.22 No.1 MK III Enfield/Long-Lee?

[LTR]

Hi all,

Picked this up today. Very interesting rifle and seems to be not messed with and in remarkable condition for its age. I believe its a .22 short rifle MK III. Not a sleeved barrel, someone earlier today thought perhaps once a long lee originally? Bore looked great from what I could see but I need to clean it. Any info would be much appreciated. It has a rear volley sight.

 

[englishman_ca]

Originally, your rifle was a Magazine Lee Metford Mk.II. in .303. It was converted into a .22 cal trainer for the Royal Navy circa 1912 by fitting a new .22 barrel and remarked on the left hand side of the butt socket Sht.22 Mk.II.

The original configuration of the trainer used a modified long Lee woodset cut back and re-channeled for the shorter and thinner barrel.

Since then, your rifle has been reworked and the long Lee woodset replaced with one from an SMLE Mk.III*.

So no longer an 'official' spec rifle, but yes, at first blush it looks very close in form to that of a Sht.22 Mk.III, but not quite.

Some good ref info here. Check out pics of an original Sht.22 Mk.II on milsurps.com
http://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=17815

 

[John Sukey]

I woluld bet that all that was done while it was still in service

 

[englishman_ca]

I would bet that all that was done while it was still in service

I think you could be right. But very curious that the redundant rear volley arm is still in place. If the rifle was updated by a military armourer, I would imagine that they would have removed it.

It would be interesting to see if the arm would stow in it's forward position as there is no inletting provided in the wood to take it.

 

[smellie]

The Navy, being the Senior Service, appears not to have allowed itself to be bound by the mere regulations of landsmen.

I have seen a couple of Navy rifles which fit no official pattern, but which were used and used and used.

THIS one is, as mentioned, a former LM Mark II, which last was built in 1894. It was Converted to a .22 AND to a Short Rifle, making it likely a Navy version of the Short, Magazine Lee-Enfield Mark II, which designation seems to have covered quit a variety of Conversions to .22" rimfire configuration.

I am willing to bet a whole half of a Raisin Pie that this rifle has been through rework at least twice: once to convert it to a .22 with a heavy barrel, later to convert it to SMLE specs..... or fairly close thereunto. It would b really interesting to know it it still has the Heavy barrel profile of the original LM/LE rifles, or if it has the later Light barrel of the SMLE.

 

[LTR]

Thanks for the discussion. Here are some pics as requested. The Volley sight will not lie flush in the forward position. Regarding the barrel, I could see no markings at all and a suncorite finish in very good condition.

 

[englishman_ca]

The barrel markings that would be of interest would be on the left hand side of the reinforce.

Many were rebarreled, as was this one in 1936.

And yes, that honking big hole in the receiver is part of the factory conversion as a gas relief hole in the instance of a blown cartridge case.

 

[smellie]

Looks like the lightweight SMLE Mark II barrel on this one.

That, with the stock not being inletted for the still-remaining Aperture Sight, maks me believe that this one has definitely been through a Navy workshop well after (about 40 years after!) the original Conversion.

Some of these remained in use for a VERY long time, much as there are still wartime Number 7s in use today, more than 65 years after they were made.

Thanks for showing.

NICE Toy!

 

[englishman_ca]

I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one SMELLIE. If the gun had that woodset fitted at a Naval Ordnance workshop, that rear volley would be gone. I can't believe that an armourer would leave things like that. The arm can't be stowed, it is currently left to be in one of two positions, sticking up, or sticKing out the back.

I am of the opiniion that the gun was probably put back together by somebody in the civvy world much later. Perhaps the original stock set was pooched, or, they found the barreled action and fitted the smle wood to get it shooting. Looking at the wood in that area, it's surface is not chewed up from the arm being driven forward as it would if it were handled and bumped around with use. From this I conclude that that forearm has been installed fairly recently, maybe to get it ready for sale.

For me, I would go one of two ways. Replace the wood with that of the correct modified long Lee form (would have to make it up), or the more practical approach, simply remove the arm and hardware and put them away.

 

[hs]

Hi guys.
For me looking at the barrel to wood fit. I would think that the barrel is of the original
weight. The barrel seems to fill the channel.

 

[englishman_ca]

Yup, I think that you are right about the barrel. To fit the smle sights and inner barrel band, it would need to have smle exterior dimensions. This jives with the spec for the original conversion to .22.

If you look at the pic of the barrel at the front sight, you can see two silver lines of wear in the paint on the top of the barrel just behind the sight ramp. These two lines are from the long lee style nosecap (a modified version with a groove machined inside top of band at 12 o'clock), so it has been in Sht.22 Mk.II furniture after it was painted. http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b36/itsacookbook/image-41.jpg

Nice shiney steel showing, so probably fairley recently (which could be years in Enfield time). I can also see a line of wear just behind the inner barrel band where the lower long lee band has worn the paint too.

Also with the smle handguard, covers and protects the barrel from abrasion. I can see bumps and scratches in the wood on the barrel from being exposed in the Sht.22 woodset. So the smle woodset was installed some considerable time after the paint was applied.

Its like detective work, ain't it?

 

[smellie]

I was thinking more in terms of "long after the LE had cased to be anything but a gallery rifle".

Likely you are completely right; the rifle seems to agree with you, anyway!

That's what I get for staying up all night! Again.

It does look very nice like this, but would look so much better in its original furniture.

I do wonder how it shoots.......

 

[5THBATT]

I would agree with englishman_ca.
Finding correct woodwork would not be that hard, a cut down "range pattern" MLE/MLM would do the trick, the front sight protector & modified Mk1 SMLE handguard will be the tough part.

 

[LTR]

Looking at the wood in that area, it's surface is not chewed up from the arm being driven forward as it would if it were handled and bumped around with use.

Actually, my fault for pushing the sight all the way forward but in fact that corner is chewed up. I will take a pic that shows this.

 

[LTR]

Wow. Sorry I was looking at my iPhone and didn't realize we are now on page 2! Thanks for the ongoing investigation! Anyhow, here are some more pics I had taken earlier that I did not get around to posting.

 

[LTR]

I'm wondering if anyone has an estimate of value on this rifle.