Enfields

[Claven2]

Agreed thats a lot of money to be asking, that being said...................
I have heard "some" parts were sourced out, not everything as you indicate. Some of the Enfield purists give them a bad rap but I'm not sure if that's grounded in factual information. There is a lot of miss-information floating around about these AIA rifles.

One thing I can tell you is they are very, very well made, the machining is very nice, fit and finish are great and they are accurate and highly sought after, junk does not garner much interest and have much of a following! If per chance they were completely made in Vietnam as you indicate then my hat goes off to the Vietnamese for making a very, very nice quality rifle! Yes they are expensive and aside from the quality, that's because there is a limited supply floating around and the majority are in .308 cal which makes them desirable.

I’ve owned several of these and all evidence I have seen is that all these rifles were fully made in Vietnam, not Australia. I was not a fan of some of the obvious welding as part of receiver construction, but it worked ok. I found them rifles too heavy for what they were and shed no tears when I sold both my 308 and 7.62x39 versions.

 

[grabbers]

Agreed thats a lot of money to be asking, that being said...................
I have heard "some" parts were sourced out, not everything as you indicate. Some of the Enfield purists give them a bad rap but I'm not sure if that's grounded in factual information. There is a lot of miss-information floating around about these AIA rifles.

One thing I can tell you is they are very, very well made, the machining is very nice, fit and finish are great and they are accurate and highly sought after, junk does not garner much interest and have much of a following! If per chance they were completely made in Vietnam as you indicate then my hat goes off to the Vietnamese for making a very, very nice quality rifle! Yes they are expensive and aside from the quality, that's because there is a limited supply floating around and the majority are in .308 cal which makes them desirable.

I have one. Great rifle. No complaints.

 

[woodchopper]

was digging around the gun vault yesterday
group photo

top 1943 Savage FTR51 with scope, (S&K no drill mount) good shooter, only problem is the Bayonet lugs were turned off, but other then that all matching. (second photo has clear picture)

middle undated (1941 I suspect) Savage FTR52 then converted to DCRA to 7,62x51, club gun, with PH5C sight, all matching, (second photo has clear picture)

bottom third Savage also undated (1941 or 42) was a sporter that I spliced together 2 sporter stocks and made all new top wood, 'tanker' not FTR. Its the fat little sister of the 2 blond sisters above.

overlayed on top of the pile the Bubba special that had JB Weld, I built a savage style barrel nut when I took the barrel off to sort out some issues. Also sorted out he barrel threading and front sight thread here https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/for...l-nut-conversion-jb-weld-mess-repair.2569887/ Also I spliced some sporter stocks together to make it a 'tanker' but in 308 and it has a muzzle brake.



and finally what I assume is a weapons tech special, Savage receiver (scrubbed) that everything but the bolt was replaced with LongBranch parts including a mint NOS barrel. No Marks applied to show who or when the work was done. Also the receiver and barrel Knox were bedded. This was someone's who had access to extensive part bins and tools personal rifle.

 

[OkayShooter]

Got the 9mm on a new reciever. No it is not a cut down barrel. Un altered SMG barrel. Unfortunately over the years could not get it to feed right. So just a single shot now. With a mag being made like a No7.

Buddy said I should kept it orginal. Then told him I got 4. Likely going to make a No7.

One without the stock is becoming a L42 style. Waiting on the seller to ship out the barrel band he forgot to send with my gun.

45acp is getting a more stream line magazine. As the adapter is stupid looking.

 

[Claven2]

A 1909 SMLE Con'D IV made from a 1901 MLE 1*.

 

[Jeepix]

Royal Small Arms Factory (RSAF) - Enfield
Lee-Enfield No.1 Mk.3*
‘’SMLE’’ for Short Magazine Lee-Enfield
(AKA “Smely”)
SN# 6582
1916
.303 British (Mk.VII) 7,7×56mmR
10 rd. Double stack Box magazine - (Removable)
Bolt action (Cocking on close) – Designed by James Paris Lee

 

[Jeepix]

Lithgow Arms. (Lithgow, New South Wales)
Lee-Enfield No.1 Mk.3*
‘’SMLE’’ for Short Magazine Lee-Enfield
(AKA “Smely”)
SN# A37952
1919
.303 British (Mk.VII) 7,7×56mmR
10 rd. Double stack Box magazine - (Removable)
Bolt action (Cocking on close) – Designed by James Paris Lee

 

[Jeepix]

Canadian Arsenals Limited (CAL) - Long Branch
Lee-Enfield No.4 Mk.I*
SN# 91L8725
1950
.303 British (Mk.VII) 7,7×56mmR
10 rd. Double stack Box magazine - (Removable)
Bolt action (Cocking on close) – Designed by James Paris Lee

The No. 4 rifle was manufactured starting in 1941 by Small Arms Limited and later by Canadian Arsenals Limited, in Long Branch, Ontario, Canada. They used this rifle in World War II, the Korean War, and into the late 1950s. The No. 4 rifle is still used for drill and was used for range shooting by the Royal Canadian Army Cadets, Royal Canadian Sea Cadets and the Royal Canadian Air Cadets. Most units are stripped of the mechanism that fires the round but at many Cadet Training Centres the rifles are in full working order, the rifle is used at the Vernon Summer Training Center for Feu du joie. The No. 4 was being phased out by the Canadian Rangers as a service rifle starting in 2016. Purchased new and never used / It was in Cosmoline and waxed paper when purchased.

 

[Jeepix]

Royal Ordnance Factory (ROF) - Fazakerley
Lee-Enfield No.5 Mk.I
(AKA ‘’Jungle Carbine’’)
SN# L9930
1946
.303 British (Mk.VII) 7,7×56mmR
10 rd. Double stack Box magazine - (Removable)
Bolt action (Cocking on close) – Designed by James Paris Lee

 

[Jeepix]

Royal Small Arms Factory (RSAF) - Enfield
Lee-Enfield Mk.I*
MLE for Magazine Lee-Enfield or Long Lee-Enfield (AKA “Emily”)
SN# 5302
1901
.303 British (Mk.VII) 7,7×56mmR
10 rd. Double stack Box magazine - (Removable)
Bolt action (Cocking on close) – Designed by James Paris Lee

The Canadian Militia received the MK.I Long Lee-Enfield rifle in 1896. They used this rifle in the Boer War from 1899 to 1902. Cleaning rod missing (removed from the outset in 1899 for all Lee-Enfield Mk.I*)

 

[Jeepix]

Remington Arms Co. (Ilion N.Y.)
Remington-Lee Model 1899 Sporting Rifle
SN# 75604
1903
.303 British (Mk.VII) 7,7×56mmR
5 Rd. Single stack Box magazine (Removable)
Bolt action (Cocking on close) – Designed by James Paris Lee

One of only 1,446 Model 1899 Sporting rifles produced by Remington from 1899 to 1907; Marked "REMINGTON ARMS Co. ILION. N.Y. U.S.A." on top of the left receiver rail and again on top of the heavy barrel in front of the rear sight in a smaller size. The one-line patent marking "PATENTED AUG. 26TH 1884. SEP’T 9TH 1884. MARCH 17TH 1885. JAN. 18TH 1887" is on the left of the receiver. Mounted in a checkered walnut pistol grip stock with metal Butt plate.

 

[Jeepix]

Royal Ordnance Factory (ROF) - Fazakerley
Lee-Enfield No.5 Mk.I
(AKA ‘’Jungle Carbine’’)
SN# Q8351
1945 (August)
.303 British (Mk.VII) 7,7×56mmR
5 Rd. Single stack Box magazine (Removable)
Bolt action (Cocking on close) – Designed by James Paris Lee

 

[seaforth72]

Canadian Issued SMLE No 1. Mk III (1918)

My Pride and Joy!

While I don't have the nice background that Grant has...this is my Canadian Issued and marked No. 1 Mk III with a bayonet marked:

2RCC
RCE
272

I think the markings refer to the 272 Royal Canadian Engineers - 2 Royal Canadian Corps (can anyone confirm this? Grant?)

Thanks...Dan

There never has been a "Royal Canadian Corps".

 

[m1008]

Enfield’s don’t use single stack magazines

 

[woodchopper]

true but what we are looking at is the Remington-Lee, its not the same, just similar and it did use a single stack mag.

 

[Kevin32]

true but what we are looking at is the Remington-Lee, its not the same, just similar and it did use a single stack mag.

Says so on the jungle carbine. Probably just copy/paste from the Remington Lee.

 

[Claven2]

true but what we are looking at is the Remington-Lee, its not the same, just similar and it did use a single stack mag.

nah, he described (as of this post) No.5 rifle as 5 round single stack (which is obviously not right). Perhaps he was doing a lot of cut and paste.

Also, the 1916 SMLE (RSAF Enfield) appears to be a restored sporter with Ishapore forestock and sanded sporter buttstock. FWIW.

 

[woodchopper]

nah, he described (as of this post) No.5 rifle as 5 round single stack (which is obviously not right). Perhaps he was doing a lot of cut and paste.

Also, the 1916 SMLE (RSAF Enfield) appears to be a restored sporter with Ishapore forestock and sanded sporter buttstock. FWIW.

ah good catch, I was just quickly going over the descriptions.

 

[Snider shooter]

Lithgow butt looks a little to clean compared to the rest of the wood. Possible rebuild also.
A few of us rebuild Lee Enfield’s or have a few originals so fairly easy to spot.

 

[Claven2]

Lithgow butt looks a little to clean compared to the rest of the wood. Possible rebuild also.
A few of us rebuild Lee Enfield’s or have a few originals so fairly easy to spot.

Butt is walnut, likely off a Brit made smle. In 1919 it was likely originally stocked in Queensland maple. The original butt would have the lithgow shield cartouche stamped into it, along with the HV stamping and the rifle’s serial number. Likely other issuance stamps as well. The forestock and rear hand guard are ww2 era coachwood parts, which would be typical of a ww2 era rebuild, so likely not a restored spotter based on that. Can’t tell if the front HG is lithgow wood, would need better pics.

I suspect either someone changed the butt because they wanted a ww1 era marking disc (which would not be right for a 1919 lithy) or they put on a replacement butt because something wasn’t right with the original or ww2 replacement butt. Just my opinion.