new enfield, what is it? cant find any info

0 Kudos

Forum Jump

Author	Comment
glocker357	new enfield, what is it? cant find any info	Lead	[-]
Posts: 1 (09/28/09 09:29 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Tags : None I just bought my first enfield today, was told it was a mk.3 no.1. well it isnt. The marking on the strap says E.R. under the crown, then 1907, then the number 1*** The barrel has proof markings from 1907, and the cross flags, and about 10 others, wrapping around the barrel under the stock, all different dates and crowns. the bolt has the same serial numbers, cant find any on the receiver. Ill throw in some pics but my camera sucks, so i hope someone can help!!
m1 talker		#1	[-]
Posts: 6997 (09/29/09 07:14 AM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	There was never a Mk.3 No.1 rifle. However the No1, Mk3 was a very common rifle. So maybe it is the correct terminology that is throwing you off? If the barrel proof markings go back to 1907, then that is what the rifle probably is. I can't help with the pictures, but if you could find someone to post them for you, that would help a lot. Curt
glocker357		#2	[-]
Posts: 2 (09/29/09 07:48 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts
glocker357		#3	[-]
Posts: 3 (09/29/09 07:50 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	thats the problem, its dated 1907 mk1*** it has no bridge, but was built when only the bridged ones were supposed to be built from what i have read.
bradtx		#4	[-]
Posts: 1590 (09/29/09 08:18 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	glocker357, If the rifle was originally a naval spec Mk.I** there will be no charger bridge. Brad
glocker357		#5	[-]
Posts: 4 (09/29/09 08:47 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	bradtx wrote: glocker357, If the rifle was originally a naval spec Mk.I** there will be no charger bridge. Brad Ok, so what designation would this rifle be then? whats the difference between the naval and the field troops weapons? will this accept the same parts as a mk3? thanks for any info that you can give me!
bradtx		#6	[-]
Posts: 1591 (09/29/09 09:56 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	glocker357, It's a ShtLE (SMLE and No.1 are interchangeable designations) Mk.I***. The Land (army) and Naval specs were occasionally different, usually in some minor way. I'm not positive, but I think most, if not all Mk.III parts will fit. I'll be corrected if not. Brad
Bear43		#7	[-]
Posts: 591 (09/29/09 10:24 AM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	That is a No 1 Mk 1***, the predecessor to the No 1 Mk 3. The bolt should have a charger guide on it, it was before the full charger bridge was introduced. The majority of No 1 Mk 3 parts will work just fine on this rifle. The "correct" parts for it are not easy to find at all.
glocker357		#8	[-]
Posts: 5 (09/29/09 11:02 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Bear43 wrote: That is a No 1 Mk 1***, the predecessor to the No 1 Mk 3. The bolt should have a charger guide on it, it was before the full charger bridge was introduced. The majority of No 1 Mk 3 parts will work just fine on this rifle. The "correct" parts for it are not easy to find at all. So.......dont blow it up then huh!! i take it that i paid a fair price for it? ($125 bucks) and i take it that i cant throw a scope on this rifle can i.
Bear43		#9	[-]
Posts: 595 (09/30/09 07:51 AM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I wouldn't know about scope mounts, I don't scope any of my rifles. I can say that at best it would be difficult to find a mount because they are designed for No 1 Mk 3's with the charger bridge. The price you paid is about right. I paid the same for my 1906 BSA/Sparkbrook No 1 Mk 1*** that was still in it's original but cut down stock. Last Edited By: Bear43 09/30/09 08:16 AM. Edited 1 times.
TP		#10	[-]
Posts: 946 (09/30/09 08:12 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	A Scope? As it stands now, you could, it has a modern, civilian plastic stock so if you intend to leave it as is a scope will be fine, just try to find one that does not require drilling and tapping so that a future owner can do the full restoration. If you intend to restore it to as near original configuration as possible, no scope. Personally, I would go for the restoration and wouldn't even consider a scope under any circumstances, even if leaving the plastic stock.
MarinePMI.czechpistols82792		#11	[-]
Posts: 4 (09/30/09 09:19 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Might want to edit that photo and cover up the name on the credit card in the back ground... Maybe I'm just paranoid, but there you have it...
glocker357		#12	[-]
