1917 lsa no1mk3

W

Winchester30-30

Regular
Rating - 100%
52   0   0
Location
Fraserwood, MB
Hey guys, so i was playing with this thing last night and when i took the bolt out and put it back in, the gun wont #### now, like the bolt isnt catching on that spring, any ideas?

Thanks
Winchester30-30
 
Check that the SAFETY (left side, under your thumb when the rifle is in firing position) is FORWARD.

If that's okay, does the bolt work back and forth? Does it LOCK DOWN? You may have got the Cocking Piece out of alignment, in which case the rifle won't ####. CURE is to rotate the Cocking-piece an eighth of a turn clockwise.

Did you have the TRIGGERGUARD off? If so, entirely possible that the rifle was reassembled with the Trigger in the wrong position. If this is the trouble, take the thing back off and reassemble, holding the Trigger FORWARD.

There are other things to chck, but these are 3 of the most common. All are human failures.

Photos REALLY help.

Zip up to the Milsurps Knowledge Library stickie up top of the Forum Index for this forum, click onit. DOWNLOAD a copy of "RIFLE - 1942". It is an excellent reference on this rifle. While you are there, download also SHOOT TO LIVE (Canadian WW2 shooting course based on the Number 4 but applicable to your rifle also: best shooting course ever designed) and a copy of THE LEE-ENFIELD RIFLE by Major E.G.B. Reynolds. This is a 1960 book but it is still the BEST introduction to the development and history of these rifles.

Hope this helps.
 
It is also possible that the Bolt-head has come partway unscrewed In this case, the Bolt will assemle into the rifle but it may not close all the way.

If this is the case, remove the bolt, screw the head back on all the way and reinsert the bolt.

Works.
 
looks like that little spring thats attached to the trigger is sitting lower, i guess its possible its broken, ive got another mk3 here i can rob the parts out of, i tried tightening the bolt head, ihad the bolt out once, never had the trigger guard off, IMG_0318.jpgIMG_0319.jpgIMG_0320.jpg

Thanks
Nic
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0318.jpg
    IMG_0318.jpg
    66.9 KB · Views: 26
  • IMG_0319.jpg
    IMG_0319.jpg
    44 KB · Views: 27
  • IMG_0320.jpg
    IMG_0320.jpg
    63.1 KB · Views: 30
If you have no pressure on the trigger then the sear spring broke. The bolt catch and the trigger both work off the same spring. If it is broke then they both wont work and it wont catch the bolt to #### it.
 
Maybe the sear spring fell down out of place...possible but not probable. They usually fit pretty tight. If it is broken, you can replace it easily with one from either a No.1 or a No. 4. Smellie taught me that last week. ;)
 
Yes, the Bolts do look very much alike.

Both rifles are members of the LEE-ENFIELD family.

They are descended from the original 1879 LEE Rifle. James Paris LEE was a Scots-Canadian working in the USA who had some really advanced ideas about gunmaking. He designed the first ####-on-close bolt rifle with a BOX MAGAZINE under the boltway. He was having a batch of rifles made by SHARPS' when SHARPS' went broke. REMINGTON bought out much of the tooling, along with the parts for which Lee had paid, at the bankruptcy sale. Remington looked at the rifle, made a deal with Lee: in return for finishing Lee's rifles, Remington would take over the design, pay Lee a royalty on sales and give Lee a job as a salesman. The US Navy bought 500 of the 1879 rifles in .45-70 calibre and the British Government bought one of those and a couple in .43 Spanish..... and took them to ENFIELD where they were developed into the new rifle which was adopted in 1888 as the standard rifle for one-quarter of the world.

The Mark III* model is a mid-World-War-One modification of the previous (1907) Mark III Short rifle to permit faster manufacture. THIS rifle was renamed the Number 1 Rifle in 1927.

The Number 4 Rifle is a 1931 redesign of the LEE-ENFIELD type to correct what were seen as deficiencies in the earlier rifles and to permit even FASTER manufacture.

They are very similar in APPEARANCE but there are also huge differences, some of them not readily seen. As one example, the THREADS on the Number 4 all are BA System threads, while threads on the Number 1 are ENFIELD System. Bolt-heads do NOT swap back and forth and the quickest way to identify which bolt is for which rifle is to look at the HEAD when it is screwed on; if the Head has a LIP on its underside, it is for a Number 1 (the SMLE or "Smellie") whereas if it has a thin SLOT on its right-hand side, it is for a Number 4 or a Number 5 (the "Jungle Carbine"). Interesting enough, the Number 4 Rifle has NO nickname, never has had one; it has always been the "Number 4 Rifle".

But, stripped down, they look so very much alike that you had BETTER have gauges!
 
If you are wondering where the other NUMBERS went, here they are:

Rifle Number 2 was the SMLE (Rifle Number 1) converted to .22" rimfire calibre.

Rifle Number 3 was the P-'14 (Pattern of 1914) rifle in calibre .303", built by Winchester, Remington and Remington Eddystone during the Great War.

Rifle Number 6 was a shorty modification of the SMLE, produced in Australia in very small numbers.

Rifle Number 7 was made in British and Canadian versions both. Both are a .22" rimfire version of the Number 4 Rifle, used for training. An earlier version of the Canadian rifle (which was called the C No. 7) was the Long Branch .22", produced in limited numbers in 1944 and 1945.

Rifle Number 8 was another .22" rimfire version of the Number 4, designed and built in England for Cadet marksmanship training.

Rifle Number 9 was the ill-fated but brilliant EM-2 assault rifle. Only a few dozen were made, but it remains a legend to this day. A very tiny number were made in Canada. As a Service rifle, it used the advanced .280/.30 EM-2 cartridge which was discarded under American pressure in favour of the 7.62x51, which was far too powerful to permit automatic fire in hand-held firearms.

Following the demise of the EM-2, the British military began a new system of weapons nomenclature based on L for all Land weapons. Canada continued its independent C system of nomenclature. Under these systems, the FN-FAL became the L1 and later L1A1 in British Service, the C1 and later C1A1 in Canadian Service. The heavy-barrelled automatic version became the C2/L2 in Canadian and British Service......... and was treated to the nickname "Bang-bang-jam" by the Aussies, who attempted to use them in Viet-Nam.

So there you have it.

I REALLY want an EM-2!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom