WW1 Rifle's re-issued to Home Guard

[4thGordons]

I made it back earlier than planned

So,  as you suggested, the contractor was : H Morris and Co Glasgow.

"Identical to the first variation stock except it is NOT inletted and drilled for the volley sight components and NOT inletted for the buttstock marking disk. Some of these stocks are marked MkII and rifles fitted with these stocks are designated Rifle No3 MkII" (Stratton "Pattern 1914 and US Model 1917 rifles", North Cape Publishing)

A contract for 11,100 of these MkII stocks was placed (Skennerton, British Small Arms of WW2)

Contracts for 677,324 WRS (various contractors) were placed overall so 11,000 stocks is a relatively small number.

So it does appear that stocks were produced in the UK there were also contracts let for other parts, namely

• Fine adjustment rear sights
• Foresights
• Backsight nuts and ties
• Buttplates
• Springs
• Front and Rear Handguards
• Springs for the backsight slider
• Screws
• Springs
• Sear Springs

Regarding the use of Model 1917 Stocks - it has been a while since I messed around with these but just glancing at the notes I made at the time - I am not sure M1917 stocks will fit P14s without quite a lot of work which is perhaps why the 11,000 were contracted. At one point M1917 stocks were easily available in the US (no longer) but P1914 stocks were hard to find so I was considering this on a damaged rifle I have.

M1917 stock should be visibly distinguishable based on the finger grooves (longer and extending further forward and the same length on both sides) also the butt drilling  for the oiler/pull through is different but I have noted that the magazine well on the M1917 is longer (as a result of the length of the .30-06 cartridge) and the trigger guard inletting is sufficiently different that they are not simple to interchange without quite a bit of work.

The top example here is a commercial refinish fitted with a parker-hale sight much like the one you show in the ads above and may be fitted with an M1917 stock - any markings have been obliterated by the finish (see below for my standard M1917 stock for comparison)

[navydoc16]

19 hours ago, 4thGordons said:

I made it back earlier than planned

So,  as you suggested, the contractor was : H Morris and Co Glasgow.

"Identical to the first variation stock except it is NOT inletted and drilled for the volley sight components and NOT inletted for the buttstock marking disk. Some of these stocks are marked MkII and rifles fitted with these stocks are designated Rifle No3 MkII" (Stratton "Pattern 1914 and US Model 1917 rifles", North Cape Publishing)

A contract for 11,100 of these MkII stocks was placed (Skennerton, British Small Arms of WW2)

Contracts for 677,324 WRS (various contractors) were placed overall so 11,000 stocks is a relatively small number.

So it does appear that stocks were produced in the UK there were also contracts let for other parts, namely

• Fine adjustment rear sights
• Foresights
• Backsight nuts and ties
• Buttplates
• Springs
• Front and Rear Handguards
• Springs for the backsight slider
• Screws
• Springs
• Sear Springs

Regarding the use of Model 1917 Stocks - it has been a while since I messed around with these but just glancing at the notes I made at the time - I am not sure M1917 stocks will fit P14s without quite a lot of work which is perhaps why the 11,000 were contracted. At one point M1917 stocks were easily available in the US (no longer) but P1914 stocks were hard to find so I was considering this on a damaged rifle I have.

M1917 stock should be visibly distinguishable based on the finger grooves (longer and extending further forward and the same length on both sides) also the butt drilling  for the oiler/pull through is different but I have noted that the magazine well on the M1917 is longer (as a result of the length of the .30-06 cartridge) and the trigger guard inletting is sufficiently different that they are not simple to interchange without quite a bit of work.

The top example here is a commercial refinish fitted with a parker-hale sight much like the one you show in the ads above and may be fitted with an M1917 stock - any markings have been obliterated by the finish (see below for my standard M1917 stock for comparison)

Now that is bloody fascinating mate! From Skennertons writings it appears for all intents and purposes that the contract was completed for the 11 thousand. I had zero idea that the UK had bothered to make any components for the P14 at all to be honest and had never bothered to look either. 

In regards to the inletting 100%, I have fitted maybe 4-5 over the years- I ended up using M1917 metalwork on the P14 action. There was some minor adjustment to the actual box on the P14 mag well, but all bolted up straight. 

^we had some members of the buy ex-target rifles to keep using them for service competition- and they needed to be “as issued” so M1917 stocks were fitted and I drilled the butt stocks with a Frostner bit and re-screwed in one of the stock discs I had stashed away. 
 

I now have stores of actual P14 stocks- nearly 25 still. 
 

i appreciate the references, over the years any P14 I have encountered without disc and volley I have just assumed was in a M1917 stock- I will need to review the ones I have in storage now as I may own the very thing I claimed didn’t exist. 
 

^up there I said I have a M1917 stock that fits a P14 perfect, no volley sights or stock disc- small code on the stock and that’s it- however there is no MkII or other markings. But I do remember fitting it to a particularly nice P14 and then changed my mind the next week as I wanted to save it for something particularly special. 

the first batch I received and cleaning- now everytime I find a cheap intact but duffle cut P14 I can put it back to original for a quarter the price, also have the volleys front and rear and all the metalwork.

some special sauce and boiled out all the action oil- they came out rather nice in the end, I got them for cheap the importer thought they were trash so I bought the whole lot, they were completely black 

kind regards

g

 

Edited 14 April by navydoc16

[navydoc16]

A couple pics of the Central Emergency sight, fairly simple piece of kit and does the job. However seems to not really have took off. Slazenger never made the new top woods and a handful were ever purported to be fitted.

kind regards

g

[MrEd]

I am very fascinated by the pattern 1913/pattern 1914/m1917 story - that emergency sight is fascinating, what was that for? A p14? For what reasons?

[navydoc16]

6 hours ago, MrEd said:

I am very fascinated by the pattern 1913/pattern 1914/m1917 story - that emergency sight is fascinating, what was that for? A p14? For what reasons?

If you search up online the hybrid 1903 in .303 emergency rifle you should find a couple good articles online. 
 

it was a rather curious footnote in firearms development- and because it did not require development as it was a full fledged and proved design, it appears the British did not order many to waste time testing them. 

I have written a bit above, on the emergency sights- 

In short form:

Australia needed more rifles- especially after Dunkirk stopped British assistance. 
 

Australia looked at re-issuing the “second/reserve grade” SMLEs from the Volunteer Defence Corps “home guard”. As well as getting all .303 rifles from the general public. That way the VDC could be issued with older SMLE Mk1 and MLE rifles and the “newer stuff” sent out.
 

the public had tens of thousands of .303 British MLE and SMLE (both Mk1 and Mk3) rifles- as Service Rifle Shooting Competition had become a major Saturday activity especially after The Great War and the new fascination and exposure to shooting and marksmanship.
 

Even before the Great War- the Australian Government (although later relaxed by some states) had outlawed the ownership and use of “military calibre” .303 calibre rifles, to prevent the theft of rifle or ammunition. So the great majority of the .303 rifles available to be handed in for VDC use were “range pattern” rifles- Lithgow Small Arms factory even assisted in target rifle conversion during the 20’s and 30’s. 

The great many of those rifles had been modified with the installation of Heavy Barrels- thicker outside diameter barrels for target use and greater accuracy.

to fit a Heavy barrel the wood was bored out and the rear sight would no longer fit the thicker dimension- even less serious competition rifles utilising the standard barrel, the existing sight base would ruin the field of vision of those shooters shooting long range without “range pattern sights” mounted to the rear of the rifle so they were often removed including the bed. 
 

The “range sights” were worth as much as a lee Enfield (think expensive scope money today)and they were removed before the owners let them go and donated them. 
 

…..So the army had a whole bunch of .303 rifles with literally no rear sights

fitting and sweating some sort of standard pattern sight bed was considered but would take away from actual production and have to be individually reamed to meet the various non-standard outer dimensions of the heavy barrels. 

hence the emergency sight- it was designed to be fitted by a unit armourer of a VDC unit, to rifles handed in that had no rear sight. Would fit a variety of heavy barrel outside dimensions

there is less than a hundred sights still in existence, as well as not many “real rifles” as not many were converted- as those that were, were unconverted after the original owner got their rifle back. 
 

kind regards

g

 

[navydoc16]

I should say to follow on, if you are ever offered a “real” emergency pattern rifle to purchase- you may be able to tell it is a “remake” by the range sight.

about 25 years ago two boxes of 50 of Mk1 emergency sights were found and sold to a dealer in Australia- the sights were packed in cardboard with a greased plastic bag inside. Condensation in the bag created serious pitting on the top leading edge of all the sights or the bottom depending on the orientation in the box, but left the remainder of the sight intact.

they vary in the degree of pit, but all are the same pattern as above. I bought 5 and kept the best. However there has been a lot of “intrest” in the real rifles and hence “two and two” have gone together. If you’re offered one but it seems to have a serious degree of pitting in one particular area on the sight - it is a non-original piece.  
 

kind regards

g

Edited 19 April by navydoc16

[MrEd]

Great info, thanks G

[4thGordons]

23 hours ago, navydoc16 said:

the public had tens of thousands of .303 British MLE and SMLE (both Mk1 and Mk3) rifles- as Service Rifle Shooting Competition had become a major Saturday activity especially after The Great War and the new fascination and exposure to shooting and marksmanship.
 

Even before the Great War- the Australian Government (although later relaxed by some states) had outlawed the ownership and use of “military calibre” .303 calibre rifles, to prevent the theft of rifle or ammunition. So the great majority of the .303 rifles available to be handed in for VDC use were “range pattern” rifles- Lithgow Small Arms factory even assisted in target rifle conversion during the 20’s and 30’s. 

The great many of those rifles had been modified with the installation of Heavy Barrels- thicker outside diameter barrels for target use and greater accuracy.

to fit a Heavy barrel the wood was bored out and the rear sight would no longer fit the thicker dimension- even less serious competition rifles utilising the standard barrel, the existing sight base would ruin the field of vision of those shooters shooting long range without “range pattern sights” mounted to the rear of the rifle so they were often removed including the bed. 

The “range sights” were worth as much as a lee Enfield (think expensive scope money today)and they were removed before the owners let them go and donated them. 
 

 

This is interesting because it seems to differ in some ways from my understanding of the timeline

My understanding was that "range rifles" were usually MLEs that had been cut down to ShtLE length to allow them to continue to be used in service matches after the ShtLE became the standard service rifle (and thus the standard for competitions).  The profile on the barrel of MLEs was heavier as the longer rifles were shortened/recrowned

Here is an example of mine - a Sparkbrook MLE cut down to ShtLE length (but retaining the original rear sights and with the foresight refitted)

I always though the 1930s H(eavy) Barreled rifles were ShtLEs modified as you described (with a heavy barrel fitted and the fore-end relieved to accommodate) I have a 1915 Lithgow but with a H(eavy) stamped barrel fitted. This rifle retains the original style rear sights.

[will add pic when I find one!]

I do have an early 1907 BSA ShtLE MkIII with NSW markings which is drilled/tapped for a receiver mounted rear sight but retains its original sight and regular weight/profile barrel

 

Chris

 

[Mattr82]

@4thGordons A lot of the MLEs with the shortened barrels were done due to a variety of reasons.

- In the mid 1920s, Australia got 2000 long barrels from Britain and no more after that so that's where the requirement to use Lithgow produced barrels came into being. So it was a case of use the shortened/modified barrel or continue to use a worn out barrel.

- Standardisation of rifles used by clubs.

 

"Of the 7,400 long rifles on hand with the Defence Department, 5,640 were on loan to rifle clubs and 1,760 in store. The rifles in store would need rebarreling before being issued; barrels would be issued to rifle clubs as well. The 2,000 barrels from England were due to arrive in December 1924, but when Lithgow could deliver was uncertain. In any event, to help overcome the problem, it was decided to see whether the long .303 rifles could be modified to accept short barrels for the .303-inch SMLE. This was the first step to re-equipping the rifle clubs with the standard military rifle."

 

The Department of Defence oversaw the rifle clubs inter-war and supplied funding, rifles, barrels and ammunition. And with Mk.VI ammunition dwindling, newer barrels that used the Mk.VII ammunition were becoming more of a necessity than a want. It's also around that 1930s that the Department of Defence began loaning more ShtLE rifles 

 

"In addition, the Executive recommended to the Minister that ‘tin hat’ targets only be introduced to 300 yards, not up to 600 yards; that free Mk.VI ammunition be issued by way of compensation for the cuts to the grant; and that the introduction of Mk.III SMLE rifles and Mk.VII ammunition be introduced to rifle clubs across the board by mid-1932".

 

The heavy barrels used on ShtLEs is fascinating to me. In fact during WW2, quite a few were used by the AIF units. There is a diary entry I read online that has a PTE from an infantry battalion describe being issued a Mk.III H prior to deployment to PNG. A lot of the heavy barreled rifles of the 1930s were rebarreled with standard barrels for WW2 and others were given heavy barrels post-WW2 for rifle club use. It's always good to find an H barreled ShtLE that was maintained an H barrel for WW2. I have one of those (1916 Lithgow) and shall throw up pics soon.

Here's some attached photos of rifle club members with ShtLEs. Notice the targets sights and the maintaining of the original rear sight.

 

 

[Mattr82]

Here’s my 1916 Lithgow H barrel. 
Rebarreled in Sept 1944. The 9/44 stamp on the butt coincides with this. Traces of green paint applied to the rifle for use in WW2 still remain. I have a habit of trying to ask previous owners where they got the rifles from. After I purchased this from an auction, I managed to get the previous owners details and had a great conversation about where he got the rifle from. It was his fathers rifle and he had it since after WW2 was all the info I could get.
 

Another point I am studying at the moment is the allocation of rifles late in WW2 which I will keep away from this forum due to the era. 

[navydoc16]

On 20/04/2024 at 11:36, 4thGordons said:

This is interesting because it seems to differ in some ways from my understanding of the timeline

My understanding was that "range rifles" were usually MLEs that had been cut down to ShtLE length to allow them to continue to be used in service matches after the ShtLE became the standard service rifle (and thus the standard for competitions).  The profile on the barrel of MLEs was heavier as the longer rifles were shortened/recrowned

Here is an example of mine - a Sparkbrook MLE cut down to ShtLE length (but retaining the original rear sights and with the foresight refitted)

I always though the 1930s H(eavy) Barreled rifles were ShtLEs modified as you described (with a heavy barrel fitted and the fore-end relieved to accommodate) I have a 1915 Lithgow but with a H(eavy) stamped barrel fitted. This rifle retains the original style rear sights.

[will add pic when I find one!]

I do have an early 1907 BSA ShtLE MkIII with NSW markings which is drilled/tapped for a receiver mounted rear sight but retains its original sight and regular weight/profile barrel

 

Chris

 

Yep Chris, no problem with the timeline on that, you and Matt are correct on the MLE stuff. Where it gets off is when the "Service rifle" discipline and competition got expanded in the 20's and 30's for very long ranges. Folks were tying to reach out further and further and rifles began to become less standardised but still allowed in comptition. 

Initially speaking the range sights were also very rudimentary- Originally only the BSA no.9 was allowed due to the "volley sight" however later the BSA No.9C, Mues, Argly and Motty and many many others morphed into quite complex and accurate sights like the Central, Lane, Austral etc. 

As you go for higher elevation, the arm of the "range sight" is brought down to give more elevation and then the rear sight can affect the vision down the barrel. 

You will find alot of serious club rifles and even military club rifles with custom top wood with no cutout for the rear sight- as well as the more common method of just removing the rear sight or sight bed and leaving the wood open in this region.

As Matt pointed out, the rifles clubs were heavily supported by the military, and such rifles were not allowed to be "modified" in any meaningful way that would prevent them from further service. However this quickly lost its way by the 30's. Standard barrels were 'shot out' or simply replaced straight up with Heavy barrels, triangular king screw swivels and triangular barrel band swivels were added, nose caps were bored out for "Holden O'rings" or "Holden Bedding" and cork was added down the barrel channel to "free float" the barrel. They also installed the shortest butts and then took them down by another inch for a better sight picture when prone on the mound- And drilling 4-5 extra holes beneath the brass buttplate lengthwise and filling them with lead rod to handle recoil. They looked standard from the outside but were anything but. 

I stole some photos from online and posted below, literally the first two that came up- showing both patterns 

As you can imagine once the range sights were gone, the military had a complete and functional rifle with literally no sights. 

Some states asked the rare Mues King sight to be handed in with the rifle, they too are very rare as it seems WA commandeered the entire stock of new made production king sights to have some sort of "standard" sight- even if it was competition range sight. 

 

kind regards,

g 

Edited 21 April by navydoc16

[navydoc16]

11 hours ago, 4thGordons said:

This is interesting because it seems to differ in some ways from my understanding of the timeline

My understanding was that "range rifles" were usually MLEs that had been cut down to ShtLE length to allow them to continue to be used in service matches after the ShtLE became the standard service rifle (and thus the standard for competitions).  The profile on the barrel of MLEs was heavier as the longer rifles were shortened/recrowned

Here is an example of mine - a Sparkbrook MLE cut down to ShtLE length (but retaining the original rear sights and with the foresight refitted

I do have an early 1907 BSA ShtLE MkIII with NSW markings which is drilled/tapped for a receiver mounted rear sight but retains its original sight and regular weight/profile barrel

 

Chris

 

I should also mention, alot go the MLE's were really highly sought after for those chasing big distances, they were seen to be stronger and slicker actions. Along with early SMLEs from BSA and Lithgow rifles from the Prewar era up till 1914/1915. One of the reason its so hard to find those rifles in decent condition was they were all chopped up well into the late 60's for target work. Not to mention the MLEs' made beautiful "sporters" and alot of farmers cut those as well for farm guns.

Chris, your early BSA has actually been fitted for a sporting peep sight like a JNA from New Zealand or a BSA (I can't remember the number reference Number off the top of my head) rather than a "range sight" for target competition. I am relatively familiar with the range sights and there is only a couple that mount on the RHS of the action. 

Does your rear sight match you rifle? 

kind regards,

g

Edited 20 April by navydoc16

[navydoc16]

2 hours ago, Mattr82 said:

@4thGordons A lot of the MLEs with the shortened barrels were done due to a variety of reasons.

- In the mid 1920s, Australia got 2000 long barrels from Britain and no more after that so that's where the requirement to use Lithgow produced barrels came into being. So it was a case of use the shortened/modified barrel or continue to use a worn out barrel.

- Standardisation of rifles used by clubs.

 

"Of the 7,400 long rifles on hand with the Defence Department, 5,640 were on loan to rifle clubs and 1,760 in store. The rifles in store would need rebarreling before being issued; barrels would be issued to rifle clubs as well. The 2,000 barrels from England were due to arrive in December 1924, but when Lithgow could deliver was uncertain. In any event, to help overcome the problem, it was decided to see whether the long .303 rifles could be modified to accept short barrels for the .303-inch SMLE. This was the first step to re-equipping the rifle clubs with the standard military rifle."

 

The Department of Defence oversaw the rifle clubs inter-war and supplied funding, rifles, barrels and ammunition. And with Mk.VI ammunition dwindling, newer barrels that used the Mk.VII ammunition were becoming more of a necessity than a want. It's also around that 1930s that the Department of Defence began loaning more ShtLE rifles 

 

"In addition, the Executive recommended to the Minister that ‘tin hat’ targets only be introduced to 300 yards, not up to 600 yards; that free Mk.VI ammunition be issued by way of compensation for the cuts to the grant; and that the introduction of Mk.III SMLE rifles and Mk.VII ammunition be introduced to rifle clubs across the board by mid-1932".

 

The heavy barrels used on ShtLEs is fascinating to me. In fact during WW2, quite a few were used by the AIF units. There is a diary entry I read online that has a PTE from an infantry battalion describe being issued a Mk.III H prior to deployment to PNG. A lot of the heavy barreled rifles of the 1930s were rebarreled with standard barrels for WW2 and others were given heavy barrels post-WW2 for rifle club use. It's always good to find an H barreled ShtLE that was maintained an H barrel for WW2. I have one of those (1916 Lithgow) and shall throw up pics soon.

Here's some attached photos of rifle club members with ShtLEs. Notice the targets sights and the maintaining of the original rear sight.

 

 

The shortening of the MLE in terms of rifle club shooting was to allow the rifles to be used as "standardised from" to match the SMLE more than the barrel wear- however it could have been an bonus added factor. 

MLE barrels were still available from BSA for quite some time, and initially new shooters acquired SMLEs much later- a-lot of older and more experienced shooters maintained their MLE's long after the SMLEs were available in any sort of quantity - they were considered to be better rifles and even more accurate - however wether it was just confidence in their rifles or wether it was purported myth is up to debate. 

However there were many sponsored shooters that completed competition using "BSA" commercial "long lee" type actions. Fitted to SMLE woodwork, well into the 30's. 

I ran into a old gunsmith called Len between Bathurst and Orange one time whilst I was searching for SMLE and P14 woodwork to restore rifles, and he had a whole box under his work bench full of all early 1900's MLE and SMLE actions that were used on "best target rifles" he used to make, which no one had ordered built in 20 odd years. He tried real hard to get me to pay him to build me one, I regret declining that opportunity, im sure it would have been a beautiful rifle. 

kind regards,

g

[4thGordons]

7 hours ago, navydoc16 said:

I should also mention, alot go the MLE's were really highly sought after for those chasing big distances, they were seen to be stronger and slicker actions. Along with early SMLEs from BSA and Lithgow rifles from the Prewar era up till 1914/1915. One of the reason its so hard to find those rifles in decent condition was they were all chopped up well into the late 60's for target work. Not to mention the MLEs' made beautiful "sporters" and alot of farmers cut those as well for farm guns.

Chris, your early BSA has actually been fitted for a sporting peep sight like a JNA from New Zealand or a BSA (I can't remember the number reference Number off the top of my head) rather than a "range sight" for target competition. I am relatively familiar with the range sights and there is only a couple that mount on the RHS of the action. 

Does your rear sight match you rifle? 

kind regards,

g

Thanks @Mattr82 and @navydoc16 for the added information, fills some gaps..

I am going to try and dig out the H rifle later today to photograph it and check the rear sight. My notes don't mention a mismatched sight which I think I would have recorded but..... I'll check.

Chris

[4thGordons]

The rear sight - which is a windage adjustable version does not match the rifle (although its number is actually fairly close)

Here are a few snaps

 

 

[navydoc16]

37 minutes ago, 4thGordons said:

The rear sight - which is a windage adjustable version does not match the rifle (although its number is actually fairly close)

Here are a few snaps

 

 

She is a beautiful rifle, 

couple questions, my eyes arnt what they used to be- butt is a Lithgow? And forend is a WW2 dated Slaz? Appears there is “tropical paint” on the barrel or is that grease? 
 

any re-issue marks anywhere? 
 

kind regards

g

[navydoc16]

Here are some decent photos of a 1915 I had for a little while- a true Lithgow Range Rifle from the factory- no markings on the butt and sold straight out of service.  

It belonged to one of the university rifle teams (can’t remember which one). Lithgow would take large club orders for refurb, and all supported by the military they received new woodwork and military marked swivel and “argyle pattern” range sight bracket 

notice the heavy barrel but no rear sight bed

 

kind regards,

g

 

Edited 20 April by navydoc16

[4thGordons]

1 hour ago, navydoc16 said:

She is a beautiful rifle, 

couple questions, my eyes arnt what they used to be- butt is a Lithgow? And forend is a WW2 dated Slaz? Appears there is “tropical paint” on the barrel or is that grease? 
 

any re-issue marks anywhere? 
 

kind regards

g

The lighting in my secure storage is not great - I took it outside for a moment for a couple of additional snaps

Yes its a Lithgow butt. It is dated 1915 but also with 1/16 and 3MD stamps

The forend is indeed a WWI dated Slazenger (1943)

 

The barrel is heavily greased (there is no paint visible)

I 

[navydoc16]

7 hours ago, 4thGordons said:

The lighting in my secure storage is not great - I took it outside for a moment for a couple of additional snaps

Yes its a Lithgow butt. It is dated 1915 but also with 1/16 and 3MD stamps

The forend is indeed a WWI dated Slazenger (1943)

 

The barrel is heavily greased (there is no paint visible)

I 

Is there a date on the H barrel? 
 

kind regards

g

[navydoc16]

I should say at the end of all this- the MLE had a favoured “single stage” or cupped sear trigger - as opposed to the true-two stage on the later SMLE- so they were also favoured for that as well.
 

A little tricky trick was to replace the sears and trigger on WW2 dated SMLEs in the 50’s to just get that little edge on the competition- I have about 10 extra sets somewhere in a little tobacco tin from a club armourer. 
 

kind regards

g

[5thBatt]

No3 MkII stocks, here is 3 videos showing manufacture of No4 stocks but also shows work on the No3 MkII taken at H Morris in Scotland 

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1060010338

[4thGordons]

5 hours ago, 5thBatt said:

No3 MkII stocks, here is 3 videos showing manufacture of No4 stocks but also shows work on the No3 MkII taken at H Morris in Scotland 

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1060010338

Great stuff - I love seeing the inspection stamp added in the last one

This also answers a couple of question I had about the MkII stocks - thanks for this not sure how I have missed it for so long but this is great

Chris

[5thBatt]

3 hours ago, 4thGordons said:

Great stuff - I love seeing the inspection stamp added in the last one

This also answers a couple of question I had about the MkII stocks - thanks for this not sure how I have missed it for so long but this is great

Chris

Here's a photo of a No3 MkII 

[navydoc16]

19 hours ago, 5thBatt said:

Here's a photo of a No3 MkII 

MATE! Absolute champion. I have saved these images as well as the videos, Never seen them like that- that’s amazing.

appreciate the follow up.

now we have more to find  

 

kind regards

g

[4thGordons]

19 hours ago, 5thBatt said:

Here's a photo of a No3 MkII 

It looks as though the woman towards the end of the video is adding the N49 stamp to the foreend

N49 being the WW2 production code for H Morris (Northern District,  Contractor 49)