Lee–Metford
- Thread starter mitch-ell
- Start date
match-ell: Could easily be worth $2000.00. You should consider putting it on the EE. Lots of us do shoot these older ones but my 1889 Lee Metford I* is one I chose not to just cause of age, value and rarity. I would advise you to take your time and fully assess this rifle before deciding what to do with it. If you're at all inclined to collect Lee Enfields you'll likely never be able to replace this one- every collection needs one!
milsurpo
milsurpo
This is also an 1890 Sparkbrook Mk.I MLM.
It is a project amongst many other projects.
You can see the bolt head shroud and the rear handguard that are missing from yours.
The mag spring will be a challenge to find.
The handguard from a Mk.II will not fit without some rework as the Mk.I barrel is considerably fatter.
Hence I make my own wood.
It is a project amongst many other projects.
You can see the bolt head shroud and the rear handguard that are missing from yours.
The mag spring will be a challenge to find.
The handguard from a Mk.II will not fit without some rework as the Mk.I barrel is considerably fatter.
Hence I make my own wood.
Attachments
Is the rear sight the original graduated to 1900 yd, the BP sight to 1600 or the Cordite sight 1800?
There is general but false belief that the BP .303" ctg was a low pressure round. British Ordnance rated the BP ctg at 19 tons psi and the cordite MkII at 16 tons psi.
There is general but false belief that the BP .303" ctg was a low pressure round. British Ordnance rated the BP ctg at 19 tons psi and the cordite MkII at 16 tons psi.
Green,
I read your comment with interest regarding the sighting.
The original sights as introduced with the rifle would have been the Lewes sighting system.
For those not familiar with these, the front sight block had no blade, but a vertical slit cut in the block. The rear sight leaf had a square notch. To align the sights, the front sight block was set in the rear notch so that light could be seen either side of the block, the top of the slit was lined up with the target. So if everything was good, the shooter would see three strips of light. It didn't work too well and the Mk.I* was introduced in 1890 less than a year into production. The Mk.I* had regular barleycorn and V notch sighting.
Mk.I rifles were returned to the factory for the Mk.I* updates. The rear leaf was changed out and a barleycorn insert cut and pinned into the front sight ramp. The OP's rifle has the update so officially it would be a Mk.I*.
There were other tweaks to the rifle with the Mk.I* change, which included the removal of the receiver mounted safety catch, but the sighting change was the definitive one.
I have only seen the 1800 yard calibrated leafs, not seen 1900 or 1600 yardage ones. Do you have any examples to show? This is fascinating.
I read your comment with interest regarding the sighting.
The original sights as introduced with the rifle would have been the Lewes sighting system.
For those not familiar with these, the front sight block had no blade, but a vertical slit cut in the block. The rear sight leaf had a square notch. To align the sights, the front sight block was set in the rear notch so that light could be seen either side of the block, the top of the slit was lined up with the target. So if everything was good, the shooter would see three strips of light. It didn't work too well and the Mk.I* was introduced in 1890 less than a year into production. The Mk.I* had regular barleycorn and V notch sighting.
Mk.I rifles were returned to the factory for the Mk.I* updates. The rear leaf was changed out and a barleycorn insert cut and pinned into the front sight ramp. The OP's rifle has the update so officially it would be a Mk.I*.
There were other tweaks to the rifle with the Mk.I* change, which included the removal of the receiver mounted safety catch, but the sighting change was the definitive one.
I have only seen the 1800 yard calibrated leafs, not seen 1900 or 1600 yardage ones. Do you have any examples to show? This is fascinating.
Last edited:
If it is a Lee Speed, it isn't a Mk.I*
Maybe just semantics, but military contract rifles were made to a sealed pattern. A commercial made rifle (Lee Speed) did not have to comply to the sealed pattern example. However, some did comply, some didn't.
Member John Deer mentions a 1600 yard calibrated sight leaf on his Lee Speed. Not a military pattern rifle, not a military pattern leaf .
