303 info photos up

Would the rear stock be numbered?
If so, where would one look for it?

Thanks Chawp Chawp.

Funny thing, I had a bunch of odd 303 ammo gifted to me that dint sell at our gun show.
Going to try it out here tewt sweet.

There is another beater here that's all rusted I'll be working on some time this afternoon.
No mag, but it might be a trunk monkey or parts gun.
 
Potashminer said:
Kamlooky - following the pictures that you put up in OP, you mentioned "Curious to know what all dem #'s mean." I can not "interpret" all of them - but a few, I think - maybe others can add to the story. That appears to be an SMLE - so "SHORT" (as opposed to LONG - when an Infantry man's rifle was normally like 5 feet long or more), "MAGAZINE" (It had a detachable one in an era when many fighting rifles were single shot), "LEE" - the American guy that mostly invented the action and "ENFIELD" - the British armoury that mostly invented the rifling profile. So circa 1920's, when British seemed to have renamed their various rifles, that one became the "No. 1".

Was a british thing, I think - that nothing got made except to a "sealed pattern" - so like a blue print - and no capacity to alter a "sealed pattern" - so when improvements required, the thing got a new name - new pattern - I think major modifications resulted in a new "Mark" version, and some minor modifications got a "*" - from the wrist stampings, looks like yours is a Mark III * - so was three major changes and a minor change since the original "sealed pattern" for that rifle. At some point, the markings got changed from latin "III" to arabic "3", but I am not sure what year that was done.

The wrist stampings start with a British crown, then "GRI" - George VI was British King in 1941, so "George Rex" - he was also Emperor of India, so "Imperator" - hence "GRI". I think the era of British crown being "Raj" kind of disappeared circa 1947 or 48. Ishapore is the name of the place in India where that rifle was made - for all I know, but I am not sure, they are still being made there today, like that one. The arrow shape with the broad head is the mark of British (military) ownership or acceptance - somebody else will have to say what the numbers signify. Somewhere I think that I read the tooling that was sent to Ishapore Armoury may have started at the Fazakerly Armoury in Britain, but I am not sure of that.

To really display what I am not sure of - was common, I think, that an Ishapore rifle would have an "Ishy" screw inserted sideways through the forearm as a reinforcement. I am reasonably certain that the woods shown on your fore stock and hand guards are beech - not sure that was used by Ishapore - but was quite common in Britain - I have a "beech" set that I bought for a No. 4 from eBay a few years ago.
Click to expand...

Lots of good info for me here.
Thanks Potashminer.

Place is a gun library.
 
How many grooves do you count?

7DMGOTM.jpg
 
Update........bawt a 303 awf'ear with n'ear the prawper stock kuller'in.

ZH3WmEm.jpg


Shows mucho bene`.
Looky gooder fur yewse single lingo sort.

Tawp one in the photo fur yewse lawst type.

Cheers
 
How many match’in #’s makes a complete set awn these ker-pows awf mass distruckshun?
This one’as five.

Can you call this a match’in numero ker-pow?
 
I have noticed many sellers use the phrase "all matching" - not sure that I have ever seen that defined anywhere. I recently bought a P14 that was described as "all matching" - and yes, the serial number on the bolt and the serial number on the receiver were the same. So was the serial number on the rear sight and on the barrel, but is not clear if seller even knew they were there or not - his ad did not mention that. But, most parts for P14 were stamped by their maker - except for most screws and coil springs. That receiver and bolt body had marks to have been made by Remington. The firing pin was made by "E" - Eddystone. The bolt sleeve on the bolt was made by "W" - Winchester - all three makers represented on that bolt. Various other parts were marked "W" - had been made by Winchester. Did not even have the metal magazine box - a "W" would not have fit onto an "R" made receiver - is my presumption why that part was not installed. So, is that "all matching" because the serial number on receiver and bolt handle are the same? Some sellers seem to think so, even though there were north of 80 parts to make up a P14 - and majority of them were marked by same maker when the thing left the factory, back whenever. Not sure that genuine "all matching" rifles still even exist or not - once an armourer in service swaps out a part, it is genuine war surplus, but is no longer "all matching" - at least compared to how it left the factory. Then, pre-WWII re-builds re-finished the parts that they used - so get parts with WWI finish and same parts with WWII finish - not the same - but is that still "all matching"? So far as I think now, is up to seller to know and reveal what he /she knows about the piece - and up to Buyer to know what is important to him / her or not - as if the phrase "all matching" not understood by anyone, except a phrase to use to get a higher price, if the Buyer goes for it. And, in my case, I did buy that "all matching" Remington P14 - mostly for the clearly marked Winchester made P14 long stock.

Moving over to Lee Enfield No. 4 rifles - was like 9 variations of receiver bodies made and used during WWII - something like 7 different rear sights - that will "fit" to any - but were specifically used by various factories during specific years. So can get a functioning rifle with body from one, barrel from another, forearm from a third, butt from a fourth, and so on - but the bolt and the receiver will have the same serial number - is that "all matching"?
 
Last edited:
Sorry, kamlooky, I can not help with the SMLE (No. 1) - is likely there are reference books that someone has - probably by Charles Stratton or Ian Skinnerton that would likely answer your questions - in writing - but I have not had an interest in those rifles, and, as a result, I do not own any reference books about them, to know.
 
I think the "frog" was a thing worn on one's belt - that the bayonet sheath fastened into - was not an American web gear thing - they used hooks - at least for their P17 bayonet sheaths, but I have Sweden versions of "frogs" for some of their bayonet sheaths, and I have seen pictures of both leather and canvas (?) frogs used by British and Canadian soldiers - I did not know that the frog had a serial number - I did not think it was part of the rifle - I think it came with the outfit worn by the soldier - various packs, belts, straps, etc. - not with the rifle.
 
I corrected the list to change "frog" to "bayonet mount".
For some reason that is what I thought they were called.

Don't know very much about our battle guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom