Archived Posts » 59,757,950
Looking for info on my new Enfield
4/7/2012 7:59:22 PM
I just bought an Enfield mk 3* and was hoping the Enfield experts could help me out with some ifo about the gun. The Serial # of the receiver, barrel, fore stock, and rear sight match (R98**). The serial number for the bolt is (G740**). There are no markings on the rear stock other than "MRD", which is right behind the trigger gaurd. Attached below are pictures of the markings on the gun, and and all info wuld be greatly appreciated!
4/8/2012 10:52:23 AM
GR, King George V 05-1910 to 01-1936.
4/8/2012 11:06:30 AM
Originally Posted By madcratebuilder:
GR, King George V 05-1910 to 01-1936.
GR, King George V 05-1910 to 01-1936.
Are these dates? If so are they times it was issued into service?
4/8/2012 4:56:20 PM
That appears to be a pretty normal 1916 RSAF Enfield SMLE Mk. III*. Should not have a magazine cutoff. Is there a serial number on your cocking piece? It looks like that might be a Mk. I part.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
4/8/2012 10:29:28 PM
Originally Posted By MVolkJ:
That appears to be a pretty normal 1916 RSAF Enfield SMLE Mk. III*. Should not have a magazine cutoff. Is there a serial number on your cocking piece? It looks like that might be a Mk. I part.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
That appears to be a pretty normal 1916 RSAF Enfield SMLE Mk. III*. Should not have a magazine cutoff. Is there a serial number on your cocking piece? It looks like that might be a Mk. I part.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
There is no magzine cut off. By cocking piece do you mean the back of the bolt handle?
4/9/2012 10:57:14 AM
Originally Posted By Lyons:
There is no magzine cut off. By cocking piece do you mean the back of the bolt handle?
Originally Posted By MVolkJ:
That appears to be a pretty normal 1916 RSAF Enfield SMLE Mk. III*. Should not have a magazine cutoff. Is there a serial number on your cocking piece? It looks like that might be a Mk. I part.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
That appears to be a pretty normal 1916 RSAF Enfield SMLE Mk. III*. Should not have a magazine cutoff. Is there a serial number on your cocking piece? It looks like that might be a Mk. I part.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
There is no magzine cut off. By cocking piece do you mean the back of the bolt handle?
He means the roundish piece on the back of the bolt. If you pull it, it will cock the weapon. the Mk III has a round cocking piece, like yours. Most Mk III*'s have a rectagular serrated cocking piece.
4/9/2012 9:04:37 PM
Ok, is that an issue that it has the mk 3 cocking piece? Is that something they did or is that something that was done along the way?
4/9/2012 9:29:45 PM
No. They are interchangeable. Parts were parts and whatever fit was used.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
4/9/2012 9:52:52 PM
As said, a 1916 Enfield. From what I can see, it looks like a well preserved specimen.
All those tiny stamps you took pics of, they are proof marks. Take it out of the stock and you will see a ton of proofs.
Think about this.....this rifle was made in 1916. If you had a car made in 1916, do you think there is any possibility that it would have all it's original parts today?
Nope. All armys inspect their weapons and replace parts as needed over time. Just because it has parts that are not "correct" for it's year means nothing really.
It does affect value if the bolt doesn't match the receiver, but that happens.
So how is the bore? Does it have a bolt in the stock in front of the receiver?
Nice score. One huge problem these day is there is little to no surplus ammo left for them. The POF stuff is junk, don't waste your money.
Shoot it and enjoy
4/10/2012 9:33:53 AM
Right, being made in 1916, there were undoubtedly parts left in the bin and they would use them until exhausted. The Mk III* was an economic charge, no so much a functional one. It was meant to make it cheaper and faster to crank out rifles as fast as possible.
The round cocking piece is a "Mk III" part, but that doesn't mean it's not right for YOUR Mk III*.
The round cocking piece is a "Mk III" part, but that doesn't mean it's not right for YOUR Mk III*.
4/10/2012 10:02:11 AM
Well, it's not right for this rifle because it's not this rifle's bolt (mismatched), not because the cocking piece is wrong! 
As was said, parts were used until they were used up, and were swapped about at various repair and rebuild facilities. If it works, it's correct. The cocking piece wasn't part of any spec.
Bolt appears to be early BSA based on the view marks and cocking piece.
