Lee Enfield .410 Converted Back to .303 Help Needed

[TIGERTACTICAL]

Edit: Update on post #19
Hi CGN,

Seeking info on a unique Ishapore Lee Enfield .410 as I can’t seem to find much on the inter web.

Receiver is marked .410 RFI 1942 with a large P. The same large P is on top of the barrel just forward of the receiver.

Serial # 29### matches on the nose cap, bolt and receiver.

Wooden magazine plug is missing. (If it ever had it).

The chamber appears original but I can still see faint rifling down the bore.

The rear sight elevation is not pinned in place.

It’s in pretty remarkable condition for its age.

My questions are:
Is it possible this is a purpose built .410 as there is no conversion data on the right side of the receiver and numbers are matching?

What do the larges “P’s” signify?

I read the barrels have been bored out to .410. Would rifling still be visible?

Any significance on the unpinned rear sight?

Any idea of value?

Thanks in advance for any help!

 

[XRCD011]

I recall them selling in the old Gunrunner and Access to Firearms back in the 1980s and wish I had picked one up then (and a load of Ishapore FALs at $99 a crack). Sigh....those where the days.

 

[gerard488]

Probably was converted to 410 for prison guard use in India. Built as single shot with necked up 303 cases. 410 shotgun ammo does not fit although some people reamed them to take it. I remember reading that they were designed for mob control with not as much danger of bullets passing through (take out ringleaders, not the person behind them,), and in case they were taken by prisoners or stolen, they were a single shot rifle with no ammo available.

 

[uglydukwling]

Lee-Enfields were also converted to .410 in England because it was easier to qualify to own a shotgun than a rifle. These were done by civilian gunsmiths and many were one-offs, so they add to the confusion by not looking like a .410 Enfield is supposed to look. They may not even all be Ishapores.

 

[BlackPowderBurner]

Your musket is 100% a .410 bore Ishapore conversion as is shown by the new markings added to the butt socket on the LEFT side. No rifling should be visible at all. If it were a .303 Single Loader it would be marked "S.L." on the socket instead. If the wooden magazine plug was ever installed (almost a certainty given the markings) you should be able to see remains of the wooden dowels which held it in place through the fore stock. Your unpinned rear sight could be a replacement or was just never pinned. I am unfamiliar with the P mark and see no reference to it in the Skennerton tome in this context. Some of these guns were used here in Canada guarding DP (displaced persons) camps in western Ontario and probably other places too. Value wise it has issues both the missing parts, remaining rifling and broken handguard. I don't think it would go over $400 in that shape. Still, a nice find and they are VERY fun to shoot.

 

[TIGERTACTICAL]

Thank you all for your input

 

[TIGERTACTICAL]

Your musket is 100% a .410 bore Ishapore conversion as is shown by the new markings added to the butt socket on the LEFT side. No rifling should be visible at all. If it were a .303 Single Loader it would be marked "S.L." on the socket instead. If the wooden magazine plug was ever installed (almost a certainty given the markings) you should be able to see remains of the wooden dowels which held it in place through the fore stock. Your unpinned rear sight could be a replacement or was just never pinned. I am unfamiliar with the P mark and see no reference to it in the Skennerton tome in this context. Some of these guns were used here in Canada guarding DP (displaced persons) camps in western Ontario and probably other places too. Value wise it has issues both the missing parts, remaining rifling and broken handguard. I don't think it would go over $400 in that shape. Still, a nice find and they are VERY fun to shoot.

Thank you for the info,

Could you please clarify the broken handgaurd?

There are no remnants of wooden dowels in the mag well.

The remnants of rifling is still baffling me, as the chamber appears unmodified .410

I purchased it for a lot more than $400 so that hurts!

Thank you for the info, It definitely is an interesting piece.

 

[STG-44]

Could you take a picture of the muzzle end?

The fact that you're seeing rifling at all makes me wonder if it is a rebarrel back to 303? The rifling should be well gone from boring the barrel from .312 to .410.

How do you figure that the chamber is unmodified 410? The Indian 410 shells were just a blown out 303 case, hence why comercial 410 doesn't fit the original chamber.

 

[gerard488]

Could the rifling marks be actually tooling marks from cutting the bore bigger?

 

[.22LRGUY]

A No.1 Mk III that could shoot modern .410 shells=that would be fun. Saw a video on Forgotten Weapons about the Ishapore 410s, and the copy he was shooting was eating modern shells just fine. Made me want one badly, but I know little about them...or what it would take ($-wise) to get one of the originals altered to take modern ammo. Truth be told, I'd love just a wall-hanger Mk.III as I have no need for 303 British....BUT...if a nice, long, heavy gun like that would shoot .410, I could justify taking it out to play!

Congrats on the gun!

 

[kjohn]

Interesting firearms. I have one of each, the original conversion and one that takes .410 shot shells. One problem I had with the .410 shot shell version was the rim of the .410 is slimmer and didn't seem to want to strike the primer good enough. We used o-rings, then it worked. The .410 version I have will take fired .410 hulls without resizing. I have fiddled around with loading two .395 WW balls, cardboard wads and Trail Boss. Crudely glued the crimp with hot glue, as the crimp doesn't fold right in with the wads and two balls. Fun to play with, but still working on loads and an idea of what the old beast would actually be good for, other than some fun plinking.

I don't recall ever firing the original conversion yet, as I need to blow out some newer .303 brass.

I guess the old things would be fun to hunt Ruffed Grouse with. Load up some #6 shot and go hunting!

**Just to add to the mix, I also own a nicely "restored" No.1 Mk 3 that started out as a .303, was converted to .410 at Ishapore, then put back into .303, all properly marked on the firearm itself. I couldn't pass that one up, now could I ??

 

[.22LRGUY]

Interesting firearms. I have one of each, the original conversion and one that takes .410 shot shells. One problem I had with the .410 shot shell version was the rim of the .410 is slimmer and didn't seem to want to strike the primer good enough. We used o-rings, then it worked. The .410 version I have will take fired .410 hulls without resizing. I have fiddled around with loading two .395 WW balls, cardboard wads and Trail Boss. Crudely glued the crimp with hot glue, as the crimp doesn't fold right in with the wads and two balls. Fun to play with, but still working on loads and an idea of what the old beast would actually be good for, other than some fun plinking.

I don't recall ever firing the original conversion yet, as I need to blow out some newer .303 brass.

I guess the old things would be fun to hunt Ruffed Grouse with. Load up some #6 shot and go hunting!

**Just to add to the mix, I also own a nicely "restored" No.1 Mk 3 that started out as a .303, was converted to .410 at Ishapore, then put back into .303, all properly marked on the firearm itself. I couldn't pass that one up, now could I ??

Stay out of this Kjohn-some of us don't even have one.

 

[TIGERTACTICAL]

Could you take a picture of the muzzle end?

The fact that you're seeing rifling at all makes me wonder if it is a rebarrel back to 303? The rifling should be well gone from boring the barrel from .312 to .410.

How do you figure that the chamber is unmodified 410? The Indian 410 shells were just a blown out 303 case, hence why comercial 410 doesn't fit the original chamber.

You were correct. The reason I could see rifling is it is .303

What I meant by unmodified is that I could not see any signs of tooling.

 

[TIGERTACTICAL]

Interesting firearms. I have one of each, the original conversion and one that takes .410 shot shells. One problem I had with the .410 shot shell version was the rim of the .410 is slimmer and didn't seem to want to strike the primer good enough. We used o-rings, then it worked. The .410 version I have will take fired .410 hulls without resizing. I have fiddled around with loading two .395 WW balls, cardboard wads and Trail Boss. Crudely glued the crimp with hot glue, as the crimp doesn't fold right in with the wads and two balls. Fun to play with, but still working on loads and an idea of what the old beast would actually be good for, other than some fun plinking.

I don't recall ever firing the original conversion yet, as I need to blow out some newer .303 brass.

I guess the old things would be fun to hunt Ruffed Grouse with. Load up some #6 shot and go hunting!

**Just to add to the mix, I also own a nicely "restored" No.1 Mk 3 that started out as a .303, was converted to .410 at Ishapore, then put back into .303, all properly marked on the firearm itself. I couldn't pass that one up, now could I ??

KJohn,

Could you please check your .410 that was converted back to .303 for the same P marking on barrel and receiver than mine have?

 

[TIGERTACTICAL]

Update:

I brought the rifle to a friend and verified headspace which it passed.

He seems to think the P could me “police” and agrees that the rifle looks like a factory conversion back to .303 and that’s why the markings on the right side of the receiver are absent.

That’s reason the rear sight was not pinned.

That’s also the reason for no dowel remnants on the stock. And serial number is a match on the wood behind bayonet lug.

All numbers match including the wood and the rifle appears to be unfired with cozmoline in the action.

I’m looking into if I can find the magazine which should have the same serial number.

I’m starting to believe this rifle may have been factory converted twice in its life.

More input please!

 

[tiriaq]

You would think that if the gun was officially converted back to .303, the .410 stamping would have been lined out.

 

[TIGERTACTICAL]

You would think that if the gun was officially converted back to .303, the .410 stamping would have been lined out.

I would agree, but I believe that may be the significance on the P that’s on the receiver and barrel.
Also I think if I can find the matching magazine, it would make it more likely it was a ISA factory conversion.
Could have happened decades after 1942 when it was first converted to .410

 

[kjohn]

KJohn,

Could you please check your .410 that was converted back to .303 for the same P marking on barrel and receiver than mine have?

I will try to remember tomorrow, as the rifle is at my shop right now.

 

[TIGERTACTICAL]

Update:

With some help, I’ve done a lot of research on this unique enfield and found some interesting info.

The .410 Musket Enfield was produced from 1926-1950 at around 250000 units
The No.1 MkI/3 conversions happened from 1960-1966 at around 20 000 units
(Info from Robert Edwards India’s Enfield)

Scrubbing of receivers started in ‘41 and that’s why the 1910-1920 original data is missing.
My receiver has the pre 1947 independence GRI stamp on the receiver.

Ishapore started marking serial numbers with a Z prefix and worked backwards. Mine is an R prefix.

Research tells me that the P on the receiver means: Major replacement parts.

Sights: interesting to note that foresight protector is WWI MkIII/III* and not the post WWII Indian squared version.
Rear is standard WWI type.

Stock does not have the Ishapore screw

Bolt head is marked M: malleable cast iron specification

The barrel is very interesting:

The P signifies replacement barrel
Has a square or rectangle stamp showing it is a “hold in store” barrel
Has the British GR over P stamp showing it to be a 1910-1936 barrel
HV stamp behind rear sight
Possibly a 1918 or 1924 barrel

When it went through FTR (Factory Thorough Refinish) program it was completely overhauled.
Serial numbers match: Receiver, barrel, rear sight, wood, nose cap and bolt.

During the FTR they did attempt to strike out the .410 marking but did such a piss poor job that there is only a faint line connecting the one and zero and a line on either side of .410!

So I’m about %100 convinced that this rifle was factory overhauled twice in its over 100 year long life.

 

[BlackPowderBurner]

Update:

With some help, I’ve done a lot of research on this unique enfield and found some interesting info.

The .410 Musket Enfield was produced from 1926-1950 at around 250000 units
The No.1 MkI/3 conversions happened from 1960-1966 at around 20 000 units
(Info from Robert Edwards India’s Enfield)

Scrubbing of receivers started in ‘41 and that’s why the 1910-1920 original data is missing.
My receiver has the pre 1947 independence GRI stamp on the receiver.

Ishapore started marking serial numbers with a Z prefix and worked backwards. Mine is an R prefix.

Research tells me that the P on the receiver means: Major replacement parts.

Sights: interesting to note that foresight protector is WWI MkIII/III* and not the post WWII Indian squared version.
Rear is standard WWI type.

Stock does not have the Ishapore screw

Bolt head is marked M: malleable cast iron specification

The barrel is very interesting:

The P signifies replacement barrel
Has a square or rectangle stamp showing it is a “hold in store” barrel
Has the British GR over P stamp showing it to be a 1910-1936 barrel
HV stamp behind rear sight
Possibly a 1918 or 1924 barrel

When it went through FTR (Factory Thorough Refinish) program it was completely overhauled.
Serial numbers match: Receiver, barrel, rear sight, wood, nose cap and bolt.

During the FTR they did attempt to strike out the .410 marking but did such a piss poor job that there is only a faint line connecting the one and zero and a line on either side of .410!

So I’m about %100 convinced that this rifle was factory overhauled twice in its over 100 year long life.

Very cool! Happy to hear you've pieced it together. There are photos kicking around the internet of a few of these that were converted and reconverted more than once. The Indians certainly didn't let their rifles go to waste.