1916 rebuild, source for exploded view of parts??

Noel

Noel

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
239   0   0
Location
Bouncing around on the Farmall
Hi all,

Seems I've slipped on a steep and slippery slope. Bought a rear hand guard and mag cut off for my Grandfathers '16 and a barrel that won't tumble the fodder. Now all a sudden there is this screaming desire to put it all the way to how it should be.
Currently sportered like most you will see. Nothing matches on the poor thing but it and my Grandfather were and are dear to me.


Is this rifle meant to have volley sights?
Is there an exploded view for all the part names listed for me to compile and try to find?

I started looking for this stuff here but I haven't enough hours in a day to dig thru the pile.

Thanks for your help!
Noel
 
Assume you are referring to a 1916 Lee Enfield No 1 Mk III or III*.
Yes, volley sights would be appropriate. The proper forearm for volley sights is larger immediately behind the band than the later production slimmer forearms one frequently sees offered. The later forearms cut for volley sights (such as offered by Numrich) do not have the fuller dimensions of the earlier forearm in the area behind the band.

You can find a schematic and, I believe, parts list on the Numrich Gunparts website.
 
Sorry for missing that, yes it is a Lee Enfield.

Assuming the sportered stocks on this rifle are original, they are not inletted for volley sights.

When would the changes have been made to having a safety instead of volley?
 
As I recall, the official change was in 1916. Volley sights did not exclude the safety. The rear volley sight replaced or, more correctly, was replaced by the spacer (nomenclature?) In the safety assembly.
 
Right, I gotcha. But my receiver has the hole milled for the safety to protrude in on the side. Considering this update was made to the rifle I might go non volley sights.
Found the schematic at Numrich, thank you for that too!
 
Basically what your rifle has on the receiver would determine what it originally had.

If it says No. 1 Mk. 3 then it would have had the volley sights and magazine cut-off originally. If it says No. 1 Mk. 3* than it wouldn't have had them.
 
I was looking at that last night, the stamp operator must have hiccuped or sneezed. In some ways it looks like there is a very poorly done * stamp and then again there is a dent or scratch there like a hash mark if you will that obscures it. I will post a pic tonite but if it was updated to the side safety that should suggest it is the * I guess.
 
The safety would not have been an update to the Mk III or Mk III*. They were both originally built with the safety and the Mk III may also have been equipped with volley sights. The rear volley sight fit between the two-piece safety assembly and the spring retainer (nomenclature?). If there is no rear volley sight, a thick washer-like spacer fills the space.
 
In 1916 changes were made to the future manufacture of the MkIII that included the omission of the Volley sights, also in 1916 they introduced a rifle that did not included the magazine cutoff & slot, this was designated the MkIII*.
The only difference between a MkIII & a MkIII* is the cutoff & slot, the lack of Volley sights is not just a feature of the MkIII* it is a feature of both post 1916, the MkIII* did not replace the MkIII there were simply 2 models of the SMLE post 1916
Some MkIII*s were made in 1915 but whether or not they were made with or without Volley sights is debatable.

The List of Changes of 1916.
LoC1916-1.jpg


A 1915 MkIII
1915No2MkIVone.jpg

1915No2MkIVtwo.jpg


A 1917 MkIII
17LITHYmain.jpg

17LITHYlhs.jpg



A 1917 MkIII*
17BSA1.jpg

17BSA2.jpg
 
Rebuilding this rifle will be like Groundhog Day.

So mine has the cut off slot. But it had the safety and spacer, instead of the volley peep.
As well, if the fore dial and needle would have been in the same position as the one that is on my Metford, then this rifle never had the volley system. Is it possible they had a cut off and no volley?
 
Yours started out as a MkIII* with no cutoff or slot, you say it has the slot, if so, that would explain the mark stamped though the *
It looks to have had a long service life with all those date & inspection stamps on the left side of the butt socket, a good candidate for a resto but go with no Volleys as even if it had been a MkIII when built, the chances they would still be there would be slim.

My 1916 Enfield MkIII
This one has been built using a Mk1 receiver & the barrel is dated 1918 so it may have been rebuilt more than once so not a good guide for your build!
morefunanwser.jpg

1916EFD2.jpg

morefun7.jpg
 
My poor rifle! It has mistaken identity. No wonder I can figure it out.
Thank you for the patience, felt like I've been fumbling this thread badly.

5THBATT that is a beauty. I hope mine looks that good when done.
And yes, the bore was a sewer pipe.
Seems perfect to rebuild. In keeping with my Grandads way of thinking, always having to make something from nothing.
 
Noel: As 5THBATT says, just get a standard MKIII or MKIII* forend and forget about the volley sights. Do lots of research on the proper fitting of forend to rifle as it is far from straight-forward. A lot will depend upon whether you buy a new, never used forend as opposed to a used example which might have damage in the "draws" area or might not fit snugly. Lots of good info on this over on Milsurps forum.

milsurpo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom