SMLE No.1 Mark 3

File: Enfield3.jpg (2MB, 6000x4000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 6000x4000px

sorry for the full retard 6000x4000 images

>>32907399
with that many re-arsenal stamps yes it was

>>32907534
That's about half of them, but the rest of them are spread out.

File: Australian Enfield Collection.jpg (169KB, 1280x851px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1280x851px

>>32907369
>>32907391
>>32907399
With the amount of stamps its more then likely it did. Shame its a sporter now. Probably worth 150 bucks

File: SMLE_9-19-2014_F.jpg (650KB, 1024x652px) Image search: [Google]

650KB, 1024x652px

>>32907369
It's a sporterized SMLE Mk.III*, made at RSAF-Enfield in 1916 as you deduced. It probably saw combat in at least WW1, possibly WW2, and was sold as surplus. A previous owner then converted it into a hunting rifle; shortening the fore-end of the stock, discarding the barrel bands, handguards, and original sights and fitting new sport-shooting sights on it. The charger bridge over the receiver (for lloading via stripper clips) has been removed as well. The buttstock has had wood added to the comb and the wrist and re-carved to make a semi-pistol-grip shape. You can see that it was the original military stock because the hole for the unit marking disc on the right side of the butt has been filled in, but is still visible.
>pic related, what your rifle originally looked like in military trim

I think it was a rather well-done job; has the look of an old Lee-Speed sporting Enfield to it.

>>32907534
>re-arsenal stamps
None of those are FTR markings; they're the original factory firing proofs and date, and later post-1954 English commercial firing proofs certifying the rifle as safe for sale on the private market.

>>32907772
Thanks, kind anon. I tracked the sights to an american knife-making company,who manufactured them in 1930.

I agree, this isn't bad as far as bubba jobs go.

I have an SMLE that my grandfather said belonged to his grandfather. My great-great grandfather would have been prime fighting age during WW1.
Is it possible it was his service rifle, or did he definitely buy it after the war?

>>32908071
OP here. I had the same suspicion when I first saw this rifle, but it's highly unlikely. In 1954 England started offloading SMLEs as surplus, and here in Canada you could walk into Sears and buy one for pocket change.

OP again. I don't have a picture, but the barrel and receiver have 1924 stamped into them about an inch apart. Could this be the date it was taken out of service? A barrel replacement maybe?

File: no1mk3_SN_proofs_R.jpg (355KB, 1280x847px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 1280x847px

>>32908191
>A barrel replacement maybe?
I doubt it, I can see the "16" proof date on your barrel for 1916 here: >>32907399 (the "Broad Arrow" of the War Department is pointing to it).


Is "1924" in a similar location to pic related? If so, that's probably the serial number (mine is "X958").

>>32908346
The number is on the right side of the gun. The first is right next to the bolt, and the second is on the start of the barrel right under the sight.

Since it's a Lee-Enfield thread, I thought I'd ask here. I recently inherited a no. 4 Lee-Enfield (don't know if Mk 1 or 2, it was made in 1943 if that helps). The good news is that it was stored in an air-conditioned closet for the past thirty years and seems to be in working order, and it came with 40 rounds of .303 british and six stripper clips. The bad news is that thise bullets are probably about seventy years old. Am I correct in assuming that those bullets aren't going to be functional? What's the best .303 rouns on the market right now, in terms of bang for my buck? I saw that Wolf ammo goes for about two rounds per dollar, but I read that it only works for certain variants of Lee-Enfield. Does anyone have any info about this sort of stuff?

>>32907369

I have a soft spot for these sporters. A bubba'd .303 should honestly be Canada's national gun. While I cringe to think of them being cut up, they are ubiquitous and fine hunting guns.

>>32909101
The ammo should work properly, is it clean and free of gunk and corrosion? If it was stored along with the rifle it should be alright, since it was in a humidity and temperature controlled environment.

If it was made in '43 it's a Mk1, although it could have been updated to Mk1/2 later. It would be electropencilled as such and there would be a screw in the forend instead of the usual brace.

Wolf is apparently shit .303 that uses undersized bullets. PPU is the best budget .303 available and is only about 80-100fps under the correct military velocity.

>>32909471

Okay, thanks. The ammo I've got shows no signs of corrosion as far as I can tell. Shame about the Wolf, though- I figured that something that cheap was too good to be true.

>>32910037
Yeah. I still suggest you look up how to completely disassemble it, it's good fun and something a gun owner should be able to do. Also despite how it's store it's a good idea to check for rust or other problems under the stock, there shouldn't be anything but it's good to be thorough. It will also give you the chance to grease the metalwork that will be hidden, to prevent future corrosion, and, if you want, to re-oil the stock.

If all else failed you'll be able to see if it's a Mk1 or a 1/2 or 2 as well by looking at how the trigger is mounted. Post some pictures of your rifle.

>>32909101
You need to be mindful of what new ammo you buy for your no.4. If it is a no.4 mk1* it will have a 2 groove barrel; meaning the new production .303 that is mostly boat tail will shoot like shit out of it. Wolf is good for plinking (so i have heared, its not availible in canada yet) if the bullet diamiter is close enough to your rifles bore size. PPU is great but the only fmj i have seen from them is boat tail which can be good or bad depending if your no.4 has a * in its designation

File: DSCN0190.jpg (502KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

502KB, 1600x1200px

>>32910595
>it will have a 2 groove barrel;
That's not true, some had two groove, some had 5 from the factory. Here is my '44 Long Branch Mk1* with it's factory barrel. Many were re-barrelled with a different kind too.

Also it's a myth that 2 grooves don't shoot boat tail. The reason some Enfields don't like boat tail is a combination of factors. Often bullets are too small .3105 is the limit, .310 is too small for most bores and military ammo often was undersized, not to mention things like Wolf. But the more important factor is throat erosion; a died of military cordite ammo burned out the throats very badly, and more rapidly than any convention smokeless (in fact Enfield rifling is very deep to help cope with this, great news if you have a new barrel and feed it only cool smokeless because it helps barrel life be extra long). Rifles where this is the case often do not like BT bullets because of gas blow-by and because of the reduced bearing surface, if they are really bad they might keyhole them but that is rare. The original flat based Mk7 projectile had a very long bearing surface for its weight, which, along with the flat base helped mitigate against the effects produced by increased cordite throat wear. But all Enflields, even 2 groove ones, will shoot BT bullets just fine as long as they're the correct size and as long as the rifle hasn't been burned out by cordite shite ammo. So new barrels and barrels with lots of life left are fine. There may be some truth that 2 groove barrels don't preform as well with BT bullets as 5 groove, but they will still shoot them well enough provided they haven't been worn out as described.