What should you should look for in an original Lee Enfield No. 1 Mk 3?

F

fonestar

Regular
Rating - 100%
88   0   0
Location
Whitehorse, YT
I have a "put together" No. 1 mk 3 right now... receiver & bolt is 1916 BSA. Receiver has been drilled, wood is from 3 different rifles, reproduction stock disc, nothing matching, repro sling, etc.

I'm just realizing that I'm still happy with it as a shooter but not as a collectable. I realize that maybe it's a big subject but what are some of the simple things, the big things a guy can look for if he wants a real deal WW1 era No. 1 mk 3? And what would you be willing to pay for one, say a 1916 BSA original?
 
serial numbers matching
bolt
receiver
barrel
rearsight
nosecap
forestock
and as a bonus the mag may be serialized to the rifle.

also you would like to see the button style cocking piece, and windage adjustable rearsight.

if the mag cutoff is still there I would be suspect that someone put it back.

price for an all matching and correct your looking at +$700
 
Mag cut-off was deemed a non essential feature during 1916 but brought back for awhile after WW1 with the British and the Australians making them again with the cut-off.

I have a 1940 Lithgow SMLE with the cut-off and a 1917 Enfield with it too.
 
gunsaholic said:
As said, a magazine cut off could be yes or no depending on the year. Where mkrnel's 1917 Enfield has it, my 1917 Lithgow does not.
Click to expand...

really depends on when it was last arsenal inspected and refit, and what the standard was at that time.

I've had No1 MkIII that were refit to the MkIII* standard and then again in the 1920s refit back to the MkIII standard with the * cancelled out.

and any No1 used in WW2 would have had the cutoff removed. So in my opinion if the rifle has the mag cutoff installed there is a very very small chance that it is original to the rifle.
 
Look for a shiny, clean bore with deep rifling. There are lots of sporters like that but any rifle that was fired with corrosive ammo and not cleaned shortly afterwards...don't waste your money on a dark bore.

A lot of sellers get pretty forgetful and unobservant when trying to sell a dark bore rifle...be persistent.

At the risk of sounding like Sunray...check the headspace on any SMLE as they are somewhat famous for having issues with it. Matching bolt and receiver numbers are a big help, along with all of the other numbers that should also match.

As Canadians, it's always nice to find an SMLE with Canadian C Broad Arrow markings, on the buttstock, receiver and barrel.
 
All good points, thank-you. I'm thinking of letting my current one go to a friend who is into history and looking for something nicer. Also, the dark bore thing... I've had more than a few that were quite dark and still excellent shooters.
 
fonestar said:
All good points, thank-you. I'm thinking of letting my current one go to a friend who is into history and looking for something nicer. Also, the dark bore thing... I've had more than a few that were quite dark and still excellent shooters.
Click to expand...

Never said it won't shoot. But a dark bore by definition is pitted badly and not really repairable. You can spend a lot of effort cleaning it out but as soon as you fire it again...

Or...a nice shiny bore, a couple of patches and clean again.

The difference in value is extreme IMHO.
 
woodchopper said:
really depends on when it was last arsenal inspected and refit, and what the standard was at that time.

I've had No1 MkIII that were refit to the MkIII* standard and then again in the 1920s refit back to the MkIII standard with the * cancelled out.

and any No1 used in WW2 would have had the cutoff removed. So in my opinion if the rifle has the mag cutoff installed there is a very very small chance that it is original to the rifle.
Click to expand...

Actually that was not always the case I have seen lots of old WW2 pictures with troops issued with No.1 Mk.III SMLE's with the cutoff still in place like some of these pictures -

5737002-3x2-940x627.jpg


Australian troops about to depart to fight in Rabaul, PNG during WW2.




British troops in Libya WW2.



Indian soldier in the middle east 1940.
 
Here's a similar old girl in the Knowledge Library. The MKL example includes an installed "Flanders Flap" ...

1917 ShtLE (Short Lee-Enfield) No.1 MkIII*
(Mfg by BSA - Birmingham Small Arms)

In the 1917 example above, note the large dent shown in the side of the forestock in a few of the pics of the photo virtual tour. At first glance it appears to be wood damage from some kind of impact, when in reality, it actually indicates that the stock of this rifle was from old supplies that had already been cut-out, in preparation for installing the front volley sight. By the time this rifle had been manufactured in 1917, the use of front and rear volley sights on No.1 rifles had been discontinued, as of January 1916.


(Click PIC to Enlarge)

Regards,
Doug
 
The cutoff wasn't deleted in 1916, it was omitted from the MkIII* that was introduced in 1916 so after that date there were two models of the SMLE, the MkIII & the MkIII*, at least Lithgow & LSA produced MkIIIs into 1918.
The cutoff was omitted from all production in 1941 & of course there were thousands of rifles in service & at war that had the cutoff fitted & i would doubt very much they would have been withdrawn so the cutoff could be removed & if they had been removed on mass the cutoff plate would be a very scarce item, which it is not.
As for the saying "reintroduced after WW1" while this is not incorrect, it is misleading.
LoC1916.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom