SMLE Mk III * markings - Help requested

[Nabs]

Hey all,

I need some help with identifying and making sense of markings on my Enfield as I am still working my way around understanding my rifle.

I am told this is an all matching example and I have been able to confirm that the bolt, nose cap, receiver, and barrel match. It is interesting as I have been told this example has a 1915 barrel with a 1916 dated action. A possible early 1916 make ?

She saw some foreign service and has some arsenal repairs done to the stock including what looks like a cross screw fill in.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

[tiriaq]

I suspect that you have a refurbished sporter. Note that the font used to stamp the serial on the bayonet boss of the nosecap is very different from that used on the other parts. Also note that the end of the boss has been filed flat, and the numbers are very crisp.
The patched cross screw suggests that the forestock passed through Ishapore, but no marks on the metal suggest Indian issue.
The bolt handle looks as if has been filed; perhaps it was a replacement during the rifle's service use.

 

[Nabs]

I won't discount the possibilty. I have read that post-war refurbished German rifles had new matched parts made for them, could that be the case for Enfields in general and, perhaps, this SMLE ? The font on everything except the bayonet boss match the receiver. I was told the stock has several repairs done to it. I have been able to find three and they are very professionally done to the point you have to seriously look for them to find them.

What marks would indicate Indian service ?

Could the cross screw fill in be a wood knot ?

Slightly off topic but I am wondering what type and style of sling would be correct for this rifle ? I do not wish to get a sling for the No 4. Mk 1 but I understand the sling for the SMLE and the No. 4 are very close.

I did some research on the internet and it appears the left side of the receiver/barrel was nitro proofed before being sold out of British service, would this be common for rifles sent to Commonwealth countries ? Any rough date to when this would have been done ?

Thank you for any and all help/opinions.

 

[tiriaq]

There are three different fonts used in the serials. Bolt handle (which looks as if it was filed over at one time); barrel and receiver; bayonet boss. The bayonet boss has definitely been filed flat before being stamped. The latter is the one that is most suspicious from the standpoint of a restoration. If armourers reused previously serialed parts, they struck out (lined out) the original number, then stamped the new one.
The patches on the forestock are exactly where an Ishy screw would be. Not a repaired knot.
The additional proof marks, and the "England" stamp are standard for a rifle sold off surplus in England. There do not seem to be any marks suggesting proofing or rework in India.
Armourer wood repairs are solid and functional, but they were not blended to try to make them unobtrusive.
Question - where would the serial number on the forestock be found? Is there a wood repair where the number would be?
Barring evidence otherwise, I would assume that the rifle was sported and restored.

 

[louthepou]

I think the (well made) repair to the forend behind the nose cap was made to remove the serial number on the forend.

Nice rifle,

Lou

 

[green]

The nose cap is WW2 or later made piece without the cut for the stacking swivel. What are the inspectors/manufacturers marks on it?

 

[Nabs]

I took a couple hours last night and looked over the exterior of the wood and metal for any additional marks/repairs.

I'm not 100% where to look for markings so please forgive me as I get use to finding them. What I have found so far is:

All the metal pieces have some loss of bluing with a thin layer of patina. The screw heads are a mix of rust and patina and all, except for the nose cap screws which appear to be replacements, are partially stripped.

The rear sight matches the rifle with the style of font also matching the receiver. The rear sight base has:

"Broad arrow
EFD
4F"

This mark is located on the right side of the rear band:

"Broad arrow
EFD
G4"

The left rear sight wing has what either is a ding/dent or some inspector mark and what looks like the number "4" stamped in. It is difficult to make out.

The bottom of the trigger guard has:

"Crown
Broad arrow ? (slightly faded/polished off)
57"

The back of the detachable box magazine has the number "4" stamped on it on the back and bottom of the retaining piece. There is also "O A" stamped just above.

The safety piece has a roman numeral "III" stamped on the left side.

The bolt head has a "U" stamped on the portion outside the bolt head track.

The butt stock has what may have been some markings in a circle on the right side, a little bit smaller than a quarter, but I cannot make anything out so it may just be the wood grains.

The stock has the letter "A" stamped in it just behind the rear band. It is visible when you flip the rifle over on it's back.

The front hand guard has this marking stamped on the metal piece where the hand guard meets the back of the nose cap:

"Broad arrow
EFD
45"

The nose cap did have an inspector mark just forward of the bayonet lug but it seems to have been polished off. I can make out the inspector number "40".

The front sight blade has a broad arrow on the right side and "015" on the left.

