adjustable foresight was fitted to the MkI either I think they retained the original MLE block, my IP CLLE does, I believe it wasn't introduced until the MkI*. There is also no indication of HV stamping forward of the rear sight which would usually be present on a MkI. Also the rear sight is graduated to 1800 yds rather than 1900 and the sight is numbered to the barrel. So I don't think it is. I suspect the barrel switch probably dates from the smooth-boring although no way to know I suppose. Interestingly when checking the specs of the MkI I saw that Skennerton notes that the MkI CLLE saw a lot of naval use. Cheers, Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 5 March , 2016 Share Posted 5 March , 2016 Just an aside, really, and probably of no great relevance, but one of those things that is outside the normal run of things in my very limited experience... There are existing albeit worn teardrop/circle/teardrop cancellation marks for the 12' 14 and for the 270, the striking-out lines being superimposed on these. I assume these lines were added just to clarify the status of this piece - but out of interest really, when was that original cancellation mark - the teardrop/circle/teardrop - in use? Julian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msdt Posted 5 March , 2016 Share Posted 5 March , 2016 Hi Julian, Yes, a good point. Looks as if an earlier set of marks have been removed in order to make the 1914 stampings. I think the teardrops may be cancellation marks that are actually part of this earlier set. Cheers, Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 6 March , 2016 Share Posted 6 March , 2016 One additional oddity which I shall have to investigate is that it appears to have a drift adjustable foresight (as fitted to CLLE and later SMLE) which I do not believe was usual on MkI* or MLEs generally until the CLLE so I wll have to check if there was a specific naval version It may be CLLE barrel but I don't think so - and I am not even sure if the adjustable foresight was fitted to the MkI either I think they retained the original MLE block, my IP CLLE does, I believe it wasn't introduced until the MkI*. There is also no indication of HV stamping forward of the rear sight which would usually be present on a MkI. Also the rear sight is graduated to 1800 yds rather than 1900 and the sight is numbered to the barrel. So I don't think it is. I suspect the barrel switch probably dates from the smooth-boring although no way to know I suppose. Chris, it appears that it may be a CLLE barrel that is fitted to your rifle. The adjustable foresight was never used on the MLE's but came in with the CLLE Mk.I* (LoC#13992 dated July 1907) And at the same time they changed the leaf backsight to the 1800 yards ... so looks to match yours. Is your foresight blade numbered.? My own MLE Mk.I* also has the fixed block foresight. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 6 March , 2016 Author Share Posted 6 March , 2016 SS That is the point. TONY (Msdt) suggested the CLLE MkI which did not have protectors fitted but (he presumed) may have had a drift fitted foresight. I responded that I did not think the CLLE MkI had an adjustable sight -- it was introduced with the CLLE MkI* (as you point out with the LoC) But the CLLE MkI* sight base has a hole through the center for the fitting of the protector ears I think the CLLE MkI* sight is graduated to 1900yds not 1800. I need to check but my reaction was that 1800 was the MLE rear sight and 1900 was the CLLE. You seem to be saying the opposite so I suppose I need to check. I also have a LEC that has an adjustable foresight (which no version ever officially had) so obviously there is oddness Chris PS: No : foresight not numbered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 6 March , 2016 Share Posted 6 March , 2016 Yes and I have the LoC's and a copy of Skennerton's 'The Lee-Enfield' which should help to clarify such matters a little. I am only going off what they say. Apparently the backsights on the original CLLE rifles were sighted to 1800yds, & with the introduction of HV ammunition these were changed to 1900yds. Does your backsight have any letters stamped, such as CL.? Or any numbers on the backsight leaf.? I think you have a CLLE barrel done pre the Mk.VII And you are correct in that the CLLE Mk.I did not have an adjustable foresight. The existing foresights were left untouched in their conversion procedure. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 7 March , 2016 Share Posted 7 March , 2016 But the CLLE MkI* sight base has a hole through the center for the fitting of the protector ears Yes the specs for the normal pattern CLLE Mk.I* show them to feature the detachable foresight protector, but obviously some were made without the protectors fitted. I note the India Pattern CLLE does have this same foresight (without protector) So that leaves a couple of avenues for explaining the origin of your replacement barrel. A BSA contract to supply replacement barrels to India in their required IP style.? Or a particular Naval spec that didn't require the sight protectors.? This all speculation. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msdt Posted 8 March , 2016 Share Posted 8 March , 2016 Are we sure that the barrel is not a CLLE MkI? I have Skennerton's 'The Lee Enfield' and the pamphlet like buff one. They seem to say that the CLLE MkI came after the MkI*, and my reading of them has both with removable blade foresights, though I agree it is not very clear! And the CLLE MkI was particularly used by the Navy. Cheers, Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 9 March , 2016 Share Posted 9 March , 2016 It doesn't appear to be, going on the LoC at least. Apparently the CLLE Mk.I came in prior, but was only notified at a later date. Maybe Naval only spec.?? Anyway the LoC #17041 sub-section 2 seems to clarify these details. Find all this described in Skennerton's "The Lee-Enfield" on pages 114, 115 & 116. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 13 March , 2016 Author Share Posted 13 March , 2016 Yes the specs for the normal pattern CLLE Mk.I* show them to feature the detachable foresight protector, but obviously some were made without the protectors fitted. I note the India Pattern CLLE does have this same foresight (without protector) So that leaves a couple of avenues for explaining the origin of your replacement barrel. A BSA contract to supply replacement barrels to India in their required IP style.? Or a particular Naval spec that didn't require the sight protectors.? This all speculation. Cheers, S>S Hi been away for a week The IP CCLE I have (which I believe is standard) retains the original block foresight (non adjustable) as fitted to the MLE, so no adjustable foresight blade and no protector. I think I must be missing something because what makes it obvious that some were made without protectors? I think it is likely "one of those things" - an oddity that cannot be obviously explain. I also have a LEC MkI action which to all intents and purposes is an RIC/NZ carbine format (sleeved for a P1888) but also fitted with an adjustable foresight block - both Skennerton and Edwards (India's Enfield) discuss Indian conversions to a carbine format w/bayonet for the corps of sappers and miners -- this would explain it -- but no one has ever seen a complete example! Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 14 March , 2016 Share Posted 14 March , 2016 I think I must be missing something because what makes it obvious that some were made without protectors? See "TLE" page 455 which describes the CLLE Mk.I India Pattern rifle. "Later, adjustable foresights were approved for the Charger loading rifles although the foresight protector wings ... were not attached to this rifle." "The backsight remains the same as on the rifle from which the conversion was made .." (ie.1800 yds) So yours is ostensibly a CLLE IP barrel.?? Cheers, S>S 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