ShtLe MK III 1913 Mismatch

[Chumlee Bumsnag]

Happy New Year.
I've got a 1913 BSA MKIII that has a lot of conflicting #'s on it. The end cap, barrell, and receiver have matching #'s, but the bolt and the rear sight have different ones. Also the top wood pieces seem to be lighter in colour than the bottom. There is a "Z" mark above the serial# on the barrel. Also no volley sights and does have mag retricter. I'm considring trading this for a SKS, but would like to get some feedback. Cheers, Chumlee

 

[smellie]

There never were a whole lot of 1913 BSA rifles running around, so any of them are collectable.

Yours looks to have been reworked fairly carefully, although there are some later parts installed. Rear sight leaves commonly were switched about during reworks, notably during rebarreling. Can't see the barrel date on yours (it's on the chamber at 10 o'clock position, under the rear handguard) but I am willing to bet that it is 1917 or later. Same thing, the nose-cap is numbered to this rifle and the stampings are in the correct font and size and style and all that, but the cross-screw is the late type which only came in late in the Great War. Your forward wood is correct but lacks provision for volley sights... but volley sights were removed during rework starting in 1916.

The Z is part of the serial number, BTW.

What would be really nice would be a good close-up of the markings under the bolt-handle (on the butt socket). We can tell a LOT from those.

I would put my money on it being a late-World-War-One rework of an original 1913 rifle, at least without pulling it down myself for a complete examination.

As to value, I would place it at roughly 2 Chinese or 1-3/4 Soviet SKSs. Keep this one and buy an SKS for blowing away ammo if you must. This one should get you out to 500 yards if you can hold her.... and she's a REAL piece of history. I have a couple here that will do an honest 1 MOA and keep repeating it.... and you can't say that for any SKS built so far.

Hope this helps.
.

 

[louthepou]

I wouldn't trade that rifle, personally. Too interesting!

I would also like to see the markings on the butt socket, but on both sides. I wonder if the receiver was a MLE, or a SMLE Mk I before it was upgraded to Mk III status. I can't remember what the stamped horizontal bars on the right side of the butt socket (right next to the "III") mean. Crossing out the stars (*) of its previous Mk I identity? I'll have to take a look in my Skennerton book...

In my opinion, that rifle is more valuable than the average Mk III*,

Lou

 

[Nyles]

As I recall, the two lines indicate it was at some point a Mk.III* without the magazine cutoff, and when one was added they lined out the *. Often pronounce as a "Mk.III Cancelled" and printed Mk.III=. If you do sell it, please let me know, I'm very much in the market for a Mk.III=.

 

[Chumlee Bumsnag]

Thanks for the all the info. I think I'll hang on to this one for awhile. I took some more pics, but there not very good. I left my good camera in my rig and took these with my old one. There is a ( '28 ) stamped on the chamber. Good thing I didn't bet with you smellie.
I really appreciate all your help with the history of this rifle.

 

[BUSHMAN79]

That's odd. The "III" appears to have been done with a cold chisel... (????) Never seen such crudely applied markings on a Mk.III. If the bolt doesn't match, check to be sure both locking lugs are bearing evenly. If they aren't, make them! A neat old rifle with lots of history!

 

[BUSHMAN79]

As I recall, the two lines indicate it was at some point a Mk.III* without the magazine cutoff, and when one was added they lined out the *. Often pronounce as a "Mk.III Cancelled" and printed Mk.III=. If you do sell it, please let me know, I'm very much in the market for a Mk.III=.

The ones I've had were canceled with a centre punch. Never have seen one with the "*" lined out.

 

[buffdog]

Interesting

This is interesting. BSA 1913 action, a 1928 barrel, and various parts.

The butt socket markings might tell a clue. In the BSA Co., it looks like two different fonts on the stamps used. A light stamp on the 9 of 1913, and the 3 in 1913 is larger and a different font. The A in the BSA is larger than the rest of the letters. Also, a bit of an alignment problem, and the III is slanted. In fact, if you look at the alignment of all the butt socket markings, they are not aligned, and in 1913, PRE-WW1 manufacture, such sloppy work would not have been tolerated.

Anyone thinking a Kyber Pass handmade one?

However, the AL serial number is also interesting. I have a No.4 Mk.1* that has an AL serial number on it. A rework somewhere, but the rework had to have been made after WW2, but where? Possibly India or Pakistan?


P.S. NEVER bet with SMELLIE on facts or History. You WILL lose.
.

 

[rhino519]

dont see any irregularities you mentioned and I doubt Khyber Pass makers care much for stumping their stuff at all

Ive got a Longbranch Nr4 with the same 'AL' in front of the serial nr

 

[Claven2]

My thoughts:

1) It was a MkIII when it was born, was PROBABLY overhauled in 1917 or 1918 and made into a MkIII*. It was then overhauled again in 1928, possibly in India, and converted to a MkIII (no star) late pattern, which is just a MkIII* with a mag cutoff added.

2) The bruise marks on the stock and handuard seem to line up meaning the wood has been together a while, probably since 1928.

3) The bolt is mis-matched. This was common on 1960's era imports. As a result the gun is not matching, but if headspace is OK (can be checked) this isn;t necessarily an issue unless a collector is picky.

4) Rear sights are usually mis-matched on factory re-barelled guns. Sometimes they were renumbered matching, but usually not.

5) I've never seen an original 1913 BSA with a Z prefix S/N before, most were between S and V if I recall. Z prefixes are VERY common on guns refurbished and re-numbered in India from the 1920's through the 1950's.

6) It is NOT a Khyber Pass gun. The MkIII has been re-stamped because at overhaul the markings were sanded to the point they were too weak to see - which is common if there was any surface rust that needed removal at overhaul.

 

[buffdog]

dont see any irregularities you mentioned and I doubt Khyber Pass makers care much for stumping their stuff at all

Ive got a Longbranch Nr4 with the same 'AL' in front of the serial nr

Bring up this post on your computer. Take an envelope, and align it with the III stamps and you will see they slant to the right. Also align the same envelope on the maker's name, and you will see the A in BSA is a bit taller. Then do the same with the date, aligning the bottom of the 1s in 1913 and you will notice the 3 is larger.

As far as stAmpings on the Kyber Pass makers guns, I have personally seen a Kyber Pass Luger with the DWM, date, and other markings faithfully copied on them. In fact, there were three of them with the same serial number in the shop at the time. (That would have been a great one for the CFC to figure out.) In the gun collecting hobby, I have found that just because you have not personally observed such an occurance hardly makes it an impossibility.

I can go along with CLAVEN2's suppositions. Interesting and amazing things happen during overhauls in some countries. What would get your butt kicked during a FTR in England or Australia can be perfectly normal somewhere in India or Pakistan.

There is also a "35" stamping on the left butt socket near the safety, with some other markings that might prove interesting. This 35 could possibly be the date of another overhaul or refit. This would coincide with #5 of CLAVEN2'S post.

The No.4 Mk1* I have with the AL serial number on it is a Long Branch, and I would have to go digging in a locker to check the serial number and date.
.

 

[John Sukey]

You might want to keep in mind that while it was made in 1913, it has been as mentioned, overhauled. No doubt it put some round holes in square heads over the years.

 

[5THBATT]

When BSA started MkIII production in 1907 they carried on the s/n range they were using with the Mk1* so the MkIII started with the prefix T which moved into U that same year, BSA took till 1912 to move onto the V prefix, then moved quickly though the letters (must have been an increase in production) Z prefix appeared in 1912 (i used to have a 1912 Z prefix) so the Z prefix for a 1913 BSA MkIII would be correct.
The light stamping of the markings on this rifle may be due to a slight depression on the butt socket's surface, if you look closely the S in BSA, 9 in 1913 & the T in SHT LE are all in line and not as cleanly struck, the S only slightly light, everything on the RHS is struck more deeply giving the impression of a larger font, the III has been poorly re-stuck & not original.