Enfield-Rifles.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Enfields > Info for New Enfield Owners
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Another need help identifying
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Another need help identifying

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
Blatt View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: October 02 2012
Location: Pretoria
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Blatt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Another need help identifying
    Posted: October 02 2012 at 3:12pm
Hi Guys

I have a 303 Sporterized Lee Enfield Rifle.
From reading on the internet I have found that it was manufactured at RSAF.
I also know that it is a MK3 of some sorts.

I suspect it is a SMLE MK3 but the writings on it is a bit different from what I have found.
The SMLE is written with something else replacing the M
Underneath SMLE the MK number appears as a III but next to it there are two horizontal markins.

Can you please help me identify what the symbols are, the one replacing the M in SMLE and the one next to the number III


Back to Top
A square 10 View Drop Down
Special Member
Special Member
Avatar
Donating Member

Joined: December 12 2006
Location: MN , USA
Status: Offline
Points: 14452
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote A square 10 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 03 2012 at 1:56am
well ,  i believe that "M" replacement is an "HT" , the abreviation for 'short'  
 
but the one next to the III is a cancelled star * , meaning this was returned to mkIII status between the wars , before it was sported
Back to Top
Blatt View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: October 02 2012
Location: Pretoria
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Blatt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 03 2012 at 2:54am
Thanks for the reply.

I wonder why they would have returned it to MKIII status rather than keeping it MKIII*.

Would they not need to change the internal workings for that. Have you ever seen this before?


Back to Top
Lithgow View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: October 25 2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1417
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lithgow Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 03 2012 at 6:51am
The main difference between the MkIII and the MkIII* was that the III had the volley sights and  the cutoff. The internal workings were the same.
Back to Top
303Guy View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: July 10 2012
Location: Auckland
Status: Offline
Points: 495
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 303Guy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 03 2012 at 1:52pm
That is a badly stamped SHTLE III(*?) for Short Lee Enfield Mk III (?).

This is a SHTLE I


This is the difference - it had an integral clip charger guide on one side with the rest of the guide on the bolt head.


Sadly, the bolt head bit has been removed!Cry
303Guy
Back to Top
Blatt View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: October 02 2012
Location: Pretoria
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Blatt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 03 2012 at 2:18pm
Wow I am really glad I joined this forum, you guys really know your enfields.

303Guy I dont know if that is badly stamped because the stamp is quite clear but I am still reluctant to believe that it is the short as I have seen the HT before on other Enfields.

What are the main differences between the SMLE and the SHTLE maybe I can figure it out that way.

I have another 303 but sadly it has been disabled, I know it was date stamped 1901 but I dont know the other markings, I will have to have a look.
Back to Top
303Guy View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: July 10 2012
Location: Auckland
Status: Offline
Points: 495
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 303Guy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 03 2012 at 3:53pm
Ummm ... I'm a novice here but you are right.  It is not badly stamped.  It is however, a new to me marking and way of stamping 'SHT' but SHT it is.  I can now make out the letters.  That symbol after the III is probably a '*' too.  Would you mind posting more photo's of that rifle?  The more the better.

Here is a sample of other stampings.

303Guy
Back to Top
Lithgow View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: October 25 2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1417
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lithgow Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2012 at 6:47am
In the case of your rifle, there is absolutely no difference between a SHTLE and an SMLE. What you have is a No1 MkIII.
It appears to have been quite deeply stamped in that area to me.
Back to Top
muffett.2008 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: December 09 2011
Location: scone. nsw
Status: Offline
Points: 751
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote muffett.2008 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2012 at 7:05am
Technically, that is incorrect, although later the early rifles were all lumped in with the SMLE's the actual differences were many.
 Nosecap, Volley sights(up to Mk.III) cutoff, sliding charger bridge, magazine and ball and seat trigger, plus a few other minor ones.
  I prefer to call them Short Lees, that's what they are, despite some down the line name change.
Back to Top
Lithgow View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: October 25 2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1417
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lithgow Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2012 at 4:44pm
That would be comparing the MkI to the MkIII I believe. The rifle pictured in the original post is a MkIII.
Perhaps my last post was not clear. The rifle is marked SHTLE and is a MkIII so in the case of this particular rifle, they are the same.
Back to Top
A square 10 View Drop Down
Special Member
Special Member
Avatar
Donating Member

Joined: December 12 2006
Location: MN , USA
Status: Offline
Points: 14452
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote A square 10 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 09 2012 at 8:34am
and yes it was a mkIII* but returned to mkIII status between the wars as was common then , and the * struck through to cancel it , it became a no1 rifle in the 20s when they made that retroactive
 
BTW it may all seem a little confusing but when you sit down and read it thru it will bein to make sense
Back to Top
303Guy View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: July 10 2012
Location: Auckland
Status: Offline
Points: 495
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 303Guy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 09 2012 at 3:04pm
Originally posted by A square 10 A square 10 wrote:

and yes it was a mkIII* but returned to mkIII status between the wars as was common then , and the * struck through to cancel it , it became a no1 rifle in the 20s when they made that retroactive ...
After another look it seems quite clear once that was pointed out.  
Thanks.
303Guy
Back to Top
A square 10 View Drop Down
Special Member
Special Member
Avatar
Donating Member

Joined: December 12 2006
Location: MN , USA
Status: Offline
Points: 14452
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote A square 10 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 10 2012 at 4:09am
no worries , it was made as a mkIII* as all were into the change by 1918 ,  
 
i also wanted to mention it was made at "ROF Enfeild" , the royal ordnance factory , not RSAF as sugested ,
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.04
Copyright ©2001-2021 Web Wiz Ltd.