Why do I like the SMLE No.1 MKIII?

[Just Duke]

Update; How would a 45-70 conversion work?
What would the loading limitations be?

This is my Favorite SMLE. One day I'll have own two or three to re-stock and restore.
I just like the stock that goes the the end of the barrel.
I'd shoot cast bullets in her also. Not sure if any moulds are around. Three would be nice.

Can she be converted to cock on closing?
Not my rifle though but enjoy the pic.
http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/ad54/LEVERACTIONSHOOTERS/SMLE/49616-top-shot-using-lee-enfield-smle-no1-mk3.jpg

http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/ad54/LEVERACTIONSHOOTERS/SMLE/49616-top-shot-using-lee-enfield-smle-no1-mk3.jpg


Just for kicks can the 303 been blown out to a larger diameter and rebarreled?
Well I found this article
http://www.assra.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1223009842

http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/ad54/LEVERACTIONSHOOTERS/SMLE/orig.jpg



http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/ad54/LEVERACTIONSHOOTERS/SMLE/Lee_Enfield_No1_Mk_3.gif

[smlekid]

that looks like a very nice MK111 you have there but please leave it alone they are allready cock on closing
if you would like to play with a or restore one they were made up into several calibres here in Australia the simply necked down the 303 case there were several calibres 22, 243, 25, 270 and a 35 (called a Howarth I think) the 303/25 was the most common in a P14 they could be made into quite a stout load
I'd guess your rifle dates around 1914ish probably A BSA or Enfield (or if your really lucky one of the peddled scheme rifles marked SSA on the left hand rear side of the action) how did I do with my guess :)

[Just Duke]

that looks like a very nice MK111 you have there but please leave it alone they are allready cock on closing
if you would like to play with a or restore one they were made up into several calibres here in Australia the simply necked down the 303 case there were several calibres 22, 243, 25, 270 and a 35 (called a Howarth I think) the 303/25 was the most common in a P14 they could be made into quite a stout load
I'd guess your rifle dates around 1914ish probably A BSA or Enfield (or if your really lucky one of the peddled scheme rifles marked SSA on the left hand rear side of the action) how did I do with my guess :)


I wish she was mine. Thanks for the info though.

[Just Duke]

http://www.enfieldresource.com/2012-complete-book-lee-enfield-accurizing
http://www.connection-junction.com/lee-enfield-no1-mk3



http://vid27.photobucket.com/albums/c182/BadgerDog/Videos/th_LeeEnfieldSMLEandMauserK98kcompared.jpg?videopl ayer=offsite (http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c182/BadgerDog/Videos/?action=view&current=LeeEnfieldSMLEandMauserK98kcompared.mp4)


http://vid27.photobucket.com/albums/c182/BadgerDog/Videos/th_RareAussieLeeEnfieldRifles.jpg?videoplayer=offs ite (http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c182/BadgerDog/Videos/?action=view&current=RareAussieLeeEnfieldRifles.mp4)

[HighHook]

I really enjoy shooting these rifles. I would like see a 22 lr conversion with a barrel sleeve and bolt/mag to rimfire. Just my 2 cents

[Just Duke]

Here's a reproduction scope mount http://www.accumounts.com/

[Just Duke]

This is interesting. They originally were designed for 45-70 and then decided on the .303.
45-70 would be a fun conversion. http://www.enfield-rifles.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4669&title=4570-conversions

[gnoahhh]

Isn't this one pictured a .308 conversion? Aluminum butt plate and boxy magazine.

[kenyerian]

Dad had one he bought back in the 60's. I don't remember the price but it was really reasonable. Wish he had bought 3 of them so I could have inherited one also. We had a lot of shooting it. he liked to hunt groundhogs with it.

[Jim]

This is interesting. They originally were designed for 45-70 and then decided on the .303.
45-70 would be a fun conversion.

The Gibbs Rifle Company did that about ten years ago. They called it the 'Summit'. I bought one and still have it. Not long after I bought it, they quit making them. I had the magazine shortened to flush with the bottom as I didn't care for it sticking out.

http://floydpics.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/dscn0563-e1334583643596.jpg

The top round is loaded with a 540 grain boolit from a Lyman mold and the one on the bottom is a 500 grain from a Rapine mold. It's a fun rifle to shoot and I like handing it to guys that say they can shoot anything. It'll thump you around a bit.

http://floydpics.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/dscn0567-e1334583826128.jpg

[303Guy]

There is a way to convert the Lee Enfield to 'cock on closing' as you put it. Most would call it 'cock on opening' but technically it's 'cock on locking'. It involves replacing the trigger sear with a shorter one that engages the anvil at the beginning of the bolt rotation. It might require a stronger firing pin spring. I haven't tried doing this - yet. My reason for delaying is that I use my rifles in the bush and carry them with bolt unlocked for safety. Cocking on locking can result in the bolt being bumped locked while the cock on closing is absolutely safe. I would never dream of carrying a rifle cocked and locked. The conversion I mention would disable the safety.

The 303 case can be made into 35, 375, 41 and even 44. A 45 ACP works and a 44mag would work too and no doubt the 444 Marlin. The MkIII has been chambered in 45-90!

[Multigunner]

The Lee Rifle was originally used by the U S Navy in the late 1870's and these were in .45-70 caliber.
The British tested a .43 caliber version, probably the .43 Spanish or something similar.
Major Rubin of Switzerland had developed several smaller bore cartridge designs by then so the British went with a .303 bore black powder cartridge that used a compressed cylinder of BP to give a smooth acceleration of the long slim bullet. These were used with the Lee Metford rifles.
The Cordite loaded cartridge was also used with the Lee Metford but ate up the Metford rifling rather quickly. When Metford rifling was replaced by Enfield rifling the rifle became the Lee Enfield.

I've heard that some of the later model .22 training rifles had a cock on opening bolt. Those would not interchange with the standard bolt.

[Just Duke]

The Gibbs Rifle Company did that about ten years ago. They called it the 'Summit'. I bought one and still have it. Not long after I bought it, they quit making them. I had the magazine shortened to flush with the bottom as I didn't care for it sticking out.

http://floydpics.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/dscn0563-e1334583643596.jpg

The top round is loaded with a 540 grain boolit from a Lyman mold and the one on the bottom is a 500 grain from a Rapine mold. It's a fun rifle to shoot and I like handing it to guys that say they can shoot anything. It'll thump you around a bit.

http://floydpics.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/dscn0567-e1334583826128.jpg

That's the nicest one I have ever seen Jim.

[Just Duke]

Gunsmith over on the Enfield forum says he no longer does 45-70 conversions.
303 should be just fine.

[303Guy]

A 45-70 would make a mighty fine pig gun calibre for my 1904 ShtLE pig gun. Not sure I need the recoil so much though. I'm wondering how effective a suppressor would be at recoil reduction with the 45-70? Would there be any advantage over a 41-303?

Anybody done a 44-303? It would be a straight walled 44 Super Magnum with a larger rim. Or 44 Maximum! Just a 444 Marlin with no body taper and larger rim is all. A rifled 410.

[Multigunner]

Gunsmith over on the Enfield forum says he no longer does 45-70 conversions.
303 should be just fine.

IIRC the .45-70 conversions of a No.4 require some sort of relief cut in the rails to allow proper feeding from a magazine.

[KCSO]

Had a couple in 45-70 and did a custom stock on one of the early Gibbs with the standard military stock. The gun will stand more then I can and a max load will push a 500 grain cast bullet at over 1800fps. BUT the Lee rifle was made for a single stack magazine and the double stack 303 mags are somewhat problamatic at best wen feeding 45-70 rounds. With much tinkering and tuning I got the magazine to feed 5 rounds of 45-70 but it wasn't a job I would like to do again.

[Multigunner]

Had a couple in 45-70 and did a custom stock on one of the early Gibbs with the standard military stock. The gun will stand more then I can and a max load will push a 500 grain cast bullet at over 1800fps. BUT the Lee rifle was made for a single stack magazine and the double stack 303 mags are somewhat problamatic at best wen feeding 45-70 rounds. With much tinkering and tuning I got the magazine to feed 5 rounds of 45-70 but it wasn't a job I would like to do again.

I wonder if a detachable single row three round box magazine made for a .410 bolt action shotgun could be adapted to the purpose?
Perhaps mounted inside a no.4 magazine body.
An sheet metal extension could be added to increase to five rounds or more.

There are DP'ed magazines out there who's bodies have worn away or torn feed lips.
I've managed to repair a few on those by drawing the steel of the lip by cold hammering, though this leaves the lip thinner than it should be and work hardened.

A damaged mag body useful for nothing else should not be hard to find.

With original mags becoming pricey its better if none of the good ones were sacrificed.

[303Guy]

They originally were designed for 45-70 and then decided on the .303.I don't think that is quite correct. The 45-70 Navy was a Remington-Lee which was different to the Lee Enfield. It had its similarities but was not the same action. Probably just as strong as the Lee Enfield though. It was a one piece stock action.

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo327/303Guy/Lees002-1-300x138.jpg

It's easy to see how Lee would have used it as the basis for the Lee action of 1888. He did offer his action to the US Army but it was rejected so he took it to the British. I don't know what calibre Lee was offering it in but one can see the similarity between the 303 Brit and the 6mm Lee Navy of 1895, the latter being practically a necked down, rimless 303 Brit which is in itself similar to the 30-40.

I personally think the Lee Enfield is a perfect platform for a 45-70.

[Multigunner]

I don't think that is quite correct. The 45-70 Navy was a Remington-Lee which was different to the Lee Enfield. It had its similarities but was not the same action. Probably just as strong as the Lee Enfield though. It was a one piece stock action.



I had thought that the two piece stock of the British Lee Metford was a British invention, but J P Lee's patent applications mention his having built prototype rifles with two piece stocks early on.
The exact method of attachment may have been designed by one of the British engineers involved in the project.

Australia ordered a number of Lee rifles early on, but the ammunition supplied with those rifles turned out to be defective in some way. I think they canceled the contract, or at least ordered no more rifles after the first few.
I think these were in a .43 or .40 caliber.
The British had been working on a .40 caliber bottle neck cartridge but ditched it for the .303.

[Just Duke]

There is a way to convert the Lee Enfield to 'cock on closing' as you put it. Most would call it 'cock on opening' but technically it's 'cock on locking'. It involves replacing the trigger sear with a shorter one that engages the anvil at the beginning of the bolt rotation. It might require a stronger firing pin spring. I haven't tried doing this - yet. My reason for delaying is that I use my rifles in the bush and carry them with bolt unlocked for safety. Cocking on locking can result in the bolt being bumped locked while the cock on closing is absolutely safe. I would never dream of carrying a rifle cocked and locked. The conversion I mention would disable the safety.

The 303 case can be made into 35, 375, 41 and even 44. A 45 ACP works and a 44mag would work too and no doubt the 444 Marlin. The MkIII has been chambered in 45-90!

Thank you. That is what I meant. They cock on closing and I heard there was a conversion kit for cock on opening.
I included a drawing in the first post.

[BruceB]

Once upon a time, there was a kit to convert the Pattern 14/M1917 rifles to cock-on-opening. These are, of course, NOT "Lee Enfields", but were often called "Enfields" anyway.

I suspect this is the conversion that you recall.....certainly, I've never heard of such a conversion for the Lee Enfield series. I'm certain that I would've been aware of such, being a student of all things "Lee Enfield" for the last fifty years or so.

Duke, I just found an as-new long Branch (Canadian) #4 in a Reno shop. What a GORGEOUS specimen...I don't believe it was ever issued, it's so pristine. Man, I do love my "Enfields"!

[BruceB]

[QUOTE=303Guy;1677366] My reason for delaying is that I use my rifles in the bush and carry them with bolt unlocked for safety. Cocking on locking can result in the bolt being bumped locked while the cock on closing is absolutely safe. I would never dream of carrying a rifle cocked and locked. The conversion I mention would disable the safety.{QUOTE]


I don't really understand this.

I carried Lee Enfields (including the later #4 Rifles) for decades "in the bush" year-round in northern Canada. This included training with the #4 Rifle in the Canadian Army. I would HATE to disable the safety on an LE rifle, as it's one of the most-positive designs ever developed, and I DO trust it. This doesn't mean ignoring all the basic rules of safe gun-handling, naturally.

If the rifle is carried ""uncocked", the firing pin not only rests directly on the primer, but it's under heavy spring pressure to make that primer even easier to ignite. A blow on the cocking-piece WILL fire the round in the chamber.

If you meant half-cock, it's a somewhat risky task of lowering the cocking-piece to the half-cock position...especially with cold or slippery fingers. Just as bad as a 94 Winchester, but with less convenience and higher spring forces.

Getting the rifle back to "full cock" is an awkward and possibly dangerous evolution....and if you need the rifle RIGHT NOW, as I have on occasion, that simple safety manipulation is fast and simple...just as it was designed to be.

I generally agree with your writings here, and enjoy them as well. On this particular topic, though, we seem to have a wee difference of opinion...

[303Guy]

On this particular topic, though, we seem to have a wee difference of opinion...Not really but perhaps I need to explain more clearly. What I mean is I carry the rifle on the ready with a round in the chamber and the bolt open. That means the bolt is partly back and requires cocking and closing to fire.

The SMLE and No.4 safety is hard to beat, but, it can get bumped off so easily it's scary. I had an incident out hunting one day when other hunters approached while I was expecting to take a shot and not wanting to be seen operating the bolt, I slipped on the safety and slung the rifle. After a chat or two they went on their way and I unslung the gun only to find the safety off! I've never used the safety since.

Bolt handle up. My group all do it that way and we can all see at a glance the status of the other's rifle. That's where that came from. The loaded chamber bolt open carry is absolutely safe with the Lee Enfield and very quiet to cock and close but no good for casual carry and especially over shoulder carry as the bolt will drop back and lose the cartridge. Carrying a Lee Enfield with a loaded chamber with closed bolt and firing pin down is an absolute for the very reason you mention. Half-cock for me is a way to carry a rifle with the bolt closed on an empty chamber so the bolt won't open by itself. I don't use it much. I did once use half-cock with a chambered round during a stalk. When the game did a duck, I decided to test the reliability of the half-cock and the gun fired! The trigger was stiffer, but even so, it fired. I never used the half-cock on a loaded chamber again.

You know that expression; Safety rules are written in blood? Well, my safety rules are written on mistakes I've made (some of them scary). That plus a lot of collective discussion on safety.

I do have one rifle that has an almost foolproof safety, it pushes down into a recess in the stock and takes positive action to lift up. I don't use it just the same. Then you get the modified Mauser safety that lifts up into 'safe' for scope use and takes next to nothing to push down to fire! The designer intended it to double lock over into a very safe position. Although I was nearly killed by it when my idiot mate got clever and confused and switched it over to 'fire' and pointed the gun at me and said "should I pull the trigger?" Holy ****! I gently said, "Easy boy, just point the gun away from me and put it down SO I CAN BEAT YOU HALF TO DEATH!" He actually had his finger on the trigger! Hooh boy! That was in the days when we thought it quite OK to load and lock a rifle. Mind you, it was a Mauser with a very good safety.


Hope that clears my stand point.:drinks:

[303Guy]

DUKE, that SMLE is a stunning example! It made me catch my breath the first time I viewed it and now again.

The Lee Enfield doesn't lend itself to gentle operation. One works the bolt vigorously and it doesn't complain. It excels! I must say I would not have enjoyed being pitted against the SMLE in the battlefield. Mind you, the Mauser wasn't half bad either but it had real pooh sights and had a less ergonomic bolt handle. Its cartridge wasn't bad either. (I also get the impression the Brits weren't the most user friendly foe either).

[Multigunner]

[The SMLE and No.4 safety is hard to beat, but, it can get bumped off so easily it's scary. I had an incident out hunting one day when other hunters approached while I was expecting to take a shot and not wanting to be seen operating the bolt, I slipped on the safety and slung the rifle. After a chat or two they went on their way and I unslung the gun only to find the safety off! I've never used the safety since.

Bolt handle up. My group all do it that way and we can all see at a glance the status of the other's rifle. That's where that came from.

Thats the main reason most French military bolt actions don't have a manual safety.
They found that the only sure way to avoid an AD was to either carry with an empty chamber or to leave the bolt handle straight up.
One source mentioned something like 60 fatal ADs in one year when they had issued a rifle with manual safety, and none the year they first issued a bolt action without manual safety. They also suspected many of the fatal ADs were actually murders, using a faulty safety as an excuse.
I have run across a factory sporterized MAS carbine with aftermarket thumb safety, these were installed on rifles sold as sporters to French colonials in Indo-China. That particular specimen was probably taken from a Viet Cong though I can't be sure.

The safety on my SMLE is tough to disengage, I figure it was a hastly fitted replacement just before the rifle was taken out of service. Its loosened up a bit now, but requires lubrication before taking it to the field. Otherwise it a pain to disengage.
The safety on my No.4 is just right.

I have run across a few that just flopped around. Which shouldn't be possible considering the construction, but apparently wear and a weak spring can do for it like any other mechanical device.

[303Guy]

Interesting snippet that, Multigunner. We have a similar suspicion on this side of the globe with our hunting 'accidents' because so many are head shots! But no, I think that's the way it is with one or two stupid and drunken actions in which the 'hunter' aimed his rifle at the victim who was his hunting buddy and killed him. Others were plain 'get that deer' frenzy but it's hard to understand how a blaze orange hood can look like a deer's hind quarter!

A safety that I actually trusted and used was on my Mini 14 - same as the Garand, M14 and 30 carbine. I wonder whether there were any 'incidents' relating to one of those safeties? Those rifles would surely have no other safe 'combat ready' carry mode.

The only AD I have had with a Lee Enfield was while closing the bolt with the firing pin down on a loaded chamber! That was scary! I held the trigger while I closed the bolt. Thing is, once the bolt is fully forward but unlocked, the firing ping is back by the bolt cam plus the firing pin cam and snapping the bolt into battery fast enough allows the firing pin to fall that short distance which is enough to fire the gun! Killed one chair, a towel over the chair, the carpet and a mattress on the ricochet. It was a light load so the wall didn't get it. Another rule written on mistakes!

[303Guy]

I carried Lee Enfields (including the later #4 Rifles) for decades "in the bush" year-round in northern Canada. This included training with the #4 Rifle in the Canadian Army.BruceB, I would value you're viewpoint. You've no doubt carried a No.4 (pretty much the same as an SMLE) far more than I have and while I don't intend to carry a bolt closed rifle I would like to be 'educated' just the same. After all, part of the bolt open carry thing is a cross-check with our companions in that we all can see the status of a gun at a glance. We are also anal about muzzles pointing around. But we are not in a battlefield and our way is not the only way (maybe just an easy way in an ideal world).

By the way, what's it actually like to carry one around from a military aspect?

[CZFAN]

Well I am picking up a SMLE dated 1918 tomorrow and these are a few pic's of it.
http://mysite.verizon.net/ljohns/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/EnfieldL.JPG.w560h420.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/ljohns/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/EnfieldR.JPG.w560h420.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/ljohns/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/EnfieldDetail.JPG.w560h420.jpg

[Multigunner]

Well I am picking up a SMLE dated 1918 tomorrow and these are a few pic's of it.

Looks like a good one.
My 1915 had a broken up read handguard, arsenal patched in four places and had begun to fragment again.
I ordered a replacement from Springfield sporters specifying that I wanted one with the legs intact.
I lucked out in getting one that appeared nearly new, unfinished in fact so it required fitting, and the grain of the legs met up and matched perfectly the grain of the legs of the front handguard.

PS
Sometimes these are refered to as lower and upper rather than rear and front, due to the old tradition of leaving rifles stacked muzzle up.

[Just Duke]

Well I am picking up a SMLE dated 1918 tomorrow and these are a few pic's of it.


Welcome aboard.
This looks like a fun project. :bigsmyl2:
Do you a replacement magazine allocated?

[CZFAN]

Welcome aboard.
This looks like a fun project. :bigsmyl2:
Do you a replacement magazine allocated?

Thanks, Well it's still loaded with cosmoline and I do have an extra Mag for it.
But I think I will just give her a good cleaning and leave her stay unmolested. :o

[Just Duke]

Thanks, Well it's still loaded with cosmoline and I do have an extra Mag for it.
But I think I will just give her a good cleaning and leave her stay unmolested. :o

That's great you have a magazine for her already. So are you saying your not going to shot it? If you decide to shoot it I would disassemble the bolt completely and clean it do avoid hand fires or misfires.

[gew98]

My best SMLE , a 1911 matching unmolested example is one superb shooter. Of the dozens of old military rifles I have and the dozens I have had , the two best shooters I kept - both 303 caliber . The best is my unmolested Patt'14 ERA , 12,000 serial range , and of course my 1911 SMLE which as made in 1911 for the MkVII bullet. I love my gew98's - and they have the best combat sights , but they just don't put rounds on top of each other consistantly like the 303's do.

[CZFAN]

That's great you have a magazine for her already. So are you saying your not going to shot it? If you decide to shoot it I would disassemble the bolt completely and clean it do avoid hand fires or misfires.

Well I just picked her up and I was misinformed it's a 1916 and is covered cosmo but I will need to order a replacement forend Stock since it has a few cracks in the wood. Duke it will be shot just not going to sporterize it only repair stock and she has had a good Cleaning :mrgreen:

[Just Duke]

Well I just picked her up and I was misinformed it's a 1916 and is covered cosmo but I will need to order a replacement forend Stock since it has a few cracks in the wood. Duke it will be shot just not going to sporterize it only repair stock and she has had a good Cleaning :mrgreen:

Thank you for not sporterizing it. :drinks:

[CZFAN]

Here is a Mauser 7.65 I just got as well.
http://i.imgur.com/XUbGph.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/punnA.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/2G3Hhh.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/punnAh.jpg

[Multigunner]

Well I just picked her up and I was misinformed it's a 1916 and is covered cosmo but I will need to order a replacement forend Stock since it has a few cracks in the wood. Duke it will be shot just not going to sporterize it only repair stock and she has had a good Cleaning :mrgreen:

If its just cracks, and no wood missing, a properly done repair may be the better route.
You can find NOS walnut fore ends milled for a magazine cut off at Springfield sporters, and Brian Dick ltd may still have these as well.

A 1916 may or may not have the slot milled for the cut off plate.
They dispensed with the cut off at about that time, though many MkIII* rifles still had the slot.

The mag cut off is not a very handy accessory, but if originally fitted with one restoring it is no biggie.

My 1915 did not have the cut off plate in place, but it also did not bear the * or any sign of the * being lined out as some post WW1 rifles did when the cut off and windage adjustable rear sight was restored.

[CZFAN]

Thanks Gunner, I did find this site HERE (https://www.libertytreecollectors.com/productcart/pc/viewPrd.asp?idproduct=884&idcategory=62) for a replacement but the forstock thats on it now it's cracked really bad right under the rec.
But it is a nice SHTLE.

[303Guy]

Real bad cracks are not really an issue to repair. Even missing or rotten wood can be repaired with a little epoxy resin and sawdust mix. Just use the appropriate sawdust to match the colour. Just saying it can be done quite well.

I have a 'rust textured' bore two-groove No4 which is capable of placing bullets on top of each other at 100yds. Unfortunately it has been fully sporterized. Mind you, that's less meaningful than an early ShtLE in full battle dress.

[Multigunner]

Thanks Gunner, I did find this site HERE (https://www.libertytreecollectors.com/productcart/pc/viewPrd.asp?idproduct=884&idcategory=62) for a replacement but the forstock thats on it now it's cracked really bad right under the rec.
But it is a nice SHTLE.

Those look decent, and probably solid, and show enough aging to fit in with the butt stock as it is.

You can probably find cheaper DP fore ends, but how good they would clean up is a craphoot.

The only objection I'd have to using one of those at that site is that they have the later version stirup rather than the WW1 era correct cross pin.

Those look to be from Indian DP rifles.

[Just Duke]

Doesn't look like anyone makes aftermarket stocks.

[Just Duke]

https://www.libertytreecollectors.com/productcart/pc/viewPrd.asp?idproduct=1851&idcategory=2

[Just Duke]

A couple of these, a couple K-31's and a few Garand's should complete my cast bullet assemble.

[Just Duke]

Back up for the new guys. ;)

[303Guy]

Doesn't look like anyone makes aftermarket stocks.Ah but they do. In plastic! The butt piece is fine but the fore-end is rather heavy. I have one such on my SMLE actioned 303/25 sporter. I dumped the fore-end and fitted a nice sporterized wood fore-end which was much lighter.

[Just Duke]

Ah but they do. In plastic! The butt piece is fine but the fore-end is rather heavy. I have one such on my SMLE actioned 303/25 sporter. I dumped the fore-end and fitted a nice sporterized wood fore-end which was much lighter.

Bad wording on my part. I should have said wood replacement stock but thanks.

[JeffinNZ]

Well, that's a much prettier SMLE than mine but does your SMLE hunt enormous mice?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v505/JeffinNZ/Roo%20trip%2010/IMG_0009.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/JeffinNZ/media/Roo%20trip%2010/IMG_0009.jpg.html)

[Just Duke]

Well, that's a much prettier SMLE than mine but does your SMLE hunt enormous mice?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v505/JeffinNZ/Roo%20trip%2010/IMG_0009.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/JeffinNZ/media/Roo%20trip%2010/IMG_0009.jpg.html)

I wish I had one Jeff.
That's almost as big a rat infestation central CA has. Only theirs are bigger!

[Bad Ass Wallace]

I recently restocked an SMLE with new teak timber which was made in Vietnam. The 1915 vintage rifle belonged to my father-in-law and I did it up as something to pass on to the family!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/BAWallace/IMG_0262_zps43bef4c4.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/BAWallace/media/IMG_0262_zps43bef4c4.jpg.html)

[Love Life]

Very nice Bad *** Wallace.

[enfield]

What model sights are shown in the picture with that Teaky Mk111 ?

[Frank46]

Duke, I was the one who posted regarding the 303 case necked up to 375 with no other changes. Looked for a long time on different forums and the folks on nitroexpress.com finally came through with a copy of the case necked up to 375. The cartridge is called the 37 rimmed and is simply the 303 case necked up to 375. Does have a slight shoulder but since it's a rimmed case shouldn't make much difference. Found a semi turned down 375 barrel blank and at present figuring out a barrel style that would look good on a chopped up #5 receiver. Receiver was in poor shape with much pitting and looks to have been drug down the road behind a truck. Got all that fixed with many hours of stoning and silicon carbide paper. The front guard screw hole is buggered up and will hopefully be able to cobble up a new screw after I fix the hole. If you want send me your addy and I'll send a copy of the print. Frank

[Just Duke]

Duke, I was the one who posted regarding the 303 case necked up to 375 with no other changes. Looked for a long time on different forums and the folks on nitroexpress.com finally came through with a copy of the case necked up to 375. The cartridge is called the 37 rimmed and is simply the 303 case necked up to 375. Does have a slight shoulder but since it's a rimmed case shouldn't make much difference. Found a semi turned down 375 barrel blank and at present figuring out a barrel style that would look good on a chopped up #5 receiver. Receiver was in poor shape with much pitting and looks to have been drug down the road behind a truck. Got all that fixed with many hours of stoning and silicon carbide paper. The front guard screw hole is buggered up and will hopefully be able to cobble up a new screw after I fix the hole. If you want send me your addy and I'll send a copy of the print. Frank

I just saw this. Am I too late for your offer sir?

[Frank46]

Duke, just saw this thread, drop me a pm with your address and I'll mail you a copy. If you have a enfield JES reboring can rebore your rifle to 375. Frank

[EDG]

I don't think the Brits did themselves any favors with their version of the Lee Rifle.
Here is one of Lee's other designs with both front and rear locking lugs. Belt and suspenders

152731

[tbx-4]

EDG,
The 1899 Remington Lee commercial rifle may have had front locking lugs as well as rear but it also had it's own deficiencies too.
Two of which are:
-They were an expensive rifle because of precision machine work for the front rear lugs.
-The receive had no recoil lug. Because stocks were thin around the magazine they had a tendency to crack.

By far the British Lee rifles were of greater success...
That said, I'd not turn down an 1899 Remington Lee even with a cracked stock!

http://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/remleecutaway.jpg

[PAT303]

It always makes me laugh when I read or hear about the ''problems'' Lee Enfields have,for a rifle that served in the Boar war,First World War,Second World War,Korea,Malaysia,Afghanistan,Middle East,the Sub Continent,Falklands and pretty much everywhere else there is fighting continuously for over a century I wouldn't mind having some of it's ''problems'' myself. Pat

[EDG]

Sure it had problems. They had to keep changing it, gave it a huge chamber because it easily got full of mud, the magazine was not readily adaptable to a more modern cartridge, it was a transition design between black power and smokless and it was not very rigid.
Sure it was used all over. But so was that crummy Brodie helmet. The Brits were too poor and too cheap to adopt a better rifle.
The US was using the M1 Garand rifle while the tommies were dragging the old bolt guns around.

BTW the Brits got their pants shot off by the Boer farmers and started looking for another rifle when they were interrupted by WWI.


It always makes me laugh when I read or hear about the ''problems'' Lee Enfields have,for a rifle that served in the Boar war,First World War,Second World War,Korea,Malaysia,Afghanistan,Middle East,the Sub Continent,Falklands and pretty much everywhere else there is fighting continuously for over a century I wouldn't mind having some of it's ''problems'' myself. Pat

[PAT303]

Great reply,complete rubbish but yeh. Pat

[Ballistics in Scotland]

The British Lee rifles were never intended for any round other than .303. A .402 round was designed exclusively for the new MkIV Martini-Henry, but never issued when it was discovered to be, although about the best of its kind, obsolete following the development of "chemical powder" by the French. This instantly killed off the impracticality of much smaller calibres, of which the advantages were well known.

The .303 was never intended as a black powder rifle. An Explosives Committee already had samples of the French Poudre B and Nobel's Ballistite, but considered improvement to be required in either case. The black powder pellet, long since found inadequately accurate in the ..577 Snider, was only a stopgap, and the issue Lee-Metford sights were calibrated for a slightly higher velocity than it would produce.

The British government's powder, which appeared in only two or three years, was cordite, and another myth is that the rounded rifling o the Lee-Metford was unsuitable for smokeless powder. It was true of the original cordite, with a 58% nitroglycerin content, such as nowadays is found only in solid fuel rocket propellants, since you don't get your nozzle back after their single flight. The segmental Lee-Enfield rifling was a very incomplete solution, and very early in the twentieth century it was reduced to 30%, which itself is more than modern double based rifle powders. Moderate use of smokeless in an original Lee-Metford is about as acceptable as in any collectible rifle.

There were indeed plenty of .45-70 Lee rifles in the United States, including sporting Remington-Lees, although no bolt action became really popular at the time. James Paris Lee's favourite cartridge, at least before smokeless, was the .43 Spanish. It was New Zealand that withdrew 500 rifles amid some acrimony after case separations and breech explosions, although the fault probably lay with the ammunition, assembled by a local contractor from unstamped cases and powder from a manufacturer more used to blasting powder.

There was nothing very original about Lee's bolt, and although the British benefited very greatly from the rear-mounted handle which came after the US Navy Lee, he probably copied that from von Mannlicher. What the British really paid for was the use of the box magazine, although the first use of the double-column magazine was their work. They also dropped his intention to use interchangeable magazines for loading, although this worked out all right when charger loading was introduced.

People do make the .45-70 and the .405 Winchester work in the Lee-Enfield action, although I am not sure if they achieve a totally reliable feed, or with how much trouble. There is a lot to be said, and very little to lose, in choosing one of the .35 or .375 cartridges based on the .303 or .30-40 Krag cases. The .375x2½ Nitro-Express was used in original Lee sporting rifles, sometimes termed the Lee-Speed after the man who developed most of the British improvements, but you would need .405 Winchester cases to make really good brass. This problem doesn't apply with more recent wildcat rounds.

Here are a couple of very good threads on .303 sporting conversions.

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?270931-The-400-Lee-Speed-project-rifle-(and-friend)

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?246222-A-Lee-Enfield-Sporting-rifle

[gew98]

Great reply,complete rubbish but yeh. Pat
I concur pat. Noticed he did'nt mention that awesome stock mounted hand grenade called the springy-field..... or that obsolescent Krag thing along with the trapdoor thingy the US goobermint saddled it's troops with for way too long. In 1888 many countries in europe had centerfire bolt action repeating magazine fed rifles...what did the USA have... blackpowder singleshot flappydoors , no contest.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Sure it had problems. They had to keep changing it, gave it a huge chamber because it easily got full of mud, the magazine was not readily adaptable to a more modern cartridge, it was a transition design between black power and smokless and it was not very rigid.
Sure it was used all over. But so was that crummy Brodie helmet. The Brits were too poor and too cheap to adopt a better rifle.
The US was using the M1 Garand rifle while the tommies were dragging the old bolt guns around.

BTW the Brits got their pants shot off by the Boer farmers and started looking for another rifle when they were interrupted by WWI.

People seek their self-esteem in some unlikely ways, and the above seems to be about something other than the rifle. The Lee-Enfield didn't attract mud in its direction more than any other rifle, and for several reasons besides the chamber, coped with it with far fewer malfunctions than the others. Unlike the early Springfields it didn't have a tendency to disintegrate, nor the jamming problem of the M16 in its early service. The Garand may have been the first rifle (though I'm not sure it did) to give the ordinary American soldier a standard in rapid fire which would have allowed a man to remain a combat infantrymen in the British army of 1914. Later the British were the first to put a good aperture sight on a military rifle, which must be reckoned a great improvement. General Hatcher certainly said so.

Britain did indeed suffer serious defeats in the Boer War, and nearly sixth of the combat deaths of the USA in Vietnam was far too many. But the rifle worked fine, and by the end the army was out-boering the Boers in fine style, and learning lessons which, while far from ideal for trench warfare, were quite priceless for the legendary forty days in 1914. Perhaps even more puzzling for you, the war turned the Boers into immensely valuable allies in more vital conflicts, and economic contributors to the Empire. It happened that way because the British paid for reconstruction, and because both parties for the most part liked and respected each other, and trusted each other's conduct in the field. I forbear to mention comparisons.

[Multigunner]

"The Garand may have been the first rifle (though I'm not sure it did) to give the ordinary American soldier a standard in rapid fire which would have allowed a man to remain a combat infantrymen in the British army of 1914."
The Krag is as fast to operate as the SMLE, but with fewer rounds in its magazine. You can reload a Krag very quickly with loose cartridges, faster than you can reload a LE with loose cartridges, but the Charger of the SMLE makes all the difference when reloading under stress conditions.
When the Krag Carbine first came out it was a hair faster in a fight than the Lee Metford Carbine with the early six round magazine and no charger guides.

[Multigunner]

PS
While US troops were told to limit rapid fire to 25 shots per minute to avoid eroding the bore any experienced Grand user can fire 60 rounds per minute with a little practice. IIRC the record is 90 rounds per minute.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Pending the next one-day war, that sounds like a lot of missing is intended.

[Multigunner]

The Mad Minutes and Reconnaissance by fire exercises were expected to produce casualties with every round fired.
The British would open up on advancing German troops at extreme ranges dropping men more by guess and by golly till they closed to 300 yards or less. The USMC was taught to open up on advancing Chinese troops at 800 yards. During later stages of WW2 the US Army probed likely ambush sites with massed rifle and MG fire to neutralize unseen enemies.
No one shoots as accurately under high stress situations as they do on the range, except the master snipers who fire relatively few rounds and almost never in rapid fire.

BTW
The old saying about Germans thinking the British had many machineguns due to the rapid fire of the British rifle was in fact first said about the USMC when using the Winchester Lee Straight pull rifle in Cuba.

The two most amazing feats of rapid fire against advancing troops, before the adoption od autoloaders, were the Turks using 1866 Winchester rifles against Russian infantry at Sevastapol and US Marines using Winchester pump action shotguns against Germans during WW1.

[Multigunner]

Excuse me I meant Were not Expected to produce casualties with every round fired.
For some reason I can't edit my posts.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

The old saying about Germans thinking the British had many machineguns due to the rapid fire of the British rifle was in fact first said about the USMC when using the Winchester Lee Straight pull rifle in Cuba.


That part of what you say may well be true, but in 1964 I heard a former German soldier being interviewed on TV, who still believed it was true in 1914. In fact British and German battalions had the same rather meager allowance of machine-guns, but the Germans had a lot more battalions.

[Multigunner]

The SPANAM website has quotes from a letter written by a Spanish officer accused of cowardice because he called for a retreat rather than press an attack on a badly out numbered group of Marines who were cutting his men down in droves with their Winchester Lee Straightpull rifles. He claimed they had many machineguns.

The Winchester Lee was a prime example of the limitations of rapid fire when using high Nitroglycerin content propellants. Rapid fire could burn out the barrel of one of the 6mm Lee Navy rifles very quickly because of the high temperature of the propellant.
The USMC still had a few Colt 1895 potato digger MGs during WW1. These proved highly effective out to 600 yards though less powerful than other MGs in use a the time. These may have inspired experiments with the 6mm SAW cartridge in later years.
With the SMGs being used in large numbers by all combatants and autoloading rifles in limited use by Germany and Russia the importance of rapid fire of the Lee Enfields was losing ground, but the SMLE and No.4 were still far more reliable than most autoloaders in rough conditions.
By mid WW2 the British squad was built around the BREN Gun, with riflemen carrying extra ammo for the BREN just as the Germans built their squads around the MG34 and MG42.

[GabbyM]

Springfield was and is a lot better rifle. Problem it had was back when it first started out in 1906 our Grandfathers still were willing to sacrifice lives for money. Compared to things like coal mines and the rail road industry. Military had it easy. Then the USA developed this Union problem where a workers life started to matter.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

The SPANAM website has quotes from a letter written by a Spanish officer accused of cowardice because he called for a retreat rather than press an attack on a badly out numbered group of Marines who were cutting his men down in droves with their Winchester Lee Straightpull rifles. He claimed they had many machineguns.

The Winchester Lee was a prime example of the limitations of rapid fire when using high Nitroglycerin content propellants. Rapid fire could burn out the barrel of one of the 6mm Lee Navy rifles very quickly because of the high temperature of the propellant.
The USMC still had a few Colt 1895 potato digger MGs during WW1. These proved highly effective out to 600 yards though less powerful than other MGs in use a the time. These may have inspired experiments with the 6mm SAW cartridge in later years.
With the SMGs being used in large numbers by all combatants and autoloading rifles in limited use by Germany and Russia the importance of rapid fire of the Lee Enfields was losing ground, but the SMLE and No.4 were still far more reliable than most autoloaders in rough conditions.
By mid WW2 the British squad was built around the BREN Gun, with riflemen carrying extra ammo for the BREN just as the Germans built their squads around the MG34 and MG42.

The Winchester-Lee certainly was vulnerable to erosion, which is a pity, as subsequent developments could have turned it into about as good a cartridge for a selective-fire military rifle as any existing today. The rifles still extant today though (including mine) more often have barrels damaged by pitting than by erosion. Besides the powder it was vulnerable to the corrosive primer, and I suspect more difficult to clean well than even a .30.

The real lesson of the Spanish-American war came from the 7x57 Mauser. The Spanish troops at San Juan were mostly conscripts and outnumbered more than ten to one, but inflicted disproportionate casualties. The Krag wasn't a bad rifle, and it is hard to think of any action in which a clip-loading or interchangeable-magazine adaptation and better sights wouldn't have made it just as good as the M1903. But the Army's verdict at the time was that the Krag magazine was too slow to recharge.

The problematic heat-treatment of the M1903 lasted until the First World War, but can't fairly be blamed on a desire to save money. Refusing to take a loss on the recently-purchased Krags would have been extremely cheap, and the defective heat treatment was neither a money-saver nor suspected in the rifle's early years. They simply built the best rifle they could.

There may also have been design faults, although improved metallurgy eventually eliminated them. It would be very unusual for a Mauser 98, in good mild steel deeply case-hardened, to disintegrate the way some M1903s did. The Army dissected 93 Mausers captured in the war, but there are no design traits whatever to suggest that they knew a 98 Mauser had come along in the meantime. There is more metal in the 98 receiver ring, and in particular the internal stop-ring which encloses the front of the bolt.

In Lee's early turnbolt rifles a concave guide for the bullet nose merges into an internal web, which does duty as such a strengthening stop-ring, and was later used in most Mannlichers and the Mauser 98. During the First World War American propagandists made much of how a Herr Mauser worked in the Remington plant, observed the Leeaction, and decamped to Germany with his pirated design. This is no more than close to baseless, for Franz Mauser, an elder brother of Paul and Wilhelm, did work there when the Remington-Lee was in production, and may have facilitated the interchange of ideas which characterizes this industry. But there was nothing secret about the identity of Franz, who remained with Remington until his death five years before 1898, a highly esteemed citizen. His brothers had made bolt actions comparable with Lee's, apart from the magazine, since the early seventies. It would have been easier to buy a copy of Lee's German patent, as they no doubt did.

[Multigunner]

Paul Mauser bought up a slew of firearms patents from gunmakers and gunsmiths just on the off chance that his designs might infringe on theirs.
Awhile back I found an early Mauser patent with a drawing of a rear locking bolt action rifle action that appeared to be identical to that of the French MAS 36 RIFLE. I suspect the French copied that earlier unused Mauser design.
That would be tit for tat since Spandau reverse engineered a stolen Lebel to create the Gew88 action.

[PAT303]

I find the history of rifles and the information brought forward on these types of threads far more interesting than the tit for tat bickering threads they normally end up turning into.On the Lee erosion,the small calibre,less than ideal steel,hot powder and quick firing all contributed. Pat

[gew98]

Springfield was and is a lot better rifle. Problem it had was back when it first started out in 1906 our Grandfathers still were willing to sacrifice lives for money. Compared to things like coal mines and the rail road industry. Military had it easy. Then the USA developed this Union problem where a workers life started to matter.
I beg to differ..... toss an enfield to th eground hard..and you still have a rifle to pick up and go on with. Do the same with a springy field and you almost certainly will break something...rear sight , front sight ...handguards.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

They didn't buy any from James Paris Lee, for he sued them and lost, under German law, over the central box magazine, which was effectively protected elsewhere. Conversely Mauser won a large settlement in the US for the Springfield. Von Mannlicher designed a family of three rifles in 1881-82 which suggest interesting doubts about patent rights. The first was a plain Lee-inspired rifle with detachable central box-magazine. But it was followed by almost the same thing with a tube-magazine under the barrel, superior to most bolt-actions of that type only in that it had a loading-gate, so the rifle wasn't immobilized while the magazine was being topped up. The other 1882 Mannlicher had a large gravity-fed magazine rising diagonally from the receiver, and surely only patent law could possibly drive anyone to that. But they were probably where Lee got the rear bolt handle, which Mannlicher never used in large-scale turnbolt production.

Front locking lugs in the Lebel were probably unpatentable, and there is very little of its design in the German Commission 88. An Alsatian deserter is indeed said to have decamp for Germany with his Lebel and ammunition, or at least the story is told. But the German ministry of war told him to go away and not be so silly, as the rifle was scarcely any improvement over the well-known Kropatschek or 71/84 Mauser,and everybody knew an 8mm. rifle would work exceedingly well at first, but then badly through fouling. He then knocked on the door of Bismarck's home, and Bismarck realized that it was the powder that urgently needed to be copied. It is a story so good as to be suspect.

Steyr in Austria-Hungary raised a claim for unauthorized use of the magazine and clip system designed by their employee, Mannlicher, and as part of the settlement got a production contract and free use of its Schlegelmilch bolt, which is best known in the 6.5mm. Mannlichers. Schlegelmilch's principle contribution was the separate, non-rotating bolt-head, quite different from that of Lee, which probably inspired it.

The above just scratches the surface of how much technological inbreeding went on at the time.

[Multigunner]

Anyone who's never run across a SMLE with split handguards or fore end battered till the whole shebang twists about hasn't seen that many SMLEs.
The early style butt stocks sometimes split full length due to the amount of material drilled away for the stock bolt.

No rifle of the day was immune to battle damage or ham handed recruits.

The Springfield front sight was not well protected, so they issued detachable front sight guards. The Marine Corp front sight hood is very sturdy and meant to be left in place. The ladder style rear sight was no more likely to break than the similar sights used on the LE and 93 Mauser. The same basic sight had been in use since the Indian Wars with few if any complaints.
The Springfield 1903 and 03A3 are highly unlikely to break if you simply toss it to the ground. The only 1903 I've seen with a broken stock was one that a horse rolled over on. It had a break at the magazine well on one side and otherwise was undamaged. It was still usable as it was, though I suspect bedding was affected.

[PAT303]

Well I believe after today that the British know how to build a rifle.I've been playing with my No.4 for months,I've tried Queens bedding,Canadian,Sweet,Parker Hale,Fultons and today Bisley,the best was Bisley,4'' groups at 100 with 5 different loads,standard British bedding it does 1 1/2''.4 months and 500 rounds later I'm never going to question the ability of British gun makers. Pat

[gew98]

My main criticism of the Enfield - well early examples was the magazine cutoff and volley sights. The volleys outlived their usefullness pretty much before they were incorporated into the design. The cutoff...marginal at best and easily engaged when not wanted. Otherwise the SMLE is a beautiful rifle and accurate. The "kitchener's mob" of 1914 was unequaled in it's expert use of the enfield rifle in blunting the german advance. They paid the price for standing their ground and the fighting retreat...but the old contempable's accuracy and rate of fire could not have been done with any other rifle of the day