[Nemmesis]

Hi there,
I'm a newbie when it comes to firearms (I know some of the names like mosin nagan or Kar98, but when it comes to expertise, I'm not good at all!!)

Here are some pictures of a rifle I found a couple of days ago when I was going thru my grand-father's stuff:

http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/8058/le2gk.th.jpg (http://img129.imageshack.us/my.php?image=le2gk.jpg)
http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/8044/leeeinfield4dv.th.jpg (http://img108.imageshack.us/my.php?image=leeeinfield4dv.jpg)

The markings are:
G.R.
B.S.A.C2
1917
ShtLE
III=

(not a III*)


I'd like to know more about this rifle... Was it a military model or civilian?? or whatever infos you guys can give me? (It was found in Quebec, Canada) What's the difference between a III* and a III=??


And one other thing, can anyone tell me where I can get some infos on how to repair it myself (I want it to look as it should have in it's prime)... I'll only use it for display, so I really want it to look as it looked when it got out of the factory, so if anyone can tell me where to find a website dedicated to making these kind of repairs, I'd appreciate it a lot!!!


Thanx! :)

[swingset]

You have a BSA (Birmingham Small Arms Co.) 1917 No1mkIII Enfield, which was definately mil issue.

The * updated the rifle in small ways, mainly the elimination of the magazine cut-off.

Looks like your rifle has some rust and has been cut back, at least the stock. Hopefully the barrel wasn't chopped or the front sight removed. If so, you've got your work cut out for you. If it's still intact metal wise, you can restock and refinish it and be back to original.

www.ssporters.com is an excellent source for parts, as well as numrich (www.e-gunparts.com).

Buy Stratton's or Skennerton's books to learn about the rifle...and what it takes to get it back to original.

[Nemmesis]

:) Thanx for all the infos :)

I appreciate!

I found another rifle just like this one, the stock was cut at the exact same place... The only difference is that it's dated to 1915 (and maybe in better condition...)

It's a shame that someone would cut the stock like that, but hell, it's still is a great looking rifle!:D

Thanx again

**I'll try to repair it and post the pics of it "b4 and after"...

[Firehand]

A lot of #1 MkIII and #4 Mk1 rifles were made as/modified as sporting rifles after the wars, it may well be one of those. One of my great-uncles had a Long Branch #4 that had been modified so; the barrel had been cut just behind the original front sight location, and a ramp & gold bead sight installed, and the flip-aperture rear had the 300-yard aperture cut into a 'V'.

surplusrifle.com has some good information on takedown/reassembly. And this place is specifically on SMLE rifles:
http://smellysmleshooters.net/

[Carl N. Brown]

I have a Lee-Enfield Rifle No.1 Mark III* BSA 1917 .303 Brit
that has been fully sporterized with a Fajen stock.

Back in the 1950s the local Army/Navy Surplus store had a
number of No.1 MarkIII* rifles that had the fore stock cut
back like yours. In the 50s and 60s that was called
"semi-sporterized" but folks now-a-days call it "Bubba-ized"
since poor folks like me made low-cost hunting rifles out
of military surplus rifles on their kitchen tables.

The Enfield would be of more interest to a collector in a
full military stock, but the "semi-sporters" of the 1950s
and 1960s are part of our history too.

That rifle could be restoref to full military dress or left
as-is. A deer or cardboard target would never know the
difference.

[DougW]

The #1mkIII= is technically a #1mkIII that was modified to mkIII*, then "cancelled" (mkIII=), and changed back to the mkIII configuration. The key is the magazine cut off. Your rifle shatred out with one, it was removed sometime (*), and then later changed back to origional configuration(=). The = is normally overstruck over the *. Seems normal for a lot of 1917 BSA's.

Springfield Sporters can supply the parts to rebuild to origional, as long as the front sight is still in place.

