Lee Metford MK ?

tokguy

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
93   0   0
Location
Buffalo Republic
Any experts here this morning?
Not really my Forte, these old LE's
xsgSE2gh.jpg

CNp9wSTh.jpg


Yn1Oj9jh.jpg

Borrowed a No. 4 magazine from my son, fit and function are startlingly good.

9pgoZkph.jpg

Why the extended sweep below the Volley peep, some have it and some don't?

TjtPmobh.jpg

Re-stamped Range markings?

Thanks for veiwing.
Tokguy
 
Hard to say what it started our as but, as it is currently configured, it would be a Mk II*. The Mk I has a single stack magazine and the Mk II and Mk II* have the double stack. The Mk II does not have a safety and the Mk II* has the safety seen on yours. By the way, the magazine in your rifle is for a No 4/No 5, not an SMLE/Long Lee. The extended sweep below the volley peep is a finger groove to facilitate lifting the sight.
 
The rifle is one manufactured for the commercial market by BSA post WWI (my best guess, civvy rifles are difficult to date).

Andrews was a bespoke London gun maker who probably purchased this one directly from BSA and retailed it through their store. They could have regulated it or might have merely retailed it with their name stamp applied.

The markings underneath the hand guard would tell us a lot. Depending on the rifling in the barrel, it could be generally refered to as a Mk.II* Lee Metford, or most likely, a Lee Enfield Mk.I.
But purists will tell you that only military contract rifles should be referred to by model and mark.
The model being a commercial version did not have to be built to a sealed pattern so could have variations from military specs.
Metford rifling has seven groves, Enfield has five.

The magazine fits and functions is a bit of luck. Usually No.4 series mags are too squared in the body and too tight to fit the long Lee mag well. Methinks that the rifle could have been converted to fit one. The magazine cut off is not original and is the type fitted on the Sht.LE, designed to work with the SMLE magazine which is set up to feed Mk.VII pointed bullet ammo.

The sights are re-calibrated, yes, probably for the Mk.VII ammo, although the ranges seem unusual. The rear sight leaf cap is taller than standard so this all could be part of the regulating by Andrews.

Andrews typically sold these rifles to shooters who wanted them for range use and service rifle competitions. It likely has not been shot a lot unlike its military counterparts.

The scoop out in the wood under the volley is just something to help you get your finger under the arm to lift it. They all had them, but some were shallow and some of them have disappeared because the stock has been sanded to death.

Difficult to say how it came from the retailer as now it shows subsequent modifications by past owners who sporterised it a bit. The barrel looks uncut full length. It was probably to full military specs with a nose cap mounting a bayonet bar

Markings in the metal under the handguard and on the underside of the barrel would tell us a lot more.

Albeit modified, it is still a very good quality rifle.

The extractor claw on the bolt head looks very much like that used on 22 rim fire trainers. What is the caliber of this rifle?
 
Last edited:
Well it's a 303 British for starters. 5 groove bbl; looks like the standard rifling that I can tell.
It does have a grooved trigger and a remarkably crisp single stage trigger, that is something that Andrews did? Wasn't looking for a Lee in any incarnation actually... but these orphans often follow me home. 250 $ for it and a derelict 22 Cooey ( 2 500's of Winchester target) and a blown up Mule-ear 12 Ga S x S.
I think that this unit should suffice as far as value for my money.
Dealing on a 5 rd magazine for it now
 
Back
Top Bottom