1964 RFI Type-2A (factory repair) SMLE Article

Riflechair

Riflechair

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 99.7%
369   1   2
Location
BC
The sun was on, the wind was off and it was time to get some winter range time in. I entered into the safe and hauled out the 1964 Ishapore, put a clean patch down the bore, threw my gear in the truck and we were off.

A LITTLE BACK GROUNDER

Most Royal Factory Ishapore SMLE variants are very common.

Type-3 New manufacture SMLE's of an independent India were made from 1956 to 1965. Those SMLE's made in 1965 are considered extremely rare. India transitioned to the 7.62mm 2A/2A1 in this period.

Type-2A This little rifle of mine is a Type-2A variant (old stock). These underwent a Factory Repair (or rebuild) at some point (perhaps several times). This was done to supplement new production. Edwards refers to it as a "Salvage Program" in his book, since many of the rifles returning from the jungles of Burma were no longer serviceable but were a good source of parts. Many of these rifles have gone through the Indian FR program more than once and are comprised of Australian, British and Indian manufacture components. My little RFI falls within this category and probably did not see active service after its last FR. Look at the park / blue on the rifle. Look at the bolt handle. Absolutely no wear of consequence. This puppy has been sitting in a crate in some warehouse. The new barrel gleams!!! I should note though that this Type-2A rifle also contains Type-3 rifle parts (such as the front nose cap for example) There were the new production parts of the day (in this case 1964) More on that later.... :)

A total of 150,000 Type 2A variants were manufactured between 1941 and 1975. A transitional period from British rule to an independent India. They are considered common variants in the global sence. Thats over 4,400 refurbished rifles per year over a 34 year window. I think thats a pretty significant allocation of resources during a difficult war-torn period in India.

Original manufacturer markings are all removed and a new barrel fitted. All weapons were renumbered to match between 1941 and 1975. The stock is straight grained walnut. Fitted with the squared off Type-3 nosecap which had been in production for 13 years before this rifle saw its last Refurb. The square nosecap design was adopted by India in 1951 when they phased out the "Waisted" appearance. The new design required fewer machining steps which gave a better sight picture, provided enhanced protection to the muzzle and the swivel lug removed. Its not graceful, nor terribly attractive but these noted benefits were supported by reduced manufacturing costs. :cool:

I am more than satisfied with precision accuracy & consistency. I love this Indian Lee Enfield. All numbers match (incl. mag) and all significant parts are serial numbered (even the underside of the rear sight). General appearance and finishing is fairly rough. The wood has prominent disc sanding marks from its last Factory Repair. Some of the metal components (ie: nosecap) were not reparked but those are superficial.

Remember what was going on at the time. Pakistan and India were on the cusp of another significant military conflict. India did not fare well in previous conflicts and they were ramping up for another Nation altering experience. They needed to reserve weapons and munitions yesterday. A few bumps and warts have to be expected under those circumstances.

The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 was a culmination of skirmishes that took place between April 1965 and September 1965 between India and Pakistan. This conflict became known as the Second Kashmir War fought by India and Pakistan over the disputed region of Kashmir, the first having been fought in 1947.

So lets see some pictures Riflechair! :eek:
Yes the ugly mug in these shots is me.
Enjoy the pictures :)

1.jpg

2.jpg

3.jpg

4.jpg

5.jpg

Look at the bolt knob. The parkerizing is new and un-worn.
If a rifle has seen any amount of ammo it is usually the finish on the bolt that gets worn first.
This SMLE is mechanically a new rifle
6.jpg

7.jpg

8.jpg

9.jpg

cap.jpg

ishy.jpg

muzzle.jpg
 
Last edited:
Richard,

Some info for you:

1) Edwards wrote his book well before the 2003 import of Indian Enfields to the US. Since then, the "type 3" (a term Edwards made up to help classify Indian sub-variants of the MkIII*), has been observed with manufacture dates as late as 1987.

2) Your forestock was not made before 1924 or so. It simply does not have the belly profile of a ww1 stock. It may be either inter-war british in origin, or Indian. If it is Indian, it will generally not have the tie-plate inletted into the back of the forestock to accept a square-nosed buttstock bolt. If it does have the tie-plate, it is likely a salvaged Brit forestock. Hard to tell from your pics, but I imagine the butt is a later Indian part, probably not made of walnut or Luan mahogany. Edwrds makes reference ot this new wood being used in production around WW2 and later - he likens it to the Indian version of poplar. I see A LOT of type "2A" and "3" Enfields with stock bits made from that lighter wood. The characteristics of this wood are probably what led India to begin using No.4 rifle style "warparound" tie-plates at the back of forestocks in 1951.

3) You receiver is probably NOT a scrubbed earlier receiver, unless you can find a manufacturing proof from Britain or pre-1948 India to prove otherwise, I would consider it new manufacture from 1964. The scrubbed guns were usually stamped on the safety-side of the butt, not the bolt handle side, since the buffing process would have thinned the socket wall enough that stamping the other side made sense mechanically. That being said, it is entirely fesible that many new receivers were used in the rebuild program as they likely had far more viable stocks and parts than viable receivers, which would have been prone to rust in Burma.
 
Last edited:
Comments bolded and in blue font
Claven2 said:
Richard,

Some info for you:

1) Edwards wrote his book well before the 2003 import of Indian Enfields to the US. Since then, the "type 3" (a term Edwards made up to help classify Indian sub-variants of the MkIII*), has been observed with manufacture dates as late as 1987.

1987 - I've never seen one dated as such. Not to say it isn't possible. I expect the FR program has to still be active considering the volume of police and reserve applications still in use today. RIFLECHAIR

2) Your forestock was not made before 1924 or so. It simply does not have the belly profile of a ww1 stock. It may be either inter-war british in origin, or Indian. If it is Indian, it will generally not have the tie-plate inletted into the back of the forestock to accept a square-nosed buttstock bolt. If it does have the tie-plate, it is likely a salvaged Brit forestock. Hard to tell from your pics, but I imagine the butt is a later Indian part, probably not made of walnut or Luan mahogany. Edwrds makes reference ot this new wood being used in production around WW2 and later - he likens it to the Indian version of poplar. I see A LOT of type "2A" and "3" Enfields with stock bits made from that lighter wood. The characteristics of this wood are probably what led India to begin using tie-plates at the back of forestocks in 1951.

I concur. This stock did not see the Great War for the reasons noted. The wood is not Luan Mahogany and it is not Circasian Walnut which leads me to believe the wood is of European origin. RIFLECHAIR

3) You receiver is probably NOT a scrubbed earlier receiver, unless you can find a manufacturing proof from Britain or pre-1948 India to prove otherwise, I would consider it new manufacture from 1964. The scrubbed guns were usually stamped on the safety-side of the butt, not the bolt handle side, since the buffing process would have thinned the socket wall enough that stamping the other side made sense mechanically. That being said, it is entirely fesible that many new receivers were used in the rebuild program as they likely had far more viable stocks and parts than viable receivers, which would have been prone to rust in Burma.

I'm 99% sure this is a scrubbed receiver. A fair amount of polishing has occured over the lifetime of this rifle. You can't really see from my pictures but edges are rounded and very little in the way of tooling marks in the areas noted. I see this as a parts rifle - she even retains the old cocking piece which would have been phased out years before 1964. Not all of the receivers used in the Type-2A FR saw service in Burma but a very healthy portion of them did.

No I'm pretty sure this isn't the Type-3 rifle that Edwards refers to in his book and Skenerton eludes to as well. Claven please correct me if I'm wrong but if this was a Type-3 receiver then shouldn't the charging bridge be more beefier? I understand the Type-3 receiver charging bridge observed fewer machining steps and retained more material as a result. IE: Corners less rounded - more angular. The charger bridge on this RFI is the same as my Canadian Marked 1917 SMLE.

I have only seen the SMLE Riot Control .410 shotguns marked on the safety side of the receiver. Has anyone seen a .303 SMLE RFI marked in the manner ID by Claven? RIFLECHAIR
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Richard,

Here is a pic of your '64:
6.jpg

And here is a WW1 SSA:
image007.jpg

And here is a WW2 Dispersal:
image003.jpg

And here is a brit BSA target rifle:
image014.jpg

And finally a Canadian issue SSA:
image009.jpg


now pay attention to where the charger guide is rivetted to the receiver wall on the Brit made guns. You will note the forward part of the rivetted mounting pad is invariably machined round and the pad is not at all angular. On the post-1951 Indian receivers, this pad is square and blocky, such as on your gun.

The bridge itself became more blocky over time, but some are more so than others. The degree of polish is a bit of a misnomer since at refurb these receivers often got introduced to the powered polishing wheel and some Indian factory workers really "leaned into it" - so to speak ;)

Again, I would suggest that unless you find a brit proofmark (below the woodline perhaps?) like an itallic "B" or "X", etc. under a crown, then the receiver is just as likely to have been made in 1964 as in 1916 or later when the cutoff was deleted.
 
And PS: I have, personally, held a 1987 marked RFI SMLE in .303. Also, the scrubbed and re-marked (on the left side) SMLE's are detaield in Edwards' book and several were recently listed in the EE by DelSelin's.
 
Thanks Claven! :)
I'm enlightened and now agree.
This RFI receiver is post 1951 manufacture and likely 1964 manufacture.
Still a Type-2A in my opinion because of the mix-match of older parts.

I found a pic of the marking you're referring to Claven
IMG_0792.jpg
 
Last edited:
Yep, that is the marking :) And as I said, I think it is still a "type2A" according to Edwards, I just think the Receiver was one of the replaced parts. You see A LOT of salvage and re-use of earlier parts on Ishapore made guns.

I have a 1934 Ishapore that saw very little on it change since it was made, aside from a replacement butt-stock and an Ishy-screw was added to the period-correct fore-stock. I think the forestock might have been scraped at hte same time since it was re-serialized matching in a different font, though you can still make out the earlier stamping and it's the same number.

Even this gun, made in 1934, has parts from earlier guns on it. The nose cap is off an early-war BSA, though the BSA mark is almost completely buffed off and the early RFI proof stamp is partially over-stamping it, along with the "C" stamping you often see on recycled parts used in Ishapore production. The sear looks to be early LSA with the proof marking in use at the time of the SMLE MkI, again re-proofed with Ishapore markings. This gun appears to not be a Type 2A, but rather a mostly original Type 2 with the exception of the Ishy screw and replaced butt. Even still has the RFI made cutoff. So the Indians were mixing and matching rather early on IMHO.

I have a 1962 made G.L. SMLE MkIII* en-route that was fitted with a milled type I rear sight protector and a WW1 era matching nosecap. Wonders never cease.

By the way, for those lurkers in this thread, when Richard and I are referring to "Type 2 and Type 2A" guns, we are NOT referring to the "2A" and "2A1" guns in 7.62 NATO. We are, instead, referring to non-official nomenclature for SMLE MkIII* sub-variants as named in Colonel Edwards' book; India's Enfields. Just to be clear...
 
Yes his poor choices have lead me to reconsider the validity of the details in his book. Thus I am very much appreciating the feedback you chaps are giving me on my 1964 SMLE RFI. Its always best to anchor and test assumptions with some diverse expertise. Thanks again folks.
 
I had a 1952 RFI that was a new made action, but had the older style cocking piece and a brass OA middle band. Ishapore always recycled parts, even their earliest production is supposed to have used some old parts. One must keep an eye on the bedding on Ishapore forends, I had a friend bring me one that I had sold him some years ago. The right side of the forend, behind the charger bridge, flew off while shooting. The muzzle was set back in the nosecap. 2000 + rounds had caused the draws to completely collapse. I just replaced the forend with a beech one, I'll rebuild the old one later. Really soft wood. I also had an Ishapore lower handguard split in three pieces under recoil! Very surprising. Still good, accurate rifles, just a few things to watch out for.
 
Hey Bushman
That stock was probably made of Luan Mahogany. Beautiful wood but very soft. The Australians often placed brass shims on the two receiver contact points in their Coachwood stocks to avoid the same problem. Yes the bedding is always something worth examining on any Ishapore SMLE wearing Luan Mahogany wood.

BUSHMAN79 said:
I had a 1952 RFI that was a new made action, but had the older style cocking piece and a brass OA middle band. Ishapore always recycled parts, even their earliest production is supposed to have used some old parts. One must keep an eye on the bedding on Ishapore forends, I had a friend bring me one that I had sold him some years ago. The right side of the forend, behind the charger bridge, flew off while shooting. The muzzle was set back in the nosecap. 2000 + rounds had caused the draws to completely collapse. I just replaced the forend with a beech one, I'll rebuild the old one later. Really soft wood. I also had an Ishapore lower handguard split in three pieces under recoil! Very surprising. Still good, accurate rifles, just a few things to watch out for.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom