Lee Enfield MKIII - Brass Plate on Stock

[Duke John]

Good morning all,

I recently seen a Lee Enfield MKIII that had unusual oblong brass plate on its stock. I attach a couple of images. Can anyone tell me what the purpose of this is?

Many thanks,

John

 

[MikeyH]

Part of volley sight, the setting lever has been removed.  Google volley sight Lee-Enfield for more info.

Welcome to the Forum.

 

Mike.

 

[Duke John]

Thank you Mike for the welcome and response.

Mystery partly solved, was this a training rifle, or something applied in the field? Do you think it is possible to buy the missing volley part of this rifle?

John

PS This is a 1918 stamped version.

[Mattr82]

The volley sight was implemented to allow a theory of harassing fire at long range. It was never meant to be targeted, but used in conjunction with a group of fires to allow harassing or plunging fire from 1600 yards to 2700 or 2800 yards. These distances varied in accordance with using Mk.VI ammunition or Mk.VII ammunition.

They were on the No.1 Mk.III rifles from initial production in 1907 and were phased out from the Lee Enfields from late 1916 onwards.

Here’s some photos of the volley sight on one of my rifles. One of the photos (slightly blurry) shows the rear post up and how it was to be used by looking through the circle at the top to the small knob on the front volley sight arm. The front volley sight arm would be rotated until the pointer was aligned with a range on the dial plate.

 

Heres a YouTube link to a video describing its use.

 

Edited 15 December , 2023 by Mattr82

[MikeyH]

3 hours ago, Duke John said:

Thank you Mike for the welcome and response.

Mystery partly solved, was this a training rifle, or something applied in the field? Do you think it is possible to buy the missing volley part of this rifle?

John

PS This is a 1918 stamped version.

John,

Reproductions are avaiable via, the net in the U.K. for around £40.  Most unusual to find one on such a late war rifle.

Mike.

[DisasterDog]

Are we sure it’s 1918?  
I have an example from Enfield that is really hard to tell if it’s 1916 or 1918.

[Spaceman]

It would be interesting to know who made this particular Mk III -  although the UK switched to a Mk III* in 1916, it continued to be manufactured elsewhere much longer.

[DisasterDog]

Here’s my EFD, to give some idea of the occasional difficulty in dating:

 

[Duke John]

Thank you for all the responses and sharing images of your rifles. I never knew about this volley plate. The plot thickens though, as this rifle is definitely 1918 from the stamp. Also, the second lever at the hammer is also missing. Yet, on the stock, you can see that the wood still bears the usage marks. Maybe it is a Frankenstein, but I have no information if this was common practice. And why switch a 1918 rifle with an older stock?

 

 

Here is a clearer image.

[Spaceman]

The thing worth noting on the front volley sight is that it is graduated from 1700 yds with the later sights graduated from 1600 yds as I understand it. So not consistent with a later volley sight rifle and may well be pointing to a bit of a Frankenstein?

[Mattr82]

By that stage of production, Volley sights had been removed from BSA rifles. It would be a case of the fore wood from an older rifle has been put on this rifle at some point in time. Seeing older wood on rifles is seen occasionally. 
 

Ive seen two 1918 BSAs (K and L prefix) that was sent to Australia after WW1 and both retained their original wood. Neither had volley sights on them yet I’ve seen a 1919 Lithgow with older British manufactured wood with a dial sight on it ground down to remove the pointer. 
 

[Duke John]

Thank you all for the responses. So, essentuially it just means that my model is not homogenpous;, which I understand could occcassionally occur. Not such a big issue since it is purely for display. 

How about the manufacture sumbol, can any more information be gleaned from that? 

 

Thanks again.

[peregrinvs]

Most WWI SMLEs would have been rebuilt to some extent after WWI and it’s all part of their history. A literally unaltered since November 1918 gun would be a rare thing.

[Duke John]

Ok, that is a relief and puts my mind at ease. Tahnk you all for sharing your knowledge and expertise. I may not bother with the volley switch, as the second lever is also missing, so likely a rebuild as is suspected.

[navydoc16]

On 17/12/2023 at 18:08, Duke John said:

Thank you for all the responses and sharing images of your rifles. I never knew about this volley plate. The plot thickens though, as this rifle is definitely 1918 from the stamp. Also, the second lever at the hammer is also missing. Yet, on the stock, you can see that the wood still bears the usage marks. Maybe it is a Frankenstein, but I have no information if this was common practice. And why switch a 1918 rifle with an older stock?

 

 

Here is a clearer image.

These rifles were rebuilt all the time during the war but unit armourers; and additionally post war refurbished. Many countries post WW1 inventoried and gauged rifles for being in and out of spec and did not care for much nuances as keeping them together. In Australia rifles were broken down at one side of the factory with the parts being gauged and thrown into big bins of individual parts to be cleaned for reassembly at the other end of the production line. 

For your rifle in particular it appears to have had heavy use and have also been together for some time, depending where you are in the world we maybe be able to give further thoughts.

It was not uncommon for a rifle like this to have its damaged woodwork in service and replaced with the nearest rifle in the pile with a lost bolt or a rusted bore (sometimes weapons were returned to the section/unit armourers months after having been laying in the bottom of an abandoned section of trench, captured back from the enemy or returning from the front with no maintenance) changing timber does not require any sort of time investment in comparison to finding new bolts or dealing with actual armourer issues.  

Kind regards,

G