Lee Enfield

[Ugly Sauce]

Yep...it ain't the gun, it's the man behind the gun. A SMLE is not a bad choice, no matter what the range-warriors say.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Here's a Ishapup for ya. The picture does not do this rifle justice. This is the $80.00 rifle mentioned. After taking about, or slightly over 1/8" of wood off the stock, there is not one ding, dent, or scratch on it. When I got it, it was covered muzzle to butt-plate with dings, dents and scratches. The fore stock and hand guards seem to be Teak, and the buttstock seems to be rosewood. ? There is no stain on any of the wood, only oil. The metal has beautiful parkerizing/phosphate. Condition of the action and barrel like new.

I kind of consider it the Holy Grail of Ishapurs, but I suppose one in this condition, but never issued or refurbished might be more holy.

Anyhow, ain't that something?

 

[.38 Special]

This sporterised Enfield was given to me a few years back.



Sorry for the lousy pic. It is dark in my house and my cell phone dates from 1987 or something.

At any rate, it is just a middling-quality sporter from, I'm guessing, the 1960s. It was given to me by a somewhat odd German Canadian who made me promise to never shoot a living thing with it, and which included a long drunken story about his one and only buck who looked at him with its soft brown eyes as it lay dying. Tears were shed by all present, though mine were at least partially due to the horrific white line spacers inflicted upon the butt plate, pistol grip, and ebony tip, along with a bad case of some sort of wood fungus which I have never seen before and hope not to again. (Lest I seem unappreciative, I will admit to kind of admiring the guy, and also that I intend to honor his request.) (He really is kind of strange, though.)

Regardless, after the exorcism I noticed a surprising inscription.



I would honestly be surprised if Cogswell & Harrison had anything at all to do with gun. The metalwork isn't anywhere near the league of something put out by a fine English firm, and the checkering and wood-to-metal fit, while not completely terrible, is not something that a wealthy connoisseur would brag about.

The gun hits well enough, considering the open sights and my not-all-that-young-anymore eyes, and it hasn't blown up and maimed me or anything. Beyond that, I haven't been able to find out anything at all about the gun and would appreciate any information about it.

 

[Dave DeLaurant]

This sporterised Enfield was given to me a few years back.

View attachment 1035527

Sorry for the lousy pic. It is dark in my house and my cell phone dates from 1987 or something.

At any rate, it is just a middling-quality sporter from, I'm guessing, the 1960s. It was given to me by a somewhat odd German Canadian who made me promise to never shoot a living thing with it, and which included a long drunken story about his one and only buck who looked at him with its soft brown eyes as it lay dying. Tears were shed by all present, though mine were at least partially due to the horrific white line spacers inflicted upon the butt plate, pistol grip, and ebony tip, along with a bad case of some sort of wood fungus which I have never seen before and hope not to again. (Lest I seem unappreciative, I will admit to kind of admiring the guy, and also that I intend to honor his request.) (He really is kind of strange, though.)

Regardless, after the exorcism I noticed a surprising inscription.

View attachment 1035528

I would honestly be surprised if Cogswell & Harrison had anything at all to do with gun. The metalwork isn't anywhere near the league of something put out by a fine English firm, and the checkering and wood-to-metal fit, while not completely terrible, is not something that a wealthy connoisseur would brag about.

The gun hits well enough, considering the open sights and my not-all-that-young-anymore eyes, and it hasn't blown up and maimed me or anything. Beyond that, I haven't been able to find out anything at all about the gun and would appreciate any information about it.

Not a bad looker now -- I share your horror at white line spacers. Interesting that the rear sight was kept military, since that's usually the first thing to go.

I've found the best English makers surprisingly helpful with what may seem pedestrian enquiries -- Holland & Holland were particularly polite and helpful some years back when I wrote to them using old-school paper correspondence. The Cogswell & Harrison name is still in use today, so why not send them a query (including proof marks and such) and see whether they can tell you anything about this rifle's likely pedigree?

https://www.cogswellandharrison.com/

 

[.38 Special]

Not a bad looker now -- I share your horror at white line spacers. Interesting that the rear sight was kept military, since that's usually the first thing to go.

I've found the best English makers surprisingly helpful with what may seem pedestrian enquiries -- Holland & Holland were particularly polite and helpful some years back when I wrote to them using old-school paper correspondence. The Cogswell & Harrison name is still in use today, so why not send them a query (including proof marks and such) and see whether they can tell you anything about this rifle's likely pedigree?

https://www.cogswellandharrison.com/

That is surprisingly sensible, which probably is why it had not occurred to me. I will do exactly that, and appreciate the suggestion.

 

[Mullo98]

I have a Sthle, 1924 is the year of manufacture I think. It's a Sporter. I once though of restoring it but I went against it after considering the cost of doing so. Probably going to be my first deer rifle. Just needs a butt pad and maybe a scope.