[Diomed]

Along with the magazine cut-off, the other key to the * or = mark is the rear sight. If there's a windage adjustment wheel on it that still works, then it's fully a Mk III again. (Aside from the volley sights, which were not reintroduced after the war and would not have survived the cutting of the stock.)

If the bore is still good, it should be a good shooter. The prewar SMLEs had tighter tolerances.

[ball3006]

No 1 Mk III*. There is no slot for the mag cutoff. The mag cutoff was deleted for ease of war production around the start of 1916. The rust should clean up pretty well and if the bore is not too bad, the rifle will make a good shooter. As stated above, if the front sight is still there, you can restore the rifle to military configuration. Lots of Enfield parts on ebay too.......chris3

[mainmech48]

The only thing I'd add is to have the headspace checked by a competent gunsmith before you shoot it. It might also be worthwhile to slug the bore.

Many surplused SMLEs had seen hard use and the rear-locking action is a bit more prone to set-back than front-lugged ones. There are wide variations from nominal spec in the bore diameters found in surplus military rifles, and "acceptable" tolerances could get pretty wide in wartime.

The No.4 had replacable bolt heads numbered 0 thru 3 so that field maintenance could correct headspace problems without the weapon having to be withdrawn from service and sent to depot. Don't know if the No.III bolt will accept them or not. FWIW, they're relatively easy to get and not too expensive if they can be used and one is needed.

SMLEs with bore diameters within nominal specs can be quite accurate. Handloading with cast bullets can compensate for an oversized bore to some degree, but if the chamber is oversized or the throat is badly eroded the only real cure is a new barrel. Not real expensive, but the change-out can be a genuine PITA.

[Nemmesis]

I'm not sure if the front sight is the original... here's a picture of the tip of the canon and another to show the length of it...

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/884/fusil0012ze.th.jpg (http://img261.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fusil0012ze.jpg)

http://img321.imageshack.us/img321/6581/fusil3ju.th.jpg (http://img321.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fusil3ju.jpg)

Anoyone knows if it is the original sight?

[DougW]

Nemmisis, you are in good shape. The first pic shows the mag cut off installed. The front sight is correct. You just need some wood, metal bits, etc, to restore the rifle to its origional beauty.

I attached a pic of my 1917 BSA #1mkIII= for reference.

[Diomed]

Don't know if the No.III bolt will accept them or not. FWIW, they're relatively easy to get and not too expensive if they can be used and one is needed.

Bolt heads for No. 1 and No. 4 rifles are completely different, not even the extractor assembly is interchangable. If you have bad headspace on a No. 1, you have to get a bunch of boltheads and either trial and error them or measure with calipers to find one in the needed length.

It would be pretty unusual for any SMLE to be out of spec for bore diameter for any reason other than wear - the Brits were serious about their barrels. Until the '20s the barrel was the firearm for them. Nemmesis' barrel should probably be checked out though, looks like it has had a pretty active life.

[RON in PA]

Since you are Canadian you should know that the SMLE was used by Canadian troops in the Great War replacing the Canadian Ross rifle. The rifle was used in the first half of WW2 until replaced by the number 4 mk 1* rifle produced in Canada at Longbranch. The Canadians who went into Normandy carried the number 4. Rifles chambered in 303 British are the Canadian hunters' equivilent of rifles chambered here in 30/06.

[mainmech48]

Diomed: That clears up the bolt head question. Stands to reason, as the change was probably made in the No.4 to eliminate that necessity.

While it might well be highly unusal for a lightly used or FTRed SMLE to have an oversized bore, I would point out that the vast majority of the surplused rifles that've made it over here had seen extensive use. Worn bores, with some degree of pitting and/or throat erosion, often quite oversized, are common. I have personally slugged over a dozen of them and found bores from 0.314" to 0.321", with the average running over 0.316". Perhaps not enough for a conclusive statistical model, but I believe it to be a valid enough sampling to warrant slugging if you're looking to get your best accuracy from one.