So there's a possibility this rifle saw use at Gallipoli? Knowing how that campaign turned out, I can only imagine what it might have seen.by Anderson
I'll leave the disc in place, more for lack of a replacement than any other reason. It looks alright cosmetically, even if it isn't accurate for the rifle's service life.
B.B.
As you’ve probably already gathered, the butt disk isn’t original to this rifle or butt. The butt also isn’t original to this rifle. Does the lower wood have volley sights? It has also had a refurb after it entered Australian service as the D/|\D markings are not in the white. I suspect the original nose cap has been replaced by a previous owner as the matching one would have been a late style solid piling swivel type with the typical Aussie modified foresight adjustment holes. I have a near identical my marked 1916 Enfield with the same DD markings. When I researched that rifle I believe that the Australians only received official orders after WW1 and that’s when the DD marking was applied. After saying that though, during WW1 all nations ended up inheriting battlefield recoveries so that could be another way in. They also inherited many Enfields from pooled stores during the Korea conflict and you can find many Enfields with 50s FTR dates.
I wouldn't speculate where it might have seen service, impossible to know. The muzzle cap with "K" serial number probably is post WW2 made (and came from another rifle), Lithgow made the SMLE No1 MkIII* until 1953 and my 1941 Lithgow SMLE is "B" series. But illustrates these rifles were in service a long time.
To Nobby's point, Lithgow began SMLE production in 1912 but by 1914 were not producing anywhere near enough for meeting Australian needs, so British made rifles were supplied until 1916 when Lithgow production replaced need for British made SMLEs.
The nose cap is earlier than WW2, and is likely Enfield, BSA or LSA.
Dunno if this helps
Home Page allaboutEnfields - All About EnfieldsAll About Enfields | A website dedicate to the Lee Enfield rifle, its history and images.
I'm not sharp on these but I think one of the DD stamps are WW2?
A lot of anomalies here. It has the magazine cut off of the Mk III, but the sights and bolt are Mk III*. Doesn't appear to have the volley sight. There is a gap in the top hand piece around the rear sight which should be wooden. Makes me wonder if this is a sporterized hunting rifle someone have retro fitted back close to military spec. Nose cap looks like a Lithgow one to me.
It seems this rifle isn't the prize I thought it was!
There are no volley sights on this rifle, nor are there any signs of them having been there. It's a shame the butt isn't original to it, but at first glance I'd never have known. It matches the age and condition of the rest of the stock exactly, so it must have been replaced some time ago, and seen service thereafter. I have seen other examples with the cutout around the rear sight, so presumably it was an official modification of some kind rather than the work of an amateur.
If anyone can point me in the direction of a correct nose cap, I'd be most appreciative. They're fairly easy to replace, at least.
I've inherited quite the ugly duckling!
B.B.
I've been following this thread with interest...and learned LOADS - thank you all!
BB.....I've watched you go from ebullient and excited in #1 to deflated and depressed in #37....for what it's worth we've all been there (as I suspect you have before) and at times ended up hating an item which initially made us so happy.....if I had a toilet roll for every helmet I'd felt that about.....
'fact is you still have a beautiful piece....AND you know so much more about it now.....if all these suggestions are correct you can now talk through it's history over the last 100-ish years...I can almost hear those "actually, what's REALLY interesting about it is....." sentences. OK so the rifle purists might not touch it but I'd be a lot happier knowing what you know now than just having a history-less piece.
Great piece, great learns........for what it's worth
Finding out the rifle's pedigree isn't as pure as I thought is a bit of a disappointment, but at the same time, the truth is just as appealing. This rifle has been around the world in its long life, and seen a lot in the past 105 years, in both military and (potentially) civilian hands. A fitting testament to the longevity of the Lee Enfield's design. It comes back to that old saying: 'if only it could talk'. I bet this rifle would have some stories to tell.
History is history, as you've said. Not one for the purist, but perfect for the armchair historian.
B.B.
Don't beat yourself up too much about the rifle Brodie... If it could talk, I fairly sure that it would have a very interesting tale to tell.
Similar Threads
Posting Permissions
.
Bookmarks