1895 Mk.I Lee Metford Cavalry Carbine - Pics added of rear sight

NL-Hunter

NL-Hunter

CGN frequent flyer
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Location
Newfoundland
Got this recently, have no idea about these other some google results that identified it as a Enfield Cavalry Carbine. Assuming .303 as I can find no marking. Will get more pics of entire rifle. Has a steel nose, full wood and a small magazine that is attached with metal ring under receiver. Anyone have an idea of rarity and vakue?

IMG_0792.jpg


IMG_0791.jpg


IMG_0785.jpg


IMG_0784.jpg


IMG_0783.jpg


IMG_0782.jpg
 
Last edited:
Not very rare but not that common. If the barrel is still in good shape you should be able to get $1000.00 or so without a problem. A full length picture would help us put a value on it better.
1.D.G. should be the 1rst Dragoon Guards.
 
Last edited:
1895 Mk.I Lee Metford cavalry carbine, chambered in 303 British.

It has been back to RSAF Enfield in 1897 and/or 1898 for upgrades (removal of saddle ring and boss, addition of leather sight cover).

First Dragoon guards. Has 'sold out of service' markings.

Quite valuable if untouched, but also not difficult to overclean and turn into a $600 rifle.
My advice is to use nothing more than a soft cloth and gun oil for the metal, soft cloth and linseed oil for the wood.
Leave the grungey finish and patina, it has taken many years to form.

Nice find. Please post full length pics, show it off!
 
It is devoid of any post service proof markings (which would include a Nitro proof). So this arm made its exit from the military without passing through the British gun trade. I say this because a Birmingham or London proof house markings required on ALL firearms sold in the UK for the past couple hundred years, a legal requirement.
The double broad arrow marking denotes "Sold out of British service", so it might have done a tour of duty in another countries military. I would be checking everywhere for any armourer's markings or govt acceptance marks.

Most certainly ex British service. Placed into Dragoon stores in Feb 1896, marked with rack number 196.
Returned to factory for upgrades in 97 and 98. Again suggests British service at that time.
Lee Metfords were obscoleted in Canada and replaced by the Lee Enfield in 1896. The Metfords were returned to Canadian stores and never received the upgrade.

How this one get to where it is now? That is always a bit of a guess. Could have come across with the British garrisons. Could have been a South African replacement from Imperial stores. Could have found its way over from Australian or New Zealand. Detective work.
 
I will go over rifle and get more pictures of any markings that I may have missed. Hard to get good pics of bore, but will try.
 
englishman_ca said:
It is devoid of any post service proof markings (which would include a Nitro proof). So this arm made its exit from the military without passing through the British gun trade. I say this because a Birmingham or London proof house markings required on ALL firearms sold in the UK for the past couple hundred years, a legal requirement.
The double broad arrow marking denotes "Sold out of British service", so it might have done a tour of duty in another countries military. I would be checking everywhere for any armourer's markings or govt acceptance marks.

Most certainly ex British service. Placed into Dragoon stores in Feb 1896, marked with rack number 196.
Returned to factory for upgrades in 97 and 98. Again suggests British service at that time.
Lee Metfords were obscoleted in Canada and replaced by the Lee Enfield in 1896. The Metfords were returned to Canadian stores and never received the upgrade.

How this one get to where it is now? That is always a bit of a guess. Could have come across with the British garrisons. Could have been a South African replacement from Imperial stores. Could have found its way over from Australian or New Zealand. Detective work.
Click to expand...
or it could have been here all the time , as Newfoundland did not join Canada until 1948.
 
There is something quite odd about that muzzle cap or upper band. I have never seen one quite like it. Amongst other differences, the sight protector ears are different than the norm, the upper barrel shroud is significantly longer than normal and the radius of the transition at the bottom is much larger than normal. Also, the bbl should protrude a little. Is the muzzle flush with the end of the cap? Please post additional photos of the muzzle cap.
 
Last edited:
B_noser said:
There is something quite odd about that muzzle cap or upper band. I have never seen one quite like it. Amongst other differences, the sight protector ears are different than the norm, the upper barrel shroud is significantly longer than normal and the radius of the transition at the bottom is much larger than normal. Also, the bbl should protrude a little. Is the muzzle flush with the end of the cap? Please post additional photos of the muzzle cap.
Click to expand...

I have seen similar front "noses". Some have protruding barrel, some don't. This one is about 1/8 inch inside nose. Sight do not have ears, it is more like a "tunnel". I have also seen some hat have space and hole for cleaning rod, this one don't.

Will get pic of muzzle.

The hole below the rear sight is for screws that the leather sight protector attached to.
 
Last edited:
Yes, this cap is similar to those typically found on the carbines, but it also differs in several ways. The Lee Metford Mk 1 was equipped with a clearing rod, so the cap should have the corresponding hole. Also, I have never seen a carbine nose cap, or reference to one, with a fully enclosed front sight in place of protective ears. The example referenced above does have the nose cap one would expect to see. I will dig into Skennerton's book and see what I can find on the subject.

I am not trying to discredit your carbine. I am simply saying it has some atypical features that bear further investigation.
 
Atypical would be it. There is no sign of cleaning rod hole and the front sight is fully enclosed, no ears. I have been told it was a war bring back.
 
Last edited:
I have seen this nosecap mentioned in Skennerton book... if i remember right it was on trial carbines, before they decided to ''open up'' the top portion.
Unfortunately that is about the sum of my knowledge lol.... englishman_ca is the resident expert on carbines and the guy you want for more infos, when he see's your new pics he will be able to tell you more about it.

One thing i do see is you are missing the firing pin screw and the firing pin has turned.... maybe the tip was broken at some point, someone unscrewed and reshaped it to salvage it... or it's just getting loose with time.
I would look into that.
 
I just went through Skennerton's book and could not find a reference to the enclosed nose cap. Will have to look again. Could you provide a page reference? The trials carbine (pg 445) had a nose cap somewhat similar to that of a MLM/MLE.

The rear sight on this example is also atypical with it's broad and deep v notches and apparently hand cut roman numerals on the leaf. I am thinking after-service modification.
 
Had to search again myself... i knew i had seen it. Pages 96 and 97 there is a pic and a drawing of one. Doesn't seem to have a cleaning rod hole.
Also on page 446, at the end of the first paragraph he mentions the ''integral'' sight protector.
The rear sight on those carbines doesn't look like this one at all (also some pics on page 96)... with ''Enfields'' who knows if this was done legitimately or after service... i'm guessing the latter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom