help with dateing lee-metford MKII
- Thread starter JTF#
- Start date
A "Lee-Speed" is a COMMERCIAL Lee-Metford Mark II.
This one is London Small Arms and it is a Mark II Star.
1895 is the year.
Magazine Lee-Enfield rifle came out in late 1895 and was manufactured in number by 1896, superceding the LM almost completely.
This one is London Small Arms and it is a Mark II Star.
1895 is the year.
Magazine Lee-Enfield rifle came out in late 1895 and was manufactured in number by 1896, superceding the LM almost completely.
Unless you can find a barrel date, all we can say is....sometime from 1895 on
The Metford barrel did not disappear after 1895, they were a popular barrel for shooters for many years, if you ordered a rifle from BSA or LSA & wanted a Metford rifled barrel then that's what you got till at least (from BSA) 1926.
The Metford barrel did not disappear after 1895, they were a popular barrel for shooters for many years, if you ordered a rifle from BSA or LSA & wanted a Metford rifled barrel then that's what you got till at least (from BSA) 1926.
Government purchases, yes.
Yeomanry and so forth often were not Government, although likely they would have wanted the latest issue type.
I have a BSA Mark II LM here with Lee-Speed markings..... and issue markings all over the rest of it. Its LAST service was as a training rifle for the Newfoundland Army in WW1; prior to that it was with the Newfoundland Navy's ONLY ship, the old HMS Briton (built as Calypso, 1883). But it was built as a commercial rifle, likely went to some local outfit which ended up mobilised for the war in SA, found its way into Army inventory by that route.
Yeomanry and so forth often were not Government, although likely they would have wanted the latest issue type.
I have a BSA Mark II LM here with Lee-Speed markings..... and issue markings all over the rest of it. Its LAST service was as a training rifle for the Newfoundland Army in WW1; prior to that it was with the Newfoundland Navy's ONLY ship, the old HMS Briton (built as Calypso, 1883). But it was built as a commercial rifle, likely went to some local outfit which ended up mobilised for the war in SA, found its way into Army inventory by that route.
When did Lee Speed's patent expire? I seem to be having a brain fart right now, can't remember, but seem to think it was 1896? After that, patent acknowledgements were not marked.
Same goes for the Deeley patent on the bolt head, what year did that patent expire?
Same goes for the Deeley patent on the bolt head, what year did that patent expire?
I have seen reference to the patents lasting 17 years, so into the 1900s at least, some mention around 1910
You can also do a pretty fair job of dating it another way, ie. there's more than 1 way to skin a cat.
The London Small Arms Company Ltd operated as a manufacturer between 1866-1935, (but no catalogues exist, or at least have been found).
So we know it was made between 1866 and 1935.
James Paris Lee and John James Speed both have patents; the last of them pertaining to this rifle, date from 1887. So add 17 to that number & we have 1887 to 1904 as patents only had to be acknowledged during their 17 year life span.
The London Proof Marks are the 1887-1904 pattern.
Lee pattern rifles were started to be manufactured for sale in 1888.
The Deeley patent bolt head (patent #19,145 of 1890 further tightens up the date, at least on the early end, because British patents expire after 17 years.
So, we now know we have a rifle manufactured & proofed between 1890 & 1904.
I don't see an E on the barrel knox form, but as has been noted, you could specify a Metford rifled barrel with your order right up until the beginning of the Great War. You could also still order a brand spanking new Lee Metford II* pattern rifle from B.S.A.Co. & one would presume, absent evidence to the contrary, also from L.S.A.Co.Ld., their main competitor for the commercial market, right up until 1914, although we have evidence, via the proof marks, that the rifle was produced prior to 1904. If it had been re-barrelled, even before 1904, it would have been re-proofed & so marked.
Your best bet is to remove the forearm & take some photos of all of the markings on the barrel below thew fore-end.
As Smellie roughly stated "Usually, but not always, people purchasing government pattern arms wanted & ordered the then-current pattern." But as we can see from surviving B.S.A.Co. catalogues, that was not always the case. Of course, the same could be said for the Martini, as W.J.Jeffery, among others, were still offering commercial pattern Martini rifles in .577/450 until just before the Great War.
Of course he also stated:"It's been 100 years since first delivery and there is STILL nothing that can beat a 1910 Ross!" a statement with which I bet a heck of a lot of Canadian troops agreed with; Not a boot, not an entrenching tool, NOTHING can beat a Ross (open). R.I.P. Uncle Cecil. 1st CMR
The London Small Arms Company Ltd operated as a manufacturer between 1866-1935, (but no catalogues exist, or at least have been found).
So we know it was made between 1866 and 1935.
James Paris Lee and John James Speed both have patents; the last of them pertaining to this rifle, date from 1887. So add 17 to that number & we have 1887 to 1904 as patents only had to be acknowledged during their 17 year life span.
The London Proof Marks are the 1887-1904 pattern.
Lee pattern rifles were started to be manufactured for sale in 1888.
The Deeley patent bolt head (patent #19,145 of 1890 further tightens up the date, at least on the early end, because British patents expire after 17 years.
So, we now know we have a rifle manufactured & proofed between 1890 & 1904.
I don't see an E on the barrel knox form, but as has been noted, you could specify a Metford rifled barrel with your order right up until the beginning of the Great War. You could also still order a brand spanking new Lee Metford II* pattern rifle from B.S.A.Co. & one would presume, absent evidence to the contrary, also from L.S.A.Co.Ld., their main competitor for the commercial market, right up until 1914, although we have evidence, via the proof marks, that the rifle was produced prior to 1904. If it had been re-barrelled, even before 1904, it would have been re-proofed & so marked.
Your best bet is to remove the forearm & take some photos of all of the markings on the barrel below thew fore-end.
As Smellie roughly stated "Usually, but not always, people purchasing government pattern arms wanted & ordered the then-current pattern." But as we can see from surviving B.S.A.Co. catalogues, that was not always the case. Of course, the same could be said for the Martini, as W.J.Jeffery, among others, were still offering commercial pattern Martini rifles in .577/450 until just before the Great War.
Of course he also stated:"It's been 100 years since first delivery and there is STILL nothing that can beat a 1910 Ross!" a statement with which I bet a heck of a lot of Canadian troops agreed with; Not a boot, not an entrenching tool, NOTHING can beat a Ross (open). R.I.P. Uncle Cecil. 1st CMR
It should be pointed out that there are many examples of rifles with a manufacture date a lot later than the change in the pattern of arm & i'm talking full military marked actions, some were replacement actions but not all, i know of a 1903 Sparkbrook MLM MkII (believed to be a replacement reciever) & there are plenty of 1910 dated MkI (not MkI*) SMLEs in NZ, they are all BSA marked & have the royal cypher etc, would seem if a goverment like NZ wanted a earlier pattern of arm, then they could get it, just because a pattern of arm advanced, this did not automaticaly make earlier patterns unobtainable or even obsolete, that sort of thinking leads to people saying things like "the MkIII* replaced the MkIII in 1915" which seems to be a common mistake made by many.
Last edited:
I would agree with you smellie on that.
I have more Q's.
so if this gun was commercial made. who would have bought it? just some guy? or would it have been Canadian militia? maybe an officer in military for 'home' use?
I will get more pics of all the little markings.
I have more Q's.
so if this gun was commercial made. who would have bought it? just some guy? or would it have been Canadian militia? maybe an officer in military for 'home' use?
I will get more pics of all the little markings.