I do not remember seeing any other markings of note during my inspection. I have not disassembled the rifle yet either.

I will take some additional photos of what I posted in-case I missed anything. On that note, please let me know if I should focus in on any area if it will help figure the past out on this SMLE.

Thank you all.

EDIT:

The "A" on the stock appears to be either a "V" or a partial broad arrow on closer inspection.

 

[Nabs]

Just noticed another inspector mark of interest.

On the right side of the cocking piece is stamped:

"Broad arrow
EFD
12"

Pictures will be up shortly.

 

[englishman_ca]

Detective hat on.

Good answers given, I can add another tuppence worth.

The bolt has a Birmingham style broad arrow and a BSA inspector mark, which would indicate that the bolt was replaced and renumbered, probably during its service life. My wild guess looking at that arrow stamp shape, would be at the old Sparkbrook facility.

During manufacture, the serial numbers that are marked on the barrel ring and barrel reinforce are applied with the same roll die in two passes. If it was an original barrel, the numbers would have the same font and exactly the same alignment/misalignment. Yours has the same font, but not applied by the same die. The inspector marks applied to right hand side of the barrel reinforce indicates that it had factory barrel work done at some time. The marking right adjacent to the 15 is a post 1925 enfield mark (which is a logo comprised of a superimposed E,F and D). So probably not a 1915 barrel, but saying that, nothing there that would disprove it.

On the left reinforce, the .303 mark, 2.222, 18.5 tons are a post 1956 civvy proof house markings (Birmingham Nitro Proofed) a legal requirement for sale on the Brit commercial market.

The nosecap is a WWII jobby, the boss has been renumbered, by who, who knows.

The forearm has had an 'Ishy screw' removed and plugged. Although often thought as an India arsenal repair, the process was introduced by Brit armourers as an expedient to fix a cracked stock, usualy splitting from the front trigger guard screw. Later, during peace time, if the rifle went back through the armoury, the armourer would remove the screw and replace it with an oak dowel, the grain running with the length of the dowel. Your plug's wood grain is in the direction of the forearm, so it is for cosmetic reasons.

The wood overall looks to be well sanded and stained to make all pieces match.

So ya, I would say that it is a restoration job. Not badly done. But if it were mine, i would be paying attention to the bedding and the fit of the draws. There is a bit more to replacing a forearm than just finding one that will fit and assembling it.

So still a nice rifle, but not one that would stand up to scrutiny by snooty collectors.

My big questions are, do you like it and how does it shoot?

 

[englishman_ca]

Just noticed another inspector mark of interest.

On the right side of the cocking piece is stamped:

"Broad arrow
EFD
12"

Pictures will be up shortly.

RSAF Enfield inspector number 12

 

[Nabs]

As promised, here are photos of the areas mentioned before. I also included a shot of the cross screw fill in from the other side. It is very difficult to see but can seen, with the help of light, at an angle. I have also included a picture of the brass butt plate (one of my favourite parts of the SMLE). There is no oiler inside. Apologies for any images that are either unclear or hard to see the inspector marks as I attempted to get as close as possible without interrupting the lighting around the markings and allowing my camera to focus in as closely as possible.

Images are posted in the same order as the text in the previous post with the exception of the butt plate cocking piece, and arsenal repair spots.

Other images:

Other side of Isaphore cross screw fill in:

Arsenal repair ??

Other inspector mark on cocking piece:

Brass butt plate:

 

[Nabs]

Detective hat on.

Good answers given, I can add another tuppence worth.

The bolt has a Birmingham style broad arrow and a BSA inspector mark, which would indicate that the bolt was replaced and renumbered, probably during its service life. My wild guess looking at that arrow stamp shape, would be at the old Sparkbrook facility.

During manufacture, the serial numbers that are marked on the barrel ring and barrel reinforce are applied with the same roll die in two passes. If it was an original barrel, the numbers would have the same font and exactly the same alignment/misalignment. Yours has the same font, but not applied by the same die. The inspector marks applied to right hand side of the barrel reinforce indicates that it had factory barrel work done at some time. The marking right adjacent to the 15 is a post 1925 enfield mark (which is a logo comprised of a superimposed E,F and D). So probably not a 1915 barrel, but saying that, nothing there that would disprove it.

On the left reinforce, the .303 mark, 2.222, 18.5 tons are a post 1956 civvy proof house markings (Birmingham Nitro Proofed) a legal requirement for sale on the Brit commercial market.

The nosecap is a WWII jobby, the boss has been renumbered, by who, who knows.

The forearm has had an 'Ishy screw' removed and plugged. Although often thought as an India arsenal repair, the process was introduced by Brit armourers as an expedient to fix a cracked stock, usualy splitting from the front trigger guard screw. Later, during peace time, if the rifle went back through the armoury, the armourer would remove the screw and replace it with an oak dowel, the grain running with the length of the dowel. Your plug's wood grain is in the direction of the forearm, so it is for cosmetic reasons.

The wood overall looks to be well sanded and stained to make all pieces match.

So ya, I would say that it is a restoration job. Not badly done. But if it were mine, i would be paying attention to the bedding and the fit of the draws. There is a bit more to replacing a forearm than just finding one that will fit and assembling it.

So still a nice rifle, but not one that would stand up to scrutiny by snooty collectors.

My big questions are, do you like it and how does it shoot?

Well that certainly opens up some doors to this Enfield's past. Thank you for sharing. Considering the amount I paid, I cannot expect to have a true relic among other Enfields but my primary collecting is German Imperial service rifles and carbines. I have been resisting picking up a SMLE for a long time but I gave in this time around considering the price she was at and the overall condition. My collection also centers around WW1 and, with that in mind, how can one not have an SMLE ?

The time old phrase: "Buy the rifle, not the story" came to mind and she fit the bill perfectly.

The rifle handles quite nicely She is well balanced and the action is smooth. The bore is very good to excellent condition. I have not yet had a chance to take her out to the range but I will when I get the dies and brass together. I still have a good starting load handy from when I help load a friend's .303 brass and it worked perfectly in his Lithgow, Smiling Tiger SMLE, and No 5 Mk I.

I am going to throw this out there and see what you guys think as to my guess to this rifle's past:

Made at RSAF Enfield in 1916 (any idea roughly when during 1916 ?) and served her time in whatever capacity during WW1. Post war, kept in Britain and possibly re-worked during the post war years (barrel replacement and/or re-work ?). Re-issued again during WW2 and possibly re-worked again (could support nose cap replacement ?). Sold into the Civilian market sometime after WW2.

Could it be the fore end of the stock, where the filled in Ishy screw was, be a replacement by collector post war ? Considering the lack of RFI and Indian markings, this may be the case. It was also suggested this Enfield may have seen Pakistani service. Any idea what markings would indicate this ?

Somewhat related to the topic, would a WW2 marked canvas web sling be appropriate for this Enfield ?

Thank you all for your help.

 

[englishman_ca]

Your scenario fits perfectly. I have rifles that probably have had two or more barrel changes in thier service life. Refurbed during, between and after both world wars.

To answer your sling question;

A WWII vintage sling would indeed be appropriate for this old war horse.

If the sling has no markings, it would be impossible to date it. Other than some war austerity production ones with steel rather than brass fittings, a WWII sling is identical to a WWI sling.

And to add another hapenney's worth to my tuppench;

The rear handguard cross splices are fitted during manufacture to prevent the wood from splitting, a common problem with some earlier production wood.

The barrel is marked HV behind the sight (High Velocity) to denote that the rifle is sighted for Mk.VII ammunition. Probably also has SC marked in front of the sight base on the barrel somewhere to denote Short Cone in front of the chamber, for the taper or lead (as in leed, not led) that sets up the pointy nosed bullets entering into the rifling

The Mk.III* went into production at Enfield in mid 1916 (i'd have to look it up) so your receiver would likely be later half 1916 production.

The front sight blade insert is interchangeable for height for sighting in. Yours is set 1.015 inches above the axis of the bore, and is likely an RSAF Enfield or LSA made part (London style broad arrow)

 

[Nabs]

Just amazing, this Enfield has tons of history on it, and just what I wanted too.

Now the hunt turns to getting a few pieces to make her more complete. I had a quick browse on e-bay and it seems Brass oilers for the SMLE are out there and relatively common. I also noticed they had different manufacturer marks on them, including "EFD". Would a RSAF Enfield made oiler ("EFD" marked ?) be made and installed by the factory or would the soldier simply pick one out of a box and match it with his SMLE ? Also, did RSAF Enfield make the P1907 bayonet ? How about the sling ? Lastly, stripper clips ?

I wouldn't mind having an unmarked canvas web sling. I didn't realize how expensive some of the WW2 marked ones with the steel fittings would be on E-bay.

Another question, how can you tell the difference between a WW1 and WW2 nose cap for the SMLE ?