Posts: 6 (10/01/09 12:54 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	TP wrote: A Scope? As it stands now, you could, it has a modern, civilian plastic stock so if you intend to leave it as is a scope will be fine, just try to find one that does not require drilling and tapping so that a future owner can do the full restoration. If you intend to restore it to as near original configuration as possible, no scope. Personally, I would go for the restoration and wouldn't even consider a scope under any circumstances, even if leaving the plastic stock. All i wanted is a solid strong rifle that fires big nasty bullets really really fast, and this fit the bill, as for now, i will not tap into the receiver to install a scope mount because i might want to sell it one day and i understand how detrimental it is to alter a firearm or a car that isnt reversible, I will take it to ottocomp and have it refinished, sighted in, and depending on what he has to say about the rifles current condition, i will decide from that point on future modifications.
Ironnewt		#13	[-]
Posts: 1 (10/03/09 04:59 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Fellas, I'm in the same boat. Bought my first Enfield today, a #4 Mk 1 and I'm very pleased with it. It needs a little TLC but the bore is nice and although the finish is a bit worn there is no rust. The problem? Except for the serial # (DA24xxxA) there is not a mark on it other than the importer's stamp (which he put on the bottom of the barrel at the muzzle) The serial is on the band on the left side below the safety a little above half way down. Any help will be appreciated.
m1 talker		#14	[-]
Posts: 7012 (10/04/09 07:39 AM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	There was a nice condition No1 Mk3 rifle that showed up at many gun shows a couple years ago, but I don't think it ever sold, as the seller was simply asking too much for it, $275. But I steered clear of it because it had no markings on it at all. I could not find any importers mark on it, so I presumed it came in before that was required. The only, and I mean ONLY marking on it was the serial number. Every time I would see it at a gun show, which was about four times a year, I would always closely examine it, but not having any markings, I suspected it was some sort of homegrown concoction of some sort. To this day, I don't have a clue as to where it was even made at. I wonder if any others have seen similiar unmarked rifles before? Curt
Ironnewt		#15	[-]
Posts: 7 (10/04/09 08:53 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Curt, If this was a Frankenfield, it was put together a while back. There are some dings in the stock that are on both the stackand the handgaurd. The steel parts have wear marks that go from part to the one adjacent and consistant in wear and aparent age. Nor does it look like anything was polished off. Where would the makings be anyway? Thanks
glocker357		#16	[-]
Posts: 7 (10/05/09 02:17 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	when i took mine apart to clean i found a ton of stampings all around the barrel where it meets the receiver, check at that location.
m1 talker		#17	[-]
Posts: 7014 (10/05/09 07:46 AM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I am very familiar with the Lee Enfield rifles, as I have been playing around with them for over 45 years now. But this particular rifle is the very first one I have ever seen that did not have a single marking on it ANYWHERE, other than a serial number, that may have even been bogus. And that is why I never bought it, even though the seller tried making a good deal on it every time I saw it. I collect rifles with some known history behind them. If a rifle is totally unmarked, then there is no way of finding out its history, and hence, no use to me. Curt Last Edited By: m1 talker 10/05/09 08:29 AM. Edited 1 times.
6MD		#18	[-]
Posts: 13 (12/08/09 06:29 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	There are a few floating around Australia unmarked(I have seen only one), lunchbox specials from the factories between the wars. Interesting.
texasjack		#19	[-]
Posts: 1696 (12/12/09 07:52 PM) veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	If this were mine, I'd look for a proper issue stock and hardware and restore it. I'm assuming that the rest of it is unmolested? And you could then sell the poly stock to help defray the expense. It will still perform the same only it will be worth more! And if you really want a scope, use a mount that fits into the rear sight leaf base and a handgun scope or scout scope. But you might shoot it with the issue sights first for a bit and see how you like that. You may be surprised at how quickly it is to sight and shoot. "Only those are fit to live who do not fear to die; and none are fit to die who have shrunk from the joy of life and the duty of life. Both life and death are parts of the same Great Adventure." - Theodore Roosevelt MOLON LABE
A square 10		#20	[-]
Posts: 798 (12/24/09 08:38 PM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	back on topic , you have oe of the last mkI*** rifles , it would have had half the charger bridge on the left reciever and the other half on the bolt head - this is what should be there , it should also have this rear sight - and the volleys and cutoff , http://steyrmannlicher.yuku.com/directory "the original yesterdays weapons"