Some Lee Speed rifles were pretty close to military spec. These sometimes wear an extra inspection mark and number of record to show that the factory inspected and certified the rifle to meet military specs. This would allow them to be used in service rifle competition.
1900 yard calibrated leaves are to be found on Mk.II Lee Metfords and Mk.I Lee Enfields that have been resighted for Mk.VII (pointy bullet) ammo. At a glance the sight can be recognised by a much taller leaf cap.
Some Mk.I Lee Metfords were rebarreled with Enfield rifled barrels (and so marked on the nock's flat), but I am not aware if they were later resighted for the the Mk.VII cartridge. My OCD is kicking in, I now need to find out.
Maybe just semantics, but military contract rifles were made to a sealed pattern. A commercial made rifle (Lee Speed) did not have to comply to the sealed pattern example. However, some did comply, some didn't.
Member John Deer mentions a 1600 yard calibrated sight leaf on his Lee Speed. Not a military pattern rifle, not a military pattern leaf .
Some Lee Speed rifles were pretty close to military spec. These sometimes wear an extra inspection mark and number of record to show that the factory inspected and certified the rifle to meet military specs. This would allow them to be used in service rifle competition.
1900 yard calibrated leaves are to be found on Mk.II Lee Metfords and Mk.I Lee Enfields that have been resighted for Mk.VII (pointy bullet) ammo. At a glance the sight can be recognised by a much taller leaf cap.
Some Mk.I Lee Metfords were rebarreled with Enfield rifled barrels (and so marked on the nock's flat), but I am not aware if they were later resighted for the the Mk.VII cartridge. My OCD is kicking in, I now need to find out.
.... my request to join the EE hasn't went trough yet.
Here is a pic of an MLM Mk.I* being fitted with a bolt taken from a CLLE Mk.I* (Charger Loading Lee Enfield).
In the evolution from MLM Mk.I to Mk.II, the bolt went through a number of changes, one of them being strengthening the lower bolt lug by substantially increasing its size.
The corresponding passage for the larger lug in the bottom of receiver boltway was also increased. Hence, the larger Mk.II bolt lug will foul in the passage of the Mk.I and the bolt can not even be inserted into the rifle.
A Mk.I bolt body can be slipped into a Mk.II receiver, but not the other way around. I just tried it.
The lower recoil lug on this bolt was reduced back to MLM Mk.I proportions. The back face of the lug that takes the thrust from recoil is in the same relative position on both, so no modification needed on a critical surface. The large lug remains unchanged.
The bolt fits and functions just fine.
In the evolution from MLM Mk.I to Mk.II, the bolt went through a number of changes, one of them being strengthening the lower bolt lug by substantially increasing its size.
The corresponding passage for the larger lug in the bottom of receiver boltway was also increased. Hence, the larger Mk.II bolt lug will foul in the passage of the Mk.I and the bolt can not even be inserted into the rifle.
A Mk.I bolt body can be slipped into a Mk.II receiver, but not the other way around. I just tried it.
The lower recoil lug on this bolt was reduced back to MLM Mk.I proportions. The back face of the lug that takes the thrust from recoil is in the same relative position on both, so no modification needed on a critical surface. The large lug remains unchanged.
The bolt fits and functions just fine.
Attachments
Last edited:
Englishman,
Thanks for posting the pics. I was not aware that the MLM Mk 1* (and Mk 1?) Had a different trigger and sear arrangement than the later Long Lees. What is the hole in the receiver body behind the cutoff pivot pin and below the slot?
Thanks for posting the pics. I was not aware that the MLM Mk 1* (and Mk 1?) Had a different trigger and sear arrangement than the later Long Lees. What is the hole in the receiver body behind the cutoff pivot pin and below the slot?
The magazine cut off has a separate detent spring mounted below. The hole is for the spring's mounting screw.
The time period was one of great technical change in the military world. There was an arms race and Britain was getting left behind by both the French and the Prussians. Not a good thing in the eyes of the Empire.
So there was political pressure to hurry up with the new rifle. The Mk.I was very much a design in progress.
The Magazine Rifle Mk.I sealed pattern was approved in 1888 and production started in 1899. Full production started rolling out in 1890.
The rifle was intended from day one to use a high velocity smokeless cartridge. However, the design of the rifle was released for production even before there was ammunition available for it.
The Mk.I black powder cartridge was a temporary measure until the smokeless propellant was developed and released as the Mk.I Cordite cartridge in 1891.
There is a lot of folk law repeated about Metford rifling and the early 303 Brit cartridge. It had a full cupro-nickle jacketed bullet and actually had more ooomph than the smokeless cartridge that replaced it. The black powder cartridges were recalled and used only for training or converted to blanks. Consequently, they are quite rare to find.
The Mk.I* rifle updates were a quick fix of known problems while the Mk.II was being readied. Mk.IIs rolled out in 1892.
They got it right with the Mk.II. The 1892 receiver design with its ten round double stacked magazine became the standard. There were variations to it to produce the carbine versions and later, the design was used again with updates to become the Sht.LE. Many of the parts are interchangeable between marks and models.
I have a MLM Mk.1 receiver fitted with a Sht.LE mag catch and spring, No.4 trigger and a No.5 sear. Double trigger pull off is just about perfect with the SMLE cocking piece.
The time period was one of great technical change in the military world. There was an arms race and Britain was getting left behind by both the French and the Prussians. Not a good thing in the eyes of the Empire.
So there was political pressure to hurry up with the new rifle. The Mk.I was very much a design in progress.
The Magazine Rifle Mk.I sealed pattern was approved in 1888 and production started in 1899. Full production started rolling out in 1890.
The rifle was intended from day one to use a high velocity smokeless cartridge. However, the design of the rifle was released for production even before there was ammunition available for it.
The Mk.I black powder cartridge was a temporary measure until the smokeless propellant was developed and released as the Mk.I Cordite cartridge in 1891.
There is a lot of folk law repeated about Metford rifling and the early 303 Brit cartridge. It had a full cupro-nickle jacketed bullet and actually had more ooomph than the smokeless cartridge that replaced it. The black powder cartridges were recalled and used only for training or converted to blanks. Consequently, they are quite rare to find.
The Mk.I* rifle updates were a quick fix of known problems while the Mk.II was being readied. Mk.IIs rolled out in 1892.
They got it right with the Mk.II. The 1892 receiver design with its ten round double stacked magazine became the standard. There were variations to it to produce the carbine versions and later, the design was used again with updates to become the Sht.LE. Many of the parts are interchangeable between marks and models.
I have a MLM Mk.1 receiver fitted with a Sht.LE mag catch and spring, No.4 trigger and a No.5 sear. Double trigger pull off is just about perfect with the SMLE cocking piece.
Attachments
Last edited:
Fascinating stuff john Deere, I consider myself a student of the Lee Metford, here is something new for me. A 1600 yard WD marked sight leaf?
Would you be so kind as to post a couple of pics, please? Markings especially. I am very interested to see how it is graduated.
First off let me appologise for this rambling post. My friend, who is a doctor, psychoanalyzed me while we drank beer one night. Apparently my brain when problem solving, addresses several inter-relating dimensions at once. My thought pattern at any instant tends to be at every point in the known universe simultaneously. . . . 42. .
I was going to edit this down a bit, but I thought that I might just share my thoughts (eek! scary!).
This morning's conundrum for me was the question about a leaf sight on a MLM that was calibrated to 1600 yards. I have not seen one before.
So I was fascinated by some pics sent to me by John Deere (thanks Kevin). Enfield 'minutia' is something that seems to satisfy my OCD.
I cannot make a definite assertion as to what is going on here with the rear sight, but I have a few clues for the 'forensic restorer'.
The sight leaf.
It is numbered to the rifle, suggesting that is is an original to that rifle. For sure it could be marked by anybody who had stamps, but the stamping is neat and looks factory. I am satisfied that it is original. It has the dimple at the bottom of the ladder at the back, so it is Mk.I MLM in form. Not sure about the fit of the ladder to the ends and the sides of the sight ramps, the clearance seems a wee bit excessive.
The graduations on it are interesting. 1600 yards. This is new to me on a Lee Metford. The leaf is certainly not military, in that although numbered to the rifle, there is no Govt acceptance marking (WD or broad arrow or both) marked on the lower front face. The leaf cap is of MLM form.
The slider I am certain is not MLM. I say that because of a couple of things. Firstly, the width of the slider top to bottom, it is wide. Way wider than those installed on a MLM/MLE, however, it is about the same proportions as that of the slider found on a Mk.I Martini Henry.
Martini Henry Mk.I
Another clue is the back of the slider has ears that are finished square to the sight as per Mk.I Martini Henry. MLM and MLE sliders had the ears at the back tapered to a triangle form. Maybe my imagination, but I think I might be able to see a factory inspection mark on the back on the right hand ear. Closer examination needed.
The way that the slider sits right now, it will not bear on the sight ramps, the ears are too short and don't stick out far enough to reach the ramps, so adjusting the slider up and down the ladder will have no effect on the range setting??
I can see that the V notch that is in it now is somebody's creation, not factory. The bottom of the slider has been shaved a bit witnessed by the relative positions of the ends of the knurled radii, they are no longer symmetrical. Very subtle, but I can see it.
Looking at it again, another possibility is that it is a Mk.II MH slider much modified, however, the knurling is different.
My gut feeling is that the slider was switched out and modified to try to correct sighting. The V notch looks to be offset a wee bit to the left. In later years (Boer war) it was discovered that the factory sighting was incorrect and that most rifles shot to the right of the point of aim. So a retro sight leaf was introduced in 1902 to correct for bullet drift.
So this is a known problem of the MLM and MLE rifles. Home made adjustments are quite commonly found on post service rifles that were done by a civilian owner.
Here is a tip for you. With ALL Enfield rear sighting, the V notch cut in a slider or leaf cap has sides set at at 45 degrees. IE, the V notch has a root angle of 90 degrees. A quick way to tell if a sight leaf or slider is untouched or if modified by Bubba, is to eyeball the V notch. Nine times out of ten when farmer Brown or Bubba (maybe Bubba Brown?) 'improves' the factory sighting, he grabs a triangular file from the workshop to deepen the triangular notch. Such a file has three corners with a 60 degree angle and is best left for sharpening saw blades..
So if you have a leaf sight with a notch that aint 90 degrees, it has been modified. This theory is blown if Bubba uses a square file, but often the size is increased noticeably.
The sight bed.
It does have a British Govt acceptance marking of WD broad arrow. Undisputedly a military part. So what is it doing on a commercial arm?
Some collectors tell me that military marked parts were commonly used on commercial arms at the factory.
I don't buy this. The broad arrow is a property ownership stamp of the British Government. I would be pissed if I ordered a commercial arm, which were not cheap by any stretch of the imagination, paid good bucks and then found Brit Govt parts on it!!!
Every commercial arm that I have handled and I determined as being very much untouched have zero govt marked parts. A rifle that has miles on it and a shaded or unknown past, sometimes have a mix match of military marked parts. And why not? I repair commercial arms and will fit any part that is correct, unmarked or not. Only on high end restorations of a commercial arm that is something rare or valuable will I go extra lengths and find an unmarked part to install.
The sight base dos appear to be generally MLM style. I would have liked to see a picture of the slider ramps. MLM ramps run uphill straight where as MH ramps have stages or bumps. I think that in the pic from above I can see the edges of the bumps. It is from an older rifle of some sort.
The graduations are on the left hand side of the base (MH are on the right) and run from 300 yards (which is significant) to unknown yards, I cant see more in the picture.
MH bases run 100 to 400 with a leaf from 500 to 1200, MLM bases run 200 to 500 with a leaf 600 to 1800, CLLE run 200 to 600 yards with a leaf that runs 700 to 1900. So excuse me while I extrapolate, the subject leaf showing 500 to 1600 I would expect to be be mounted on a base that runs up to 400. Since this base pictured starts at 300, it would have only two sight settings, 300 and 400? Which may well be, as I dont see any additional range marks. Hmmm, things that make me go hmmm.
Every military MLM, MLE LEC or LMC sight bed that I have seen, the base graduations start at 200 yards. So now I am searching for info on which military rifle had a sight base graduations that started at 300 yards. I probably won't be able to sleep tonight..
More clues. At the factory, the rear screw was installed when the sight base was soldered to the barrel. Unless enough heat is applied to the base to melt the solder, the screw is difficult to take out. Many spare sight bases floating around have rear screws with a chewed slot. Or even worse, Bubba took the screws out and thinks that the sight base is just stuck and should come off. So he gets a hammer and screwdriver to give the base a bump. It don't budge so he hits it harder.
The first thing I do when selecting a sight base is to look for bruising or tool marks where force was used to remove it from the barrel.
The clues are there to suggest that the sight leaf and base are NOT undisturbed since the factory. The pivot pin that secures the leaf originally had domed ends. There are special gunsmith punches that have a little concave in the end for driving out such pins. Most workbenches have flat faced punches which will put a flat on the end of the pin. I see that the pins has been removed at some time. The rear screw is not mint anymore, I would suggest that it has been removed at some time.'It dont mean nothin', this is an old rifle, it might have been taken apart 100 times.
So after all this rambling, my conclusions...
The sight leaf graduated to 1600 yards is original to the rifle, but it is not military pattern.
I am thinking that the sight base has been switched out for an unknown military unit and the original commercial sight leaf reinstalled with a modified slider taken from a Martini Henry. This all was done playing with the sighting to get it onto target. All service rifles shoot high to point of aim, and most MLM and MLE shoot off to the right.
The front barrel band is also govt marked, so it too has been switched out. No big deal, but points to the fact that this rifle has been repaired and maintained during its life and that commonly available take off military parts have been used.
And the reveal....
I am not knocking the rifle. I would love to see another thread with more pics. But if this came across my bench, I would no doubt make changes. Yes, this might be destroying part of the rifle's history, I get that. But changes not just to be authentic as per factory build, but to restore functionality of the sight.
Just me, but I would remove the current sight bed and install a regular MLM/MLE unit. I probably could find a commercial one in the bins with no inspection or govt markings. The 1600 yard leaf sight would be reinstalled with a regular MLM/MLE slider. I could then at least adjust for elevation.
If the rifle shot off to the right, I would try the install the leaf cap and slider taken from one of the offset retrofit leafs to help bring it back onto point of aim.
I was going to edit this down a bit, but I thought that I might just share my thoughts (eek! scary!).
This morning's conundrum for me was the question about a leaf sight on a MLM that was calibrated to 1600 yards. I have not seen one before.
So I was fascinated by some pics sent to me by John Deere (thanks Kevin). Enfield 'minutia' is something that seems to satisfy my OCD.
I cannot make a definite assertion as to what is going on here with the rear sight, but I have a few clues for the 'forensic restorer'.
The sight leaf.
It is numbered to the rifle, suggesting that is is an original to that rifle. For sure it could be marked by anybody who had stamps, but the stamping is neat and looks factory. I am satisfied that it is original. It has the dimple at the bottom of the ladder at the back, so it is Mk.I MLM in form. Not sure about the fit of the ladder to the ends and the sides of the sight ramps, the clearance seems a wee bit excessive.
The graduations on it are interesting. 1600 yards. This is new to me on a Lee Metford. The leaf is certainly not military, in that although numbered to the rifle, there is no Govt acceptance marking (WD or broad arrow or both) marked on the lower front face. The leaf cap is of MLM form.
The slider I am certain is not MLM. I say that because of a couple of things. Firstly, the width of the slider top to bottom, it is wide. Way wider than those installed on a MLM/MLE, however, it is about the same proportions as that of the slider found on a Mk.I Martini Henry.
Martini Henry Mk.I
Another clue is the back of the slider has ears that are finished square to the sight as per Mk.I Martini Henry. MLM and MLE sliders had the ears at the back tapered to a triangle form. Maybe my imagination, but I think I might be able to see a factory inspection mark on the back on the right hand ear. Closer examination needed.
The way that the slider sits right now, it will not bear on the sight ramps, the ears are too short and don't stick out far enough to reach the ramps, so adjusting the slider up and down the ladder will have no effect on the range setting??
I can see that the V notch that is in it now is somebody's creation, not factory. The bottom of the slider has been shaved a bit witnessed by the relative positions of the ends of the knurled radii, they are no longer symmetrical. Very subtle, but I can see it.
Looking at it again, another possibility is that it is a Mk.II MH slider much modified, however, the knurling is different.
My gut feeling is that the slider was switched out and modified to try to correct sighting. The V notch looks to be offset a wee bit to the left. In later years (Boer war) it was discovered that the factory sighting was incorrect and that most rifles shot to the right of the point of aim. So a retro sight leaf was introduced in 1902 to correct for bullet drift.
So this is a known problem of the MLM and MLE rifles. Home made adjustments are quite commonly found on post service rifles that were done by a civilian owner.
Here is a tip for you. With ALL Enfield rear sighting, the V notch cut in a slider or leaf cap has sides set at at 45 degrees. IE, the V notch has a root angle of 90 degrees. A quick way to tell if a sight leaf or slider is untouched or if modified by Bubba, is to eyeball the V notch. Nine times out of ten when farmer Brown or Bubba (maybe Bubba Brown?) 'improves' the factory sighting, he grabs a triangular file from the workshop to deepen the triangular notch. Such a file has three corners with a 60 degree angle and is best left for sharpening saw blades..
So if you have a leaf sight with a notch that aint 90 degrees, it has been modified. This theory is blown if Bubba uses a square file, but often the size is increased noticeably.
The sight bed.
It does have a British Govt acceptance marking of WD broad arrow. Undisputedly a military part. So what is it doing on a commercial arm?
Some collectors tell me that military marked parts were commonly used on commercial arms at the factory.
I don't buy this. The broad arrow is a property ownership stamp of the British Government. I would be pissed if I ordered a commercial arm, which were not cheap by any stretch of the imagination, paid good bucks and then found Brit Govt parts on it!!!
Every commercial arm that I have handled and I determined as being very much untouched have zero govt marked parts. A rifle that has miles on it and a shaded or unknown past, sometimes have a mix match of military marked parts. And why not? I repair commercial arms and will fit any part that is correct, unmarked or not. Only on high end restorations of a commercial arm that is something rare or valuable will I go extra lengths and find an unmarked part to install.
The sight base dos appear to be generally MLM style. I would have liked to see a picture of the slider ramps. MLM ramps run uphill straight where as MH ramps have stages or bumps. I think that in the pic from above I can see the edges of the bumps. It is from an older rifle of some sort.
The graduations are on the left hand side of the base (MH are on the right) and run from 300 yards (which is significant) to unknown yards, I cant see more in the picture.
MH bases run 100 to 400 with a leaf from 500 to 1200, MLM bases run 200 to 500 with a leaf 600 to 1800, CLLE run 200 to 600 yards with a leaf that runs 700 to 1900. So excuse me while I extrapolate, the subject leaf showing 500 to 1600 I would expect to be be mounted on a base that runs up to 400. Since this base pictured starts at 300, it would have only two sight settings, 300 and 400? Which may well be, as I dont see any additional range marks. Hmmm, things that make me go hmmm.
Every military MLM, MLE LEC or LMC sight bed that I have seen, the base graduations start at 200 yards. So now I am searching for info on which military rifle had a sight base graduations that started at 300 yards. I probably won't be able to sleep tonight..
More clues. At the factory, the rear screw was installed when the sight base was soldered to the barrel. Unless enough heat is applied to the base to melt the solder, the screw is difficult to take out. Many spare sight bases floating around have rear screws with a chewed slot. Or even worse, Bubba took the screws out and thinks that the sight base is just stuck and should come off. So he gets a hammer and screwdriver to give the base a bump. It don't budge so he hits it harder.
The first thing I do when selecting a sight base is to look for bruising or tool marks where force was used to remove it from the barrel.
The clues are there to suggest that the sight leaf and base are NOT undisturbed since the factory. The pivot pin that secures the leaf originally had domed ends. There are special gunsmith punches that have a little concave in the end for driving out such pins. Most workbenches have flat faced punches which will put a flat on the end of the pin. I see that the pins has been removed at some time. The rear screw is not mint anymore, I would suggest that it has been removed at some time.'It dont mean nothin', this is an old rifle, it might have been taken apart 100 times.
So after all this rambling, my conclusions...
The sight leaf graduated to 1600 yards is original to the rifle, but it is not military pattern.
I am thinking that the sight base has been switched out for an unknown military unit and the original commercial sight leaf reinstalled with a modified slider taken from a Martini Henry. This all was done playing with the sighting to get it onto target. All service rifles shoot high to point of aim, and most MLM and MLE shoot off to the right.
The front barrel band is also govt marked, so it too has been switched out. No big deal, but points to the fact that this rifle has been repaired and maintained during its life and that commonly available take off military parts have been used.
And the reveal....
I am not knocking the rifle. I would love to see another thread with more pics. But if this came across my bench, I would no doubt make changes. Yes, this might be destroying part of the rifle's history, I get that. But changes not just to be authentic as per factory build, but to restore functionality of the sight.
Just me, but I would remove the current sight bed and install a regular MLM/MLE unit. I probably could find a commercial one in the bins with no inspection or govt markings. The 1600 yard leaf sight would be reinstalled with a regular MLM/MLE slider. I could then at least adjust for elevation.
If the rifle shot off to the right, I would try the install the leaf cap and slider taken from one of the offset retrofit leafs to help bring it back onto point of aim.
Attachments
Last edited:
Ah, then in that case, the ones that I have seen are for cordite. That is quite a dramatic change in trajectory (1600 to 1800) going black powder to smokeless.
Most and all MLM MK.I rifles that I have encountered are actually Mk.I* and have the 1800 yard sight leaf with a pinned front insert. Smokeless cartridges came out in 1891, the conversions to Mk.I* started in or around the same year.
I would imagine that conversion from Lewes sights to black powder calibrated barleycorn and v notch were a short lived run at the factory.
If I am not mistaken, production of new Mk.I* rifles began in late 1890. These would be the ones with black powder sighting.
All 1892 MLM Mk.II rifles had 1800 yard cordite calibrated sights.
We need a trip to the Pattern Room in Leeds.
Most and all MLM MK.I rifles that I have encountered are actually Mk.I* and have the 1800 yard sight leaf with a pinned front insert. Smokeless cartridges came out in 1891, the conversions to Mk.I* started in or around the same year.
I would imagine that conversion from Lewes sights to black powder calibrated barleycorn and v notch were a short lived run at the factory.
If I am not mistaken, production of new Mk.I* rifles began in late 1890. These would be the ones with black powder sighting.
All 1892 MLM Mk.II rifles had 1800 yard cordite calibrated sights.
We need a trip to the Pattern Room in Leeds.
So here we go, I laid awake all night thinking about this....
Green sent me some pics of an incredible specimen of a very early Lee Metford Mk.I which answer some of my questions, but has created just as many as it answered.
The sight base on John Deere's rifle with the 1600 yard sights appears to be an original Lewes sight base.
No wonder that I could not figure it out. Total unknown area to me, that is why I am all over this (OCD?). MLM Mk.I rifles are rare to start with. Rifles with the original Lewes sighting system even more so. There are probably no more than a handful still in existance.
I have never encountered one in the thirty years that I have been collecting Lee Metfords. I have handled hundreds of rifles and I examine details.
Can you tell that I am excited?
Green's pics
Note the square cut notch in the rear sight leaf and the block front sight with the vertical slit in it. To me this is just amazing to see a survivor in such wonderful condition.
And there it is, a sight base with two range settings 300 and 400 yards and two bumps in the sight ramps. Ah ha!
The Lewes base on John Deere's rifle is a military marked unit. I still don't think that it is original to the commercial rifle onto which it installed.
The 1600 yard sight leaf mounted into the base as I have been led to believe is a black powder calibrated barley corn and V notch one, and it appears to be original to the rifle.
A V notch leaf on a Lewes sight base to me, is a miss-match. I just can't imagine that ramps would coincidentally work for such a calibrated leaf. I could be wrong and would be the first to admit it, maybe the factory did the update in this fashion, but I just can't see it. Man I would love to see the Engineering Change Notices at the factory on this one.
I figure that the current combination of Lewes and V notch components would present problems when adjusting the sight for range. Maybe it works fine? We need a range report from John Deere.
I think that a previous owner has been playing with sighting adjustments. Hence the modified Martini sight slider with the new V notch and abbreviated ears on the back.
No doubt that there were a few 'take off' obscolete Lewes parts floating around at that time. They switched out the base with what was on hand.
Maybe somebody was trying to 'improve' the authenticity when restoring and were working towards putting early sights back on it? Maybe a lot of things. We just don't know.
But now I have an idea of what I am looking at. I will sleep tonight!
Now to move onto the receiver mounted safety catch setup that was on initial production and subsequently deleted. The safety was removed and a blanking piece installed to accept the volley sight arm in the Mk.I* upgrade done at the same time as the sighting updates.
Green sent me some pics of an incredible specimen of a very early Lee Metford Mk.I which answer some of my questions, but has created just as many as it answered.
The sight base on John Deere's rifle with the 1600 yard sights appears to be an original Lewes sight base.
No wonder that I could not figure it out. Total unknown area to me, that is why I am all over this (OCD?). MLM Mk.I rifles are rare to start with. Rifles with the original Lewes sighting system even more so. There are probably no more than a handful still in existance.
I have never encountered one in the thirty years that I have been collecting Lee Metfords. I have handled hundreds of rifles and I examine details.
Can you tell that I am excited?
Green's pics
Note the square cut notch in the rear sight leaf and the block front sight with the vertical slit in it. To me this is just amazing to see a survivor in such wonderful condition.
And there it is, a sight base with two range settings 300 and 400 yards and two bumps in the sight ramps. Ah ha!
The Lewes base on John Deere's rifle is a military marked unit. I still don't think that it is original to the commercial rifle onto which it installed.
The 1600 yard sight leaf mounted into the base as I have been led to believe is a black powder calibrated barley corn and V notch one, and it appears to be original to the rifle.
A V notch leaf on a Lewes sight base to me, is a miss-match. I just can't imagine that ramps would coincidentally work for such a calibrated leaf. I could be wrong and would be the first to admit it, maybe the factory did the update in this fashion, but I just can't see it. Man I would love to see the Engineering Change Notices at the factory on this one.
I figure that the current combination of Lewes and V notch components would present problems when adjusting the sight for range. Maybe it works fine? We need a range report from John Deere.
I think that a previous owner has been playing with sighting adjustments. Hence the modified Martini sight slider with the new V notch and abbreviated ears on the back.
No doubt that there were a few 'take off' obscolete Lewes parts floating around at that time. They switched out the base with what was on hand.
Maybe somebody was trying to 'improve' the authenticity when restoring and were working towards putting early sights back on it? Maybe a lot of things. We just don't know.
But now I have an idea of what I am looking at. I will sleep tonight!
Now to move onto the receiver mounted safety catch setup that was on initial production and subsequently deleted. The safety was removed and a blanking piece installed to accept the volley sight arm in the Mk.I* upgrade done at the same time as the sighting updates.
