Enfield nuts; Scrutinize my 3 digit serial # Long Lee

Ardent

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
818   0   2
Hey folks, I know little of Lee Enfield history while I've owned many. This will sound bizarre, but I just realized my Long Lee has only a 3 digit serial number, in the 100's. It's an 1896, does this really mean that this was one of the first 200 Lee Enfields produced... :confused: (I'm not holding my breath, but figured it was worth asking those more knowledgeable.) Serial is matching on bolt and receiver ring, and original, 19x, and over an 'A' on the receiver ring, 19x only on the bolt.

P1040818.jpg

P1040819.jpg

P1040825.jpg
 
3 digit serial just means it was made when serial production rolled past Z###x and tarted again at 1.

That long lee loks like it was once ishy screwed. Also you are missing the brass rivet forend re-inforcement. Don't shoot it without replacing it or you could crack the forend.
 
Claven2 said:
3 digit serial just means it was made when serial production rolled past Z###x and tarted again at 1.

That long lee loks like it was once ishy screwed. Also you are missing the brass rivet forend re-inforcement. Don't shoot it without replacing it or you could crack the forend.

I'm aware it's missing the brass pin, and ishapore screwed? Just curious on the term, half this long lee came out of afganistan (fore end, volley sights, barrel band, fore end cap/bayo lug) and the rest was a sporter in Sask former home unknown.

When did Long Lee production begin? 1895? 1894?
 
A suffix rifle

Ardent, I have an 1896 MLE Mk.1 that is numbered on the receiver ring with an A underneath the number also. Check the underside of your sight leaf, it was usualy numbered to match too.

Mine is serialed 5004A. I think you will find that your rifle and mine were part of the first batch of rifles supplied to Canada, and actualy the first ever Lee Enfield rifles shipped overseas to arm a colonial army. Perhaps someone with the book with the batch numbers can chime in?

Is this the project rifle that you told us about a while back? If so, good job, it is coming together nicely, looks pretty complete! Check the original buttstock if you still have it, on the left hand side. It will have, or possibly once had, DC marked inside a diamond shape (Dominion of Canada), mine does.

I think that Claven might have mistaken the front volley sight mounting screw as an Ishapore reinforcing screw. Volley sight screw passes through the forearm from right to left in a similar general location. Or maybe it is that dark dot on the woodwork just below the receiver ring. I don't know if any Long Lee Enfields would pass through Ishapore in thier original form. I believe Ishapore worked on rifles of No.1 and No.4 type. I have never seen an Ishy screwed MLE, but ya never know!

Certainly x2 on the reinforcement pin at the back of the forearm by the butt socket. Forearm will crack and split if you shoot it like that. Easy fix, if you are set up to rivet. You'll need brass rod and two tiny brass washers. I use brazing rod and electrical terminal block washers. You will need four hands to hold the forearm steady while you peen the ends closed really tight. It is a bugger to do by oneself unless you jig and clamp it.

I see that the nosecap is missing the clearing rod. This would actualy be correct for a rifle that was in service. The rods were declared obscolete in 1899 and all subsequent newly made rifles (Mk.1*) were manufactured without any the provision for one, no hole in the nosecap, no slot in the underside of the forearm. All rifles in service at that time had the rods removed and returned to stores.
 
Ardent said:
I'm aware it's missing the brass pin, and ishapore screwed? Just curious on the term, half this long lee came out of afganistan (fore end, volley sights, barrel band, fore end cap/bayo lug) and the rest was a sporter in Sask former home unknown.

When did Long Lee production begin? 1895? 1894?

The afghan origin explains it. Ishy Screw means the rifle was in india and had a wood screw put through the forend to mitigate splintering in sevice.

Long Lee production began in 1888.
 
englishman_ca said:
I think that Claven might have mistaken the front volley sight mounting screw as an Ishapore reinforcing screw. Volley sight screw passes through the forearm from right to left in a similar general location. Or maybe it is that dark dot on the woodwork just below the receiver ring. I don't know if any Long Lee Enfields would pass through Ishapore in thier original form. I believe Ishapore worked on rifles of No.1 and No.4 type. I have never seen an Ishy screwed MLE, but ya never know!

Look at the forestock right above the magazine retaining link, both sides of the stock. Screw is gone, but the hole where it was is still there. That stock was once Ishy screwed. I'd stake my reputation on it. And I have seen other Long Toms from that part of the world Ishy screwed before.
 
Long Lee No1 Mk1

I have a Minty Long Lee-Enfield No1 Mk1 with a mint bore, with 107XX serial number and an M & D over the Enfield crest on the right side of the stock. Did most of them come with a tiger stripe stock, mine did?
I found an original oiler in my collection of oilers. I also have an absolutely mint Mod 1888 bayonet for it in my collection, to replace the excellent one the came with the gun. Getting a Long Lee in even good condition is an excellent beginning to any Lee-Enfield collection.
 
Removing the Ishy screw hole.

Claven, I think that you are right. I just changed my browser settings and took a look at pics in higher resolution (I'm on country dail-up). It does indeed look to have been fitted with the dreaded Ishy screw!

Ardent, Is this an Enfield made forearm, or is it one whittled in Afganistan? It looks pretty good but I note the fit around the mag well is a bit shy. Woodwork looks to be heavily sanded.

An Ishy screw to me, although not the best cosmetics, is still a part of the rifle's history, or in this case, a part of the forearm's history. Strange that they would put an Ishy screw in a Long Tom, the original idea was to reinforce the wood and prevent splitting of the forearm in the king screw area because of the stresses created by using the rifle for grenade launching. Not something I would imagine the Long Lee would be used for. Saying that, I did see pics of a flintlock mounted with a discharger cup in a book once, so anything could be possible.

I have removed the Ishy screw and plugged the hole on a couple of rifles. Alot of time and fiddling, but it made a big improvement. It has to be done neatly and with matching wood, otherwise it looks even worse than the screw.

I have several Bubba'd pieces of rifle wood that I use for scraps of walnut. I use a tiny 3/8 inch hole saw and drill into an old butt stock to create the plugs (comercial doweling is not suitable because the grain runs in the wrong direction). I give an ever so slight taper to the plug by rubbing its edge on some sandpaper. I drill the Ishy screw hole out each side of the stock slowly with a cabinet maker's brace and bit making sure that the hole is cut clean with no splinters or raggy edges. I only go about 1/4 inch deep. I tap the plugs in with some white wood glue and leave to dry 24 hours.

To finish it up I put duct tape with a hole in it over the plug to protect the surrounding area and then carefully handfile the plug down to the surface. I final finish with fine garnet paper on a sanding block to match the surface. Once finished, it looks as good as any armoury repair, the trick is the taper that insures a nice snug fit with a very fine glue line. Matching the grain and grain direction correctly camouflages it, and can be almost invisible. The colour of the plug can be adjusted with the dye pens that are available to cover scratches in antique furnature. I have had excellent luck using alcohol based leather dyes too, they come in a zillion shades of brown. On some rifles, the plug can be taken from below the wood line inside the barrel channel, then the plugs are pretty well guaranteed to match.

Another way to get rid of a hole is to use a sharp 1/2 inch wood carving gouge and scoop out the area with the hole in one stroke in the direction of the wood grain. This leaves a cupped hole that can be filled with a plug taken from a scrap also using one scoop with the same wood gouge. Usualy I can get the gouged plug close to a pefect fit. This method works well to get rid of nasty dings and cuts too. I learnt these little tricks and a few more from restoring fine antique furnature. Wood is wood.

M&D is a Canadian martial mark, it stands for 'Militia and Defense' and is usualy on the right side of the stock as Albayo has noted on his rifle.
 
Last edited:
albayo said:
I have a Minty Long Lee-Enfield No1 Mk1

There's technically no such thing. It's just a "Lee Enfield Mk1."

A Lee Enfield No.1Mk1 doesn't exist either. It would be a "ShtLE Mk1".

The "No.1" is only appropriate in front of the MkIII, MkIII*, MkV and MkVI designated arms.
 
Albayo has a Magazine Lee Enfield Mk.1

I think that these designations go back to a time that revolves around the Martini Metford and the Magazine Lee Metford, the Martini Enfield and the Magazine Lee Enfield.

Big difference in firepower.

Seems that as the magazine was a relatively new invention and the first time it had been used on a British service arm, it was worth making a song and dance about. The designation let the world know that the British Army was equipped with a rifle that was superior to the single shot Martini.

This was right on the heels of and in response to Germany adopting a repeating arm, the Mauser IG 71/84.

A bit of British bluster, a magazine arm was worth bragging about.

Where I get confused is where the Brit govt use Sht L.E. Mk.? or SMLE Mk.? or No.1 Mk.? to describe the same perishing rifle!!! They are all correct terms, just used at different time periods.
 
Englishman, you're a well of info, as usual, and thanks to Claven too. :)

I do believe you gentlemen are right, it clearly appears it had the "Ishy screw" (since reviewed to learn more). The stock and all metal is truly excellent for a rifle of its age, but the forestock is a bit beat. It has cracks, repaired, and one unrepaired crack I've yet to address, as well as the brass spread prevention pin. There's a chip out of it I plan to carefully replace as well.

It is indeed the same rifle we discussed as well, Englishman, and sadly doesn't have a DC mark, or doesn't have one anymore, whatever be the case hard to say.

As a side note I have a Long Lee trigger guard and bottom metal I can sell, as well as trigger, screws, buttplate, other small parts if anyone's missing anything important.
 
Replacement wood.

Well you are doing a fine job of restoring the old war horse. At least it is starting to look like a military rifle. Do you have the bayonet for it yet?

If you plan on keeping this rifle and would like to upgrade it a bit, I hopefully will have my wood duplicator fired up soon and can make you a new forearm. It won't be an original part, I know, but the fit will be good and nobody will be able to tell once it is finished and assembled on a rifle.

Building the duplicator is my winter project, but I expected to be sitting in my basement by the woodstove working on it by now. However, late start to the winter, i'm making the most of the mild weather and am working on projects outside.

With the duplicator I will be producing American Walnut forearms for the Martini and Lee Enfield in limited quantities. Fully inletted and pre-fitted to an action, they will need only final sanding and finishing. The finishing is what takes the most hours of labour to do. Many restorers would prefer to do that themselves anyway.

There is another member on Gunnutz who is building his own version of the Copy Carver (do a google on Copy Carver). He is also going to have a crack at reproducing rifle stocks too. Not sure how his project is progressing at this time.
 
What went into production (after a short series of pre-production rifles) in December of 1888 was the LEE RIFLE with Metford rifling. With the Enfield form of rifling, adoption was in 1895. Most early rifles I have seen seem to be 1896s and they are marked LE.

Rebarreled Metford-barreled rifles (rebarreled to Enfield rifling) were stamped with a letter "E" more than a quarter-inch high, on the Knoz-form.
 
Great stuff englishman, you mentioned that, I'd be very interested when the time comes, for certain. :) And nope, no bayo yet, but eye's open.

smellie, great info, thank you. :) So 1896's Lee Enfield Mk.1's represent the first year if Lee Enfield production it sounds like, interesting note.
 
Enfield barrels

I have a 1896 Enfield MLE Mk.1 and a 1902 BSA MLE Mk.1* rifle that have the E for enfield marked on the top flat of the knox form. Judging by the matching font of the serial numbers on barrel and receiver, the barrels appear to be original to the rifles. So my guess is that the marking is not just an identifier for rebarreled Metford arms.

Probably all early production Enfield rifled barrels had the E marked on them as their use for assembly on either a new arm or for an armourer's spares would be determined later. The outside of a Metford and that of an Enfield barrel are identical, no doubt both types were in inventory at the factory. The E avoids getting them mixed up.

I am not sure as to when they stopped putting the E on the barrel. 1902 seems pretty late, the rifle was superceded in 1903 by the Sht. LE.

I believe BSA made MLE barrels as late as 1914, I have one on a rifle that was refurbed for naval service in 1915, it doesn't have the E marking. Maybe they just missed it but it is definately Enfield style rifling.

Can anybody else give input as to what is marked on examples in their collection?
 
smellie said:
What went into production (after a short series of pre-production rifles) in December of 1888 was the LEE RIFLE with Metford rifling. With the Enfield form of rifling, adoption was in 1895. Most early rifles I have seen seem to be 1896s and they are marked LE.

Rebarreled Metford-barreled rifles (rebarreled to Enfield rifling) were stamped with a letter "E" more than a quarter-inch high, on the Knoz-form.

That's not what he asked ;)

When did Long Lee production begin? 1895? 1894?
 
englishman_ca said:
I have a 1896 Enfield MLE Mk.1 and a 1902 BSA MLE Mk.1* rifle that have the E for enfield marked on the top flat of the knox form. Judging by the matching font of the serial numbers on barrel and receiver, the barrels appear to be original to the rifles. So my guess is that the marking is not just an identifier for rebarreled Metford arms.

You would be correct. ALL Magazine Lee Enfield rifles had the "E" stamped over the chamber. the sealed pattern rifle had it, therefore all authorized rifles built to the pattern also had that marking ;)

A rebarelled metford is ID'd by the receiver.
 
englishman_ca said:
I believe BSA made MLE barrels as late as 1914, I have one on a rifle that was refurbed for naval service in 1915, it doesn't have the E marking. Maybe they just missed it but it is definately Enfield style rifling.

A barrel made in 1914 would have been produced for commercial production at BSA, and therefore wouldn't have the military-required "E" stamp.

During WW1, some earlier rifles were rebarelled using available commercial BSA barrels that then got military proofed. Many of these COULD be missing the E marking, like yours. Deson't mean they are Metford barrels or that the E wasn't a standard ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom