Help identifying enfield model

[Mach_Cat]

Unfortunately the only photo I got.
It does have a British crown on the receiver.

Is this ww1 or ww2.
The wood looks great but I believe refinished.

Any idea on value? I know not much in picture.
Thanks Ed

[Bad Ass Wallace]

No1 Mk3 looks to have the magazine cutoff with windage adjustable rear sight, which would make it pre 1916 vintage.

[Mach_Cat]

Thank you mr Wallace, what is a magazine cutoff?

[FLINTNFIRE]

Slides across top to make it a 1 at a time as you place the next round in .

[Mach_Cat]

So this is a single shot? Training rifle?

[FLINTNFIRE]

No it has the magazine for holding 10 , the cut off slides into place so the soldier could only load 1 at a time , military thinking of wasting ammo 1903 Springfield has position so bolt will not go far enough back to pick up round from magazine , different style same idea .

bad *** wallace is more familiar with the models of Enfield I can tell it is a No.1 MK3 but I can not see the details as well as he can .

[Mach_Cat]

What kind of value would something like this have?

[FLINTNFIRE]

That I have no idea , I went and looked at mine and earliest I have are 2 made in 1916 and they do not have the windage adjustment or the cut off .

[Mach_Cat]

Ball park low prices? Are these popular military collectible, or small niche?

[303Guy]

In my country, a rifle like that in full original military condition sells for quite a bit if in good condition.

I'm seeing one for AZ$1500 and another for AZ$850. There is one rifle in mint condition going for AZ$4500 but that's a late model No4.

Here's the link; https://www.usedguns.com.au/Guns/used_military_rifles

Part serial numbers need to match to get top dollar.

[Bad Ass Wallace]

My turn of last century No.1 Mk1's LE's (1900, 1901, 1902) run about $AU800-1200 depending on condition, these rifles have pristine 'as new' barrels and period aperature range sights.

[leebuilder]

No 1 mk 3*. A better pic would confirm. If its original with unit markings it should fetch top dollar.
Be well

[Petrol & Powder]

Match_Cat, to build on what Flintnfire wrote about magazines cut-offs:

When militaries around the world began adopting bolt action repeating rifles around the late 1800's and early 1900's, the conventional wisdom was a bit different than now. The thinking of the day was that the ammunition in the magazine would be held in reserve. The rifles of that period were often equipped with magazine cutoffs. The magazine would be loaded and the magazine cutoff would be engaged. This would prevent cartridges in the magazine from being fed into the chamber when the bolt was cycled. The operator would load and fire single cartridges with the cartridges in the magazine being held in reserve. Upon a command from an officer (or perhaps under great stress) the soldier would disengage the magazine cutoff and feed rounds from the magazine.

The thinking of the day was that soldiers would "waste" ammunition or be less discriminate in the expenditure of ammunition and the magazine cutoff was seen as a device to ensure shooting discipline.

Of course that mindset later changed (for obvious reasons) and magazine cutoffs were eliminated from later rifles.

[WinchesterM1]

Here in Ky that rifle would bring between 5-600. It looks refinished the stock and the blueing

[Bigslug]

B.A.Wallace can apparently blow up your photo larger than I can - I'm not seeing the early pre-1916/17 features (mag cutoff or windage knob on the sight)

I'm also not seeing evidence of the through-bolt that attached the front half of the long range volley sights to the stock right in the vicinity of the front sling swivel. This was another standard feature of the No I MKIII that was done away around 1916 as part of the cost saving measure that created the No I MKIII*, which took the Brits well into WWII.

Value? Devil is in the details. Those early No I MKIII's are what the British started WWI with. . .and they were pretty much all got subjected to all the Hell WWI could dish out, so finding them in anything like original condition with original parts configuration is like seeking honest men in Congress.

The No I MKIII* is considerably easier - produced longer, in greater numbers, and a lot of older rifles were turned into these. It was also the rebuild/refurbishment standard even after WWII.

Also worth noting that the British NEVER issued a round that wasn't corrosive, so the prime shooters are usually ones that were built or rebuilt after WWII and not subjected to those two periods of "active sports"