hamilton0729
Regular
- Location
- Northern Ontario (not in Hamilton)
Awesome job and awesome thread keep it coming!
All to save a 1898 LEC
- Thread starter Evanguy
- Start date
- Location
- Leduc County, Alberta
This thread is AWESOME!! Great work, OP!
It's very nice work... makes you appreciate even more the craftsmanship our grand fathers and our great grand fathers did over 100 years ago.
Dont know if it's something you have considered but Nick at Vulcan Gun Refinishing (or maybe a local shop) can laser weld those pitting's .
Not sure exactly how it works but i seem to remember it takes a minimum of heat. Might be worth to email him for a rough estimate.
Dont know if it's something you have considered but Nick at Vulcan Gun Refinishing (or maybe a local shop) can laser weld those pitting's .
Not sure exactly how it works but i seem to remember it takes a minimum of heat. Might be worth to email him for a rough estimate.
Very nice, what are you going to do for a stock?
machining is something I really wish i took. Learned the basics of how to use a lathe back in High School but would love to know how to turn a barrel or machine a proper part just so I can do something like this.
machining is something I really wish i took. Learned the basics of how to use a lathe back in High School but would love to know how to turn a barrel or machine a proper part just so I can do something like this.
Evan does some very nice work. If you poke around this site you will find a thread where he has designed and is machine fabricating a rifle from scratch. Impressive work.
Here is one of his final batch nose caps that he made. It fits just about perfect.
I am making up the woodset for Evan, all three pieces will be from one piece of walnut to make the set. Just an extra touch to his rebuild.
Evan is also having a crack at making some barrel bands up for me.
Here I use a SMLE non hinged barrel band for the initial fit up, which is a touch oversize compared to the correct carbine band. I use an original handguard when fitting. The larger smle band allows me to fit the oversized stock up to the action. The next step is fitting the smaller correct carbine band, final shaping and sanding ready for finishing.
First fit up of forearm.
I am currently trying to get my Jeep finished and out of the garage so that I can set up my wood duplicator. I will be banging out some more stock sets for projects over the winter.
On the drawing board, I have a rig for drilling out the two diameter butt stock bolt hole. Hopefully, with this new kit it will make a difficult task quick and easy.
Here is one of his final batch nose caps that he made. It fits just about perfect.
I am making up the woodset for Evan, all three pieces will be from one piece of walnut to make the set. Just an extra touch to his rebuild.
Evan is also having a crack at making some barrel bands up for me.
Here I use a SMLE non hinged barrel band for the initial fit up, which is a touch oversize compared to the correct carbine band. I use an original handguard when fitting. The larger smle band allows me to fit the oversized stock up to the action. The next step is fitting the smaller correct carbine band, final shaping and sanding ready for finishing.
First fit up of forearm.
I am currently trying to get my Jeep finished and out of the garage so that I can set up my wood duplicator. I will be banging out some more stock sets for projects over the winter.
On the drawing board, I have a rig for drilling out the two diameter butt stock bolt hole. Hopefully, with this new kit it will make a difficult task quick and easy.
Unfortunately a business as this would likely not pay the bills...
So much time and efforts go into this that few are willing to pay what it is really worth.
That's why guys like Englishman and Evan often trade their work instead of asking for payment.
I build myself a skeleton SMLE last winter and the work is nowhere near what these guys are capable of and i evaluate my time at well over $1000....
(sorry Evan, dont want to hijack your tread)
So much time and efforts go into this that few are willing to pay what it is really worth.
That's why guys like Englishman and Evan often trade their work instead of asking for payment.
I build myself a skeleton SMLE last winter and the work is nowhere near what these guys are capable of and i evaluate my time at well over $1000....
(sorry Evan, dont want to hijack your tread)
Thanks guys and yeah ill keep updating this thread as things happen.
tatou, Thank you and it sure does make you appreciate the craftsmanship our grand fathers and older. the laser welding looks good but i don't think this restore needs it, i personally don't mind the look of the pitting it reminds me of how i it was when i got it and im not going to sell this rifle so ill leave the pitting.
wow man, that skeleton SMLE looks really good, nice work.
Leeenfieldno.4, my stocks being made for me by Englishman_ca and in high school was the first time i seen a lathe being used and that's when i figured out what i wanted to do in life.
Englishman_ca, looking good im excited for that to get when its ready. also those nose caps seem to look and fit well, im glad to see them on a rifle. also i dont think i posted the rifle im building on here but since e all like pics ill put some up.
diopter, i use a piece of 2" chrome shaft to get them lined up close and tightened down then run a finger dial across them all and adjust so the dial doesn't move. one vice can be any where from 0.01mm to 0.08mm behind or farther out then the others,
i made it all of 4140 that was heat treated to 36rc, this is my third, the other ones were smooth bores and i made the barrel, double barrel break .22lr and bolt action 357/38, this one uses a lee Enfield barrel that was cut down,
since these pics have been taken, ive made a one piece firing pin, and a new bolt nut to hold the spring in, it also now has adjustable pin protrusion. i also bumped the chamber in a mm and counter bored the bolt face a bit more so the bolt face just rubs the barrel as you close the bolt. also there is 0 head space, ill only be able to use my reloads in the rifle (set back shoulder), standard rounds the bolt wont close
im going to develop a load using 7.62x25 cases, with 100gr cast bullets at ~1000fps, setup for 100m,
tatou, Thank you and it sure does make you appreciate the craftsmanship our grand fathers and older. the laser welding looks good but i don't think this restore needs it, i personally don't mind the look of the pitting it reminds me of how i it was when i got it and im not going to sell this rifle so ill leave the pitting.
wow man, that skeleton SMLE looks really good, nice work.
Leeenfieldno.4, my stocks being made for me by Englishman_ca and in high school was the first time i seen a lathe being used and that's when i figured out what i wanted to do in life.
Englishman_ca, looking good im excited for that to get when its ready. also those nose caps seem to look and fit well, im glad to see them on a rifle. also i dont think i posted the rifle im building on here but since e all like pics ill put some up.
diopter, i use a piece of 2" chrome shaft to get them lined up close and tightened down then run a finger dial across them all and adjust so the dial doesn't move. one vice can be any where from 0.01mm to 0.08mm behind or farther out then the others,
i made it all of 4140 that was heat treated to 36rc, this is my third, the other ones were smooth bores and i made the barrel, double barrel break .22lr and bolt action 357/38, this one uses a lee Enfield barrel that was cut down,
since these pics have been taken, ive made a one piece firing pin, and a new bolt nut to hold the spring in, it also now has adjustable pin protrusion. i also bumped the chamber in a mm and counter bored the bolt face a bit more so the bolt face just rubs the barrel as you close the bolt. also there is 0 head space, ill only be able to use my reloads in the rifle (set back shoulder), standard rounds the bolt wont close
im going to develop a load using 7.62x25 cases, with 100gr cast bullets at ~1000fps, setup for 100m,
Last edited:
Thanks man, when i get a bit more finished im going to make a thread about it. Im not sure what im doing for a stock on it. It may be aluminum though, since its easier then wood to work with and make look good, i do plan on making an adjustable trigger for it aswell
so i have a question about the mag cut off, all of these LEC parts are stamped EFD its 1898, the two long lees i have(one is for parts) they are stamped WD everywhere, Ive read that the older Enfield rifles used WD then it switched to EFD, when did they switch from WD to EFD, the long lees i have are 1896, so I'm assuming 1897?
The question is, would a WD stamped mag cut off be incorrect on this 1898 LEC 1 and it should/would have had a EFD stamped mag cut off?
The question is, would a WD stamped mag cut off be incorrect on this 1898 LEC 1 and it should/would have had a EFD stamped mag cut off?
Last edited:
Evan, to some this is Enfield minutia, but to me it is important to the detective work and helps satisfy my OCD!
Great question. I used to puzzle about this and still don't have a definitive answer.
At one time, I would try to make sure that all the parts that I put into a rebuild were the correct model, maker and inspection mark. I spent a great deal of time and energy searching for correct parts. But that is my hobby, the hunt is as much fun as the catch.
Then one day I picked up a very dirty long rifle, a 1892 Mk.II Metford I think it was.
I read the rifle. It was an Enfield, it had been back to the Birmingham Repair facility twice in its service life once in 1894 and once in 03 to have upgrades or repairs. While it was at the factory, it received a new nose cap and barrel band, the bolt head was changed out, the rear volley arm was changed along with its spring and it had a new mag fitted. The rear sight leaf was changed out and the new one renumbered. The front sight ramp had been slotted and a new insert pinned in place.
These were obvious to me, this Enfield made rifle had BSA parts on it. The patina on these parts looked newer than the action. The sighting had been upgraded, probably in 1903 following a directive correcting the sighting for bullet drift.
It then was cleaned up, serviced and shipped to New Zealand in 1914, where did service in WWI and maybe WWII. It was surplused and sold through the British Gun Trade in 1952 and then exported to Canada.
I rummaged through my parts bins for Enfield marked parts. I laid the parts out on the bench and sorted through looking for correct WD broad arrow marked to put on the rifle to correct it. Once I got everything mounted, I cleaned and admired my now improved rifle. It then dawned on me.
The next owner would pick this rifle up, and maybe see the tiny BR inspection markings and read that it had been back to Birmingham for repair at some time and that would be it. I had removed evidence of where this rifle had been and what had been done to it. For all this time I had been thinking that I was 'improving' my rifle when in fact I was destroying its history by removing the armourer fitted parts.
To tell the truth, if I now pick up a rifle and it has all matching livery parts. Every piece is marked as per the factory original rifle, it makes me suspicious. My first thoughts are not 'this rifle retains all its factory original parts', but more along the line of 'somebody has been messing with this one'.
A service rifle would be repaired and refitted by an armourer who did not pay attention to any brand or marking on a part in the bins. Parts is parts. Perhaps by chance he would fit a BSA part on a BSA rifle etc, but mainly by luck.
Saying that, I do try to fit a BSA bolt in a BSA receiver because the factory would have used the same set of gauges in manufacture. Maybe my imagination, but I find Enfield bolts fit best in Enfield receivers, Sparkbrook in Sparkbrook etc and so on.
The Birmingham Repair facility would refurbish rifles en mass. Batches would be mixed makers. Bad rifles would be stripped and parts recycled. The result was rifles rebuilt to as new specs, but total mixmasters.
Now when I read a rifle, these 'non matching' parts are part of the story and get my attention.
So to answer your question.
The date of change of stamp use has always been a bit staggered between factories. I guess that not every inspection department got the new stamps for the new new logo or new monarch at the same time. There can be a bit of a lag. For example, often seen are actions with a Victorian first proof and an Edwardian second proof.
The 'WD broad arrow' figure was introduced in 1855 and was used up until 1896 on subject rifles (later on bayonets and other equipment). It is a British Government Acceptance mark. An ownership mark if you like.
The EFD logo appeared in 1897, which is a RSAF Enfield factory logo, not a Government acceptance mark. You will find that EFD will be marked along with the broad arrow acceptance mark separately somewhere close by...eg, trigger has EFD one side, broad arrow on the other. This then morphed to EFD marking incorporating with a broad arrow above, and then later to EFD with an inspector number below and a separate broad arrow somewhere adjacent.
WD is an odd ball, I have seen parts marked with it on early Metfords (1889) and it seems to disappear around 1896 as factory inventory was used up. The jury is still out on this one, WD marked parts appear on all years of 90s rifles and carbines. But they could be replacements.
I need to find a copy of 'The Broad Arrow' by Clive Law. Lots of good info on markings in there. I lent my copy to somebody, but can't for the life of me remember who (who has my Dark Side of the Moon CD? Who has my valve compressor? Who borrowed my multi meter?)
More pertinent is what model of cut off should be fitted? Default to the type fitted to the sealed pattern arm. An EFD marked unit will be a version with the short taper on half of the front edge as opposed to the full width. ie. An Enfield cut off as opposed to a Metford one.
They both fit, they both work and neither would be 'incorrect' for an arm maintained in service.
Original from the factory, it would have been EFD marked, yes.
Great question. I used to puzzle about this and still don't have a definitive answer.
At one time, I would try to make sure that all the parts that I put into a rebuild were the correct model, maker and inspection mark. I spent a great deal of time and energy searching for correct parts. But that is my hobby, the hunt is as much fun as the catch.
Then one day I picked up a very dirty long rifle, a 1892 Mk.II Metford I think it was.
I read the rifle. It was an Enfield, it had been back to the Birmingham Repair facility twice in its service life once in 1894 and once in 03 to have upgrades or repairs. While it was at the factory, it received a new nose cap and barrel band, the bolt head was changed out, the rear volley arm was changed along with its spring and it had a new mag fitted. The rear sight leaf was changed out and the new one renumbered. The front sight ramp had been slotted and a new insert pinned in place.
These were obvious to me, this Enfield made rifle had BSA parts on it. The patina on these parts looked newer than the action. The sighting had been upgraded, probably in 1903 following a directive correcting the sighting for bullet drift.
It then was cleaned up, serviced and shipped to New Zealand in 1914, where did service in WWI and maybe WWII. It was surplused and sold through the British Gun Trade in 1952 and then exported to Canada.
I rummaged through my parts bins for Enfield marked parts. I laid the parts out on the bench and sorted through looking for correct WD broad arrow marked to put on the rifle to correct it. Once I got everything mounted, I cleaned and admired my now improved rifle. It then dawned on me.
The next owner would pick this rifle up, and maybe see the tiny BR inspection markings and read that it had been back to Birmingham for repair at some time and that would be it. I had removed evidence of where this rifle had been and what had been done to it. For all this time I had been thinking that I was 'improving' my rifle when in fact I was destroying its history by removing the armourer fitted parts.
To tell the truth, if I now pick up a rifle and it has all matching livery parts. Every piece is marked as per the factory original rifle, it makes me suspicious. My first thoughts are not 'this rifle retains all its factory original parts', but more along the line of 'somebody has been messing with this one'.
A service rifle would be repaired and refitted by an armourer who did not pay attention to any brand or marking on a part in the bins. Parts is parts. Perhaps by chance he would fit a BSA part on a BSA rifle etc, but mainly by luck.
Saying that, I do try to fit a BSA bolt in a BSA receiver because the factory would have used the same set of gauges in manufacture. Maybe my imagination, but I find Enfield bolts fit best in Enfield receivers, Sparkbrook in Sparkbrook etc and so on.
The Birmingham Repair facility would refurbish rifles en mass. Batches would be mixed makers. Bad rifles would be stripped and parts recycled. The result was rifles rebuilt to as new specs, but total mixmasters.
Now when I read a rifle, these 'non matching' parts are part of the story and get my attention.
So to answer your question.
The date of change of stamp use has always been a bit staggered between factories. I guess that not every inspection department got the new stamps for the new new logo or new monarch at the same time. There can be a bit of a lag. For example, often seen are actions with a Victorian first proof and an Edwardian second proof. The 'WD broad arrow' figure was introduced in 1855 and was used up until 1896 on subject rifles (later on bayonets and other equipment). It is a British Government Acceptance mark. An ownership mark if you like.
The EFD logo appeared in 1897, which is a RSAF Enfield factory logo, not a Government acceptance mark. You will find that EFD will be marked along with the broad arrow acceptance mark separately somewhere close by...eg, trigger has EFD one side, broad arrow on the other. This then morphed to EFD marking incorporating with a broad arrow above, and then later to EFD with an inspector number below and a separate broad arrow somewhere adjacent.
WD is an odd ball, I have seen parts marked with it on early Metfords (1889) and it seems to disappear around 1896 as factory inventory was used up. The jury is still out on this one, WD marked parts appear on all years of 90s rifles and carbines. But they could be replacements.
I need to find a copy of 'The Broad Arrow' by Clive Law. Lots of good info on markings in there. I lent my copy to somebody, but can't for the life of me remember who (who has my Dark Side of the Moon CD? Who has my valve compressor? Who borrowed my multi meter?)
More pertinent is what model of cut off should be fitted? Default to the type fitted to the sealed pattern arm. An EFD marked unit will be a version with the short taper on half of the front edge as opposed to the full width. ie. An Enfield cut off as opposed to a Metford one.
They both fit, they both work and neither would be 'incorrect' for an arm maintained in service.
Original from the factory, it would have been EFD marked, yes.
Last edited:
wow i see exactly what you are saying, and i would have never though of that. I'm glad i can learn from your experiences, without reading the story of that individual rifle and just changing parts to suit the manufacture could, actually it would ruin he history of the rifle. yes parts are parts, so as long as they are the correct part in place it may be better leaving it, unless it was the wrong part that was clearly done after its in the surplus world then one could change it without issue.
thanks for the insight I'm going to keep that in mind on the other rifles i plan to restore.
i am going to find a EFD marked mag cut off since it was missing when i got the rifle, so there is nothing giving evidence it was replaced in its life time, and the rest of the parts are stamped EFD with the exception of the new made parts, and possibly the barrel, ill check that out again.
really this rifle is a mixmaster, it has none of the original finish, the whole thing will be reblued and there new and old parts, im not sure why i even care about the mag cut off honestly.
This is what i was working on today, its not for the LEC but it for its bigger brother
thanks for the insight I'm going to keep that in mind on the other rifles i plan to restore.
i am going to find a EFD marked mag cut off since it was missing when i got the rifle, so there is nothing giving evidence it was replaced in its life time, and the rest of the parts are stamped EFD with the exception of the new made parts, and possibly the barrel, ill check that out again.
really this rifle is a mixmaster, it has none of the original finish, the whole thing will be reblued and there new and old parts, im not sure why i even care about the mag cut off honestly.
This is what i was working on today, its not for the LEC but it for its bigger brother
Last edited:
Englishman_ca the book you speak of, i didnt a quick search and only found "the broad arrow" by Ian Skennerton
it seems to be all about the markings you speak of, would this book be close to the same thing or even the same book. Or totally different with the same name about the same stuff?
For Xmas im going to look into getting a few of these older books on early(1850-1900) british firearms. There are a few books i read about in my searches but cant remember any of the names. There was a canadain book that had lots of info in it about carbines and older lee enfields, i believe the word defending was in the title. Do you know what book that is?
it seems to be all about the markings you speak of, would this book be close to the same thing or even the same book. Or totally different with the same name about the same stuff?
For Xmas im going to look into getting a few of these older books on early(1850-1900) british firearms. There are a few books i read about in my searches but cant remember any of the names. There was a canadain book that had lots of info in it about carbines and older lee enfields, i believe the word defending was in the title. Do you know what book that is?
Ya, brain fart. I bought Skennerton's book through Clive Law's book sales, I think.....
But you are correct!
But you are correct!
Defending the Dominion by David Edgcombe.
ISBN 1-894581-15-6
An excellent book, a 'must have' for Canadian arms collectors.
ISBN 1-894581-15-6
An excellent book, a 'must have' for Canadian arms collectors.
