I'm trying to get #'s matching rifles, collecting Enfields and MN's. I'm looking at a no1 mkIII, but the mag has no S/N. The rest matches. It looks nice, but I'm stumped, take it or pass. Could I get a price check on no1 mkIII's in good condition or better. Should they be worth more or less than a P14? Last enfield I bought was $199 at SIR for a no4 with bayonet, so I could use a refresher. Thanks for input.
Enfield mismatch
- Thread starter stovepipe699
- Start date
L-E magazine after rarely matchimg the rifle. Because lots these have seen battlefield and even they did not bother with the mag s/n. So, don't worry with this. Also lots of FTR'd rifles don't have all matching or have forced matching s/n.... If the bolt matches the receivier it's a plus, though.
199.00 $ seems to be a quite fair price for an all matching No. 4 today....
199.00 $ seems to be a quite fair price for an all matching No. 4 today....
Last edited:
- Location
- Vancouver Island BC
An all matching Lithgow,buy it before some else does.You will kick your own ass around your ears if that happens............
ipscgraz
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I won't worry about mismatched mags anymore then. The sporterized no1 mkIII I have (1918) matches and so does my no4. I'm avoiding buying mismatches because if I get them, then I'll "need" it in matching #'s. So my 1918 enfield with a matching mag, may not have the original anyway?
longbranch*
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Victoria,BC.
Serialed mags
Generally only Savage numbered the mag to the (No.4), rifles at the factory. Don't think any British or Australian made LE's were mag serialed at factory either. From what I understand this was a "field done" practice. War-time Longbranch no.4's left the factory with un-numbered mags and any numbered ones were applied later. I suspect some or all post-war Longbranch's (1949/50), did have serialed mags.
These are just my personal observations mind you.
Geoff in Victoria
Generally only Savage numbered the mag to the (No.4), rifles at the factory. Don't think any British or Australian made LE's were mag serialed at factory either. From what I understand this was a "field done" practice. War-time Longbranch no.4's left the factory with un-numbered mags and any numbered ones were applied later. I suspect some or all post-war Longbranch's (1949/50), did have serialed mags.
These are just my personal observations mind you.
Geoff in Victoria
I'm going to check the mags again, maybe I'm mixed up. Anyway, the Lithgow I bought belonged to 303carbine, until the last owner bought it from him. This guy moved to the city, and wants a pistol, so he sold it to me. I sold my snowmobile this winter, so I have some toy money. A good gun collection certainly won't be worth less in the future(that's what I tell my wife
)
Thanks for the reminder about headspacing sunray, I should get it checked.
)Thanks for the reminder about headspacing sunray, I should get it checked.
Last edited:
I saw that rifle, the mag and buttplate are both from a No.4. The mags on SMLE's were never serialed to the rifles, but many of the No.4 rifles were. All of the No.4 Mk.2 and No.5. Mk.1 rifles had numbered mags. P&S Militaria should be able to get you a proper mag.
So what is a no1 mk3 worth with sporterized wood, missing nose cap and rear sight wings, otherwise all metal there and ALL numbers matching (except mag)?
1916, Enfield made, lots of nice bluing and a shiny bore, no ftr mark or civilian sale proofing marks.
Sorry if this is hi-jacking this thread but I had to ask
1916, Enfield made, lots of nice bluing and a shiny bore, no ftr mark or civilian sale proofing marks.
Sorry if this is hi-jacking this thread but I had to ask
It is a mkIII*. I really have the urge to bring it back to full wood/original configuration, it is truly a beautiful piece. It has the original short butt on it with a British? Regimental Disc. I am pretty sure it was issued to British troops as it has the British broad arrow markings. I have another BSA enfield with both versions of the Canadian C-arrow stamped on it and also another Enfield made rifle with the Australian A-arrow-A? on it.
On a side note I heard somewhere that the aussies that packed SMLEs in Korea loved the no1 mk3 because they could use the sight wings as a quick and dirty 'battle sight' ie all you had to do to ensure torso hits at 50m was to quickly put the rifle up and put your target between the wings and over the front post and pull the trigger. Much faster than trying to line up the rear ramp and front sight or even a no4's peep sight. That coupled with the 10 round mag and the fastest, smoothest bolt action in the world must have made for an incredible volume of accurate fire.
On a side note I heard somewhere that the aussies that packed SMLEs in Korea loved the no1 mk3 because they could use the sight wings as a quick and dirty 'battle sight' ie all you had to do to ensure torso hits at 50m was to quickly put the rifle up and put your target between the wings and over the front post and pull the trigger. Much faster than trying to line up the rear ramp and front sight or even a no4's peep sight. That coupled with the 10 round mag and the fastest, smoothest bolt action in the world must have made for an incredible volume of accurate fire.
Yes, I've always felt that the Mk.III was a superior weapon, too. Especially for me, because one of my eyes doesn't work, the open sights are better than those on the No.4. The No.4 sight blocks too much of my field of view.
