Small bore Lee-Enfield SHT 22 MKIV*

[Brutus]

I am very lucky to own this 1913 made Canadian issue example.(Thank you Graham) Was wondering if BSA made these from the get go with the original rimfire barrel?
Or did a Canadian arsenal factory convert a once full bore rifle with a brand new barrel & firing mechanism??

I only ask because this thing has some ridiculous accuracy potential when lighting conditions are right at 100 & 200 yards. Superb sights with a very narrow front blade!

just curious here

 

[5THBATT]

Factory conversions prior to 1926 when they were re named from Sht.22 MkIV to No2 MkIV* they were marked like this, the original factory & date remained but the original rifle designation was removed & the new one applied.

This is a NZ conversion done in 1927/28

Sorry can not tell you anything about Canadian conversions if indeed they did them

 

[Brutus]

No reason to be sorry friend.

I just learned something new from your information provided here.

Cheers.....

 

[mkrnel]

I have one that is not marked as a Sht.22 MkIV or No2 MkIV* but is built on a 1924 dated Enfield SMLE No.1 Mk.3 receiver with mag cutoff and with a not relined .22lr barrel. It has no Canadian or NZ markings and does not even have any import markings like "made in England" or British commercial proof marks.

It does have Enfield military proof marks although on the receiver and 1936 dated barrel.

 

[R711]

Question,
Did any of the MK V's get converted to 22 cal?

 

[5THBATT]

I have one that is not marked as a Sht.22 MkIV or No2 MkIV* but is built on a 1924 dated Enfield SMLE No.1 Mk.3 receiver with mag cutoff and with a not relined .22lr barrel. It has no Canadian or NZ markings and does not even have any import markings like "made in England" or British commercial proof marks.

It does have Enfield military proof marks although on the receiver and 1936 dated barrel.

Ian Skennerton states in his book that not all were stamped, just depends on when & where it was converted or if it was done post service

 

[mkrnel]

Ian Skennerton states in his book that not all were stamped, just depends on when & where it was converted or if it was done post service

It appears from the many Enfield proof stamps on the underside of the 1936 dated barrel that it was done by RSAF Enfield. At least 3 are the same - a large D with a E inside over 22 (or E morphed into a D) which I take to be 3 times RSAF Enfield .22LR proof stamped. The E morphed into a D is also stamped onto the rear sight mount.

 

[englishman_ca]

Mkrnel,
Yup, sounds like the barrel is a military item. The cartridge type was not marked on martial rifles. If it has 22LR proofs, then it has been marked post service.

Somebody post service added the cut off, the trainers were not fitted with them.

Does the barrel have serial numbers and if so, do they match with those on the receiver?

Pics of the receiver and barrel markings might help determine who assembled it.

 

[mkrnel]

Mkrnel,
Yup, sounds like the barrel is a military item. The cartridge type was not marked on martial rifles. If it has 22LR proofs, then it has been marked post service.

Somebody post service added the cut off, the trainers were not fitted with them.

Does the barrel have serial numbers and if so, do they match with those on the receiver?

Pics of the receiver and barrel markings might help determine who assembled it.

The proofs that I take for .22lr proofing are a large D with a E inside over the number 22. There are 3 of them in a line and row with other typical RSAF Enfield military proofs all under the barrel and Knox form.

No civilian or commercial proofs or markings on this rifle.

The magazine is a hollow box missing the follower and spring.

Here are some pictures, lighting is very bad in my basement with this cheap camera and this is the best I could get.

 

[mkrnel]

Mkrnel,
Yup, sounds like the barrel is a military item. The cartridge type was not marked on martial rifles. If it has 22LR proofs, then it has been marked post service.

Somebody post service added the cut off, the trainers were not fitted with them.

Does the barrel have serial numbers and if so, do they match with those on the receiver?

Pics of the receiver and barrel markings might help determine who assembled it.

The mag cutoff works well to stop ammo and cases from falling into the mag and makes it easier to use as a single shot.

 

[woodchopper]

none of those are proof marks

production marks and inspection view marks.

 

[englishman_ca]

The super-imposed E over F over D came into use in or around 1925. Each factory inspector had a unique stamp identified by his number. In this case, RSAF Enfield inspector number 22.

The rifle looks right, I'd say that this is likely a factory conversion. Serial numbers match on anything?

And you are right, some of them are just tack drivers.

 

[mkrnel]

The super-imposed E over F over D came into use in or around 1925. Each factory inspector had a unique stamp identified by his number. In this case, RSAF Enfield inspector number 22.

The rifle looks right, I'd say that this is likely a factory conversion. Serial numbers match on anything?

And you are right, some of them are just tack drivers.

Why would they stamp the barrel with the identical factory inspectors stamp 3 times in a row?

Serial numbers do not appear to match on any part which is very confusing, even the rear sight and nosecap do not match.

Barrel is like new inside and out and of a much higher quality of smooth finish and a deep dark bluing unlike the rest of the rifle. It is clear that the barrel was blued separate from the rest of the rifle.

Rifle is in very good plus condition all over with very little finish loss. Even the very dark, almost black, walnut stock is in way better than average condition and remarkably free of dents and bruises.

Any idea what the initials on the brass butt stock disk means?

 

[englishman_ca]

"Why would they stamp the barrel with the identical factory inspectors stamp 3 times in a row?"

Not unusual. The factory inspector viewed three things, or one thing at three separate times. Building the rifle was a multistaged process with quality control at every stage.

I am not familiar with the markings on the butt disk. It does not follow the usual format of regimental markings. It might be a unit marking? Judging by the size of the lettering, it could even be a later marking of some organisation's or some person's initials. A good project for research.

After one hundred years almost, who knows where this rifle has been and who has worked on it. There is a story in there from when it was in service, and it has been in civilian hands for many years too.

A mixed serial number rifle is just that, it could have been put together or maintained by a unit armourer or even by a coach at some rifle club or school range. As long as it is 'in spec' it is a fine example. It is some collectors who sometimes make too much out of rifles having matching numbers. In service, the shooter did not care.

I have restored these wonderful rifles and had pride in researching and finding all the 'correct' parts for my assembly. Mine were mix-masters too, but complete and authentic, if not original.

I have one on the go right now, Canadian marked, but Bubba drilled and tapped for a scope. This has given me some licence to rework it into a bit more of a sporting rifle without it giving me concern for originality. I have restored enough milsurps now to come to the point in thinking where I don't believe that every sportered milsurp needs to be restored back to how it left the factory.

Out of all my Lee Metfords/Enfields, I shoot my .22 rim fires the most. As the ones in the know were right, shooting the small bore version of the rifle uses all the marksmanship skills of the big bore version. In fact, because the .22 is more susceptible to wind drift and wild trajectory at long ranges, more attention to basic principals apply. I shoot mine at 100 yards regularly. I need to focus to make it perform well, but perform it does if I do my part.

 

[mkrnel]

"Why would they stamp the barrel with the identical factory inspectors stamp 3 times in a row?"

Not unusual. The factory inspector viewed three things, or one thing at three separate times. Building the rifle was a multistaged process with quality control at every stage.

I am not familiar with the markings on the butt disk. It does not follow the usual format of regimental markings. It might be a unit marking? Judging by the size of the lettering, it could even be a later marking of some organisation's or some person's initials. A good project for research.

After one hundred years almost, who knows where this rifle has been and who has worked on it. There is a story in there from when it was in service, and it has been in civilian hands for many years too.

A mixed serial number rifle is just that, it could have been put together or maintained by a unit armourer or even by a coach at some rifle club or school range. As long as it is 'in spec' it is a fine example. It is some collectors who sometimes make too much out of rifles having matching numbers. In service, the shooter did not care.

I have restored these wonderful rifles and had pride in researching and finding all the 'correct' parts for my assembly. Mine were mix-masters too, but complete and authentic, if not original.

I have one on the go right now, Canadian marked, but Bubba drilled and tapped for a scope. This has given me some licence to rework it into a bit more of a sporting rifle without it giving me concern for originality. I have restored enough milsurps now to come to the point in thinking where I don't believe that every sportered milsurp needs to be restored back to how it left the factory.

Out of all my Lee Metfords/Enfields, I shoot my .22 rim fires the most. As the ones in the know were right, shooting the small bore version of the rifle uses all the marksmanship skills of the big bore version. In fact, because the .22 is more susceptible to wind drift and wild trajectory at long ranges, more attention to basic principals apply. I shoot mine at 100 yards regularly. I need to focus to make it perform well, but perform it does if I do my part.

Yeah, this one of mine is very nice and looks all original, the guy I got it from had it in his collection for many, many years.

You seem to have a good handle on these .22LR Lee Enfield training rifles. I think I may list this one on the EE as .22lr SMLE trainers are not in my current collectable milsurp focus area. Any idea how much one of these in way above average condition with a excellent bore should sell for? I have been told that one in this ones condition is worth at least $1000.

 

[englishman_ca]

They are up there. It would be an advanced collector who would be prepared to pay that kind of coin for one. In which case , they might be more discerning, and be looking for matching numbers. But 1k is not out of the question for this one if you find the right buyer.

Hard to appraise without handling it so this holds no more water than a wild guess. Currently they seem to be worth more and hold a premium over a similar rifle in 303. Crazy! Dealer websites are not realistic. EE, some people are a little too optimistic with their listings. I watch and see at what price they actually sell. Ballpark, for this one $700-1000. It would move and sell at $700 but you would be hanging onto it for a while at $1000. .

 

[englishman_ca]

Double tap

 

[mkrnel]

They are up there. It would be an advanced collector who would be prepared to pay that kind of coin for one. In which case , they might be more discerning, and be looking for matching numbers. But 1k is not out of the question for this one if you find the right buyer.

Hard to appraise without handling it so this holds no more water than a wild guess. Currently they seem to be worth more and hold a premium over a similar rifle in 303. Crazy! Dealer websites are not realistic. EE, some people are a little too optimistic with their listings. I watch and see at what price they actually sell. Ballpark, for this one $700-1000. It would move and sell at $700 but you would be hanging onto it for a while at $1000. .

I did a quick google search for these for sale and could only find a few that are for sale or sold recently (all in the USA, none in Canada) and they seem to be selling in the USA for about $950 - $1200 USD. Simpsons has a rough looking Australian one (which most seem to be Australian ones for sale) listed for $995.

Most also seem to be non matching for some reason, maybe when they converted these rifles as they were only low pressure .22's they did not bother to restamp new matching serial numbers on all the old parts.

Maybe they are like most Lee Enfield's and have increased quite a bit in recent years. I paid $850 for it when I bought it as it looked so nice and did not want to #### around with the seller who had sold me some other nice rifles at very fair prices.

I also found this interesting bit of information from another US based gun forum -

.22 SHORT RIFLE MK III
Approved 9th August 1912 (LoC 16291) for Land Service, this rifle was made up from Converted Mk II and Mk II* SMLE rifles (which were themselves either "long" Lee-Metford or "long" Lee-Enfields converted to "short" Lees). About 11,000 conversions were done by BSA, LSA and RSAF Enfield.

.22 RF PATTERN 1914 SHORT RIFLE No. 1
A wartime trainer approved 24th May 1915 (LoC 17320) for Land Service, this rifle was also made up from Converted Mk II and Mk II* SMLE rifles (see above) by boring out the .303 barrel and inserting a .22 caliber liner inside the barrel. Conversions were done by A.G. Parker & Co. Ltd. and Wesley Richards & Co. About 427 conversions reported.

.22 RF PATTERN 1914 SHORT RIFLE No. 2
Approved 28th April 1916 (LoC 17755) for Land Service, this is the first rifle made from up from an original SMLE Mk III. Again, the .303 barrel was bored out and a .22 caliber liner inserted. Conversions were done by A.G. Parker & Co. Ltd. and Wesley Richards & Co. Some 1,743 conversions reported.

.22 RF SHORT RIFLE PATTERN 1918
Approved 10th July 1918 (LoC 21675) for Land Service, this rifle is unique in that it used a dummy .303 cartridge as a holder or conveyor for the .22 rimfire cartridge. The .22 barrel liner was soldered into place after the chamber. About 975 conversions done by W.W. Greener Co.

.22 SHORT RIFLE Mk IV
Approved 19th November 1921 (LoC 24909) for Land Service, this rifle starts out with a used SMLE Mk III or Mk III* (like the 1914 Short Rifle No. 2, above) but uses a solid, not tubed, barrel. Total number of conversions done by RSAF Enfield unknown.

RIFLE No.2 Mk IV*
Same rifle as above; just a change in nomenclature adopted in 1926. This rifle was the principal trainer for the next thirty years and was widely produced by in Britain, Australia and India. Issued in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Ireland and India, a variety of issue and ownership marks can be found on these rifles. At least 30,000 conversions made by the various factories.

The next grouping consists of trainers from the Rifle No.4 family of rifles:
RIFLE C No.7 Mk I
The first Enfield built from the ground up as a .22 trainer and not as a conversion or retro-fitting of an earlier rifle - albeit built on a No.4 body and intended to mirror the Rifle No.4 as closely as possible. About 20,000 made at Longbranch, Ontario 1944 - 1950's. Unknown number of wooden transit chests also produced.

RIFLE No.7 Mk I
Although a No.7 Mk I, the British version is very different from it's Canadian counterpart (above). This rifle was a conversion of an existing No.4 and is interesting in that a BSA five-round commercial .22 magazine was welded into a SMLE Mk III* magazine to produce the only Enfield .22 repeater. These rifles were a special contract and produced exclusively for the Royal Air Force (RAF) in 1948. Total production 2,500.

RIFLE No.8 Mk I
An interesting hybrid, a .22 caliber trainer intended to be also be used in smallbore rifle competitions, this rifle was introduced in the late 1940's. About 15,000 produced at Fazakerley. Another 2,000 were produced by BSA Shirley in the 1950's specifically for New Zealand.

RIFLE No.9 Mk I
The last of the .22's, these are No.4 rifles sleeved in a manner similar to the WWI Pattern 1914 Short Rifle No. 1 (above). The work was done by Parker Hale in Birmingham 1956 - 1960. 3,000 rifles made specifically for the Royal Navy.


This list is not all-inclusive. The Long Lee family of .22 trainers is not included, nor are any of the .22 trials rifles.

 

[5THBATT]

I have 4 of the No2 MkIV & for the most part they are matching numbers rifles, 2 have renumbered bolts 1 has a mismatched rear sight & 2 have un-numbered rear sights, my 1915 LSA appears to have been fully renumbered at conversion with none of the original serial numbers showing, i only know its been renumbered as it has a A prefix serial number which is totally incorrect for a 1915 LSA MkIII.

for the more observant of you might have noticed the barrel is sleeved & not solid, approval was given to use up stocks of sleeved barrels held as spares when converting rifles to No2 MkIVs

 

[englishman_ca]

I had to look twice at the serial number.