On a related note, I remember reading that * production began in mid-late 1915 but kicked into full gear in 1916 and up to 1918. Which one is it so I don't pass on the wrong information to others when I show them this SMLE and tell her story ?

I was also wondering if No 4 Mk 1/Mk 1 *, Mk 2 magazines are interchangeable with the SMLE ? I was unable to find any inspector mark on the magazine currently in this SMLE, any clues to figure out who made it and possibly when ?

Again, many thanks for the assistance.

 

[tiriaq]

The magazine in your rifle is Australian.
No. 4 magazines are not interchangeable with SMLE ones.
Oilers and bayonets were not matched by manufacturers with manufacturers of rifles.
For WWI production, Wilkinson is probably the most commonly seen bayonet maker. Any brass oiler would be appropriate.
Chargers are around. There are different patterns, as made in different periods.
If you are going to shoot the rifle, as mentionned, check the fit of the forend. Whoever reworked the Forend spent a lot of time trying to camouflage the Ishy repair; he may not have worked as hard to make sure the forend was properly fitted to the rifle. Accuracy can be affected.

 

[smellie]

Yes, accuracy CAN be affected. Grossly. It can also be brought right back up to snuff if you're careful.

I hear people complaining about rotten old .303s not shooting any better than 4 inches. They don't, not if you're waving them around, anyway. Sandbag 'em in, get a handful of GOOD rounds and try her out. With a good bore and some patience and understanding, it often is entirely possible to get one of these to shoot one inch at 100, off the bags. You need better eyes than mine to do this, but it can be done. Essentially, you will be able to hit what you can see or, at the very least, give it one awful scare.

Sparkbrook operated during World War One as Birmingham Repair (BR stamp) and likely would still have had their old stamps around; they only closed down as an RSAF a few years before the War.

Your Orange Arsenal magazine is a vastly-inferior product made by mere Colonials who ride around on kangaroos. Just don't tell that to a proud Aussie! It interchanges perfectly with the original British-made magazine and it is just as good. Armourers, I am sure, didn't look to make certain that everything was factory-matching; they were much more interested in getting rifles out the door that would work. You MIGHT want to swap this one for a British mag, but you don't need another.

Bayonets were made by several manufacturers. By quantity, the contract bayonets seem to be most common from WILKINSON (the sword people), then next are SANDERSON and the hard ones to find are VSM (Vickers, Sons and Maxim), but they all interchange. And Enfield also made them, of course, lots of them. Any would be period-correct.

The old girl has a lot of history and some great tales behind her. I do hope that she has just as much ahead.

Take your new girl out to the range for an afternoon, then get back to us, let us know how the 'date' went!

BTW, my test load for these is 37 or 38 grains of IMR-4895 with a Sierra 180 seated to the overall length of a Mark VII Ball round. It's a bit light (about 2250 ft/sec) but most of my rifles like it just fine. Yours might, too.

Have fun!

 

[Nabs]

Such a wealth of information, thank you guys. I am amazed the magazine is Australian origin but I guess I shouldn't be surprised considering the ease of removing and swapping one of these with another SMLE magazine. Still, a very interesting piece as I thought I would never own anything of Aussie milsurp origin.

I will keep my eyes open for a Wilkinson bayonet and scabbard as well as a brass oiler. I'm not looking for rare examples of these pieces, just something to complete the look. Same for the sling. All three of these items seem to be plentiful on e-bay (compared to hunting for the earlier Imperial German stuff...jeez!).

I'm not quite sure how to go about checking the fitting for the barrel on an Enfield. I am familiar with how my Mauser barrels sit in their stocks and these range from the Gewehr 71/84 up to the Kar98k, would it be a similar practice for the Enfields or a completely different spin of the coin ?

Also, would there be any of markings, say under the fore arm or below the stock line, that would be worth checking to figure anything more out for the SMLE's past ?

George, you can bet that this girl and I are going to have a fun first date . I'm working on gathering the needed supplies then it is off to the reloading press and then the range.

Lastly, I posted a picture of my magazine from the top. I remember reading that steel was used to supplant brass in the post war years to some degree and I think this is true of later developmental models of the SMLE and the No 4 Mk I. With that in mind, I think this magazine is post WW1, perhaps WW2 Aussie made. Can someone confirm as I have no other magazine with which to compare.

Thank you again for your help.

 

[tiriaq]

O A = Orange Australia. A WW2 plant.

 

[Nabs]

A piece of WW2 Aussie history, amazing! Thank you Tiriaq.