As was said, parts were used until they were used up, and were swapped about at various repair and rebuild facilities. If it works, it's correct. The cocking piece wasn't part of any spec.
Bolt appears to be early BSA based on the view marks and cocking piece.
4/10/2012 11:03:32 AM
Originally Posted By Avidrook:
As said, a 1916 Enfield. From what I can see, it looks like a well preserved specimen.
All those tiny stamps you took pics of, they are proof marks. Take it out of the stock and you will see a ton of proofs.
Think about this.....this rifle was made in 1916. If you had a car made in 1916, do you think there is any possibility that it would have all it's original parts today?
Nope. All armys inspect their weapons and replace parts as needed over time. Just because it has parts that are not "correct" for it's year means nothing really.
It does affect value if the bolt doesn't match the receiver, but that happens.
So how is the bore? Does it have a bolt in the stock in front of the receiver?
Nice score. One huge problem these day is there is little to no surplus ammo left for them. The POF stuff is junk, don't waste your money.
Shoot it and enjoy
As said, a 1916 Enfield. From what I can see, it looks like a well preserved specimen.
All those tiny stamps you took pics of, they are proof marks. Take it out of the stock and you will see a ton of proofs.
Think about this.....this rifle was made in 1916. If you had a car made in 1916, do you think there is any possibility that it would have all it's original parts today?
Nope. All armys inspect their weapons and replace parts as needed over time. Just because it has parts that are not "correct" for it's year means nothing really.
It does affect value if the bolt doesn't match the receiver, but that happens.
So how is the bore? Does it have a bolt in the stock in front of the receiver?
Nice score. One huge problem these day is there is little to no surplus ammo left for them. The POF stuff is junk, don't waste your money.
Shoot it and enjoy
The bore is good. There are 3 screws in front of the receiver, 1 at the front of the triggrr gaurd, 1 that holds the rear sight gaurd in place, and 1 that bolts the bottom of the fore stock to the barrel.
4/10/2012 11:05:27 AM
I appreciate all the info about the rifle. I mainly wanted to make sure that bubba the gun smith didnt throw a bolt that he had lying around in the gun. It does make sense that they what have used what they had when they were pumping out war guns.
4/10/2012 11:13:29 AM
Originally Posted By Lyons:
The bore is good. There are 3 screws in front of the receiver, 1 at the front of the triggrr gaurd, 1 that holds the rear sight gaurd in place, and 1 that bolts the bottom of the fore stock to the barrel.
Originally Posted By Avidrook:
As said, a 1916 Enfield. From what I can see, it looks like a well preserved specimen.
All those tiny stamps you took pics of, they are proof marks. Take it out of the stock and you will see a ton of proofs.
Think about this.....this rifle was made in 1916. If you had a car made in 1916, do you think there is any possibility that it would have all it's original parts today?
Nope. All armys inspect their weapons and replace parts as needed over time. Just because it has parts that are not "correct" for it's year means nothing really.
It does affect value if the bolt doesn't match the receiver, but that happens.
So how is the bore? Does it have a bolt in the stock in front of the receiver?
Nice score. One huge problem these day is there is little to no surplus ammo left for them. The POF stuff is junk, don't waste your money.
Shoot it and enjoy
As said, a 1916 Enfield. From what I can see, it looks like a well preserved specimen.
All those tiny stamps you took pics of, they are proof marks. Take it out of the stock and you will see a ton of proofs.
Think about this.....this rifle was made in 1916. If you had a car made in 1916, do you think there is any possibility that it would have all it's original parts today?
Nope. All armys inspect their weapons and replace parts as needed over time. Just because it has parts that are not "correct" for it's year means nothing really.
It does affect value if the bolt doesn't match the receiver, but that happens.
So how is the bore? Does it have a bolt in the stock in front of the receiver?
Nice score. One huge problem these day is there is little to no surplus ammo left for them. The POF stuff is junk, don't waste your money.
Shoot it and enjoy
The bore is good. There are 3 screws in front of the receiver, 1 at the front of the triggrr gaurd, 1 that holds the rear sight gaurd in place, and 1 that bolts the bottom of the fore stock to the barrel.
Those are all normal. What he's asking about is known as the Ishapore Screw - it's a large transverse screw or bolt through the forearm just forward of the trigger guard. It's primarily an Indian modification (thus the name Ishapore Screw). This was done as a preventative measure to prevent cracking of the forearm.
4/10/2012 9:08:47 PM
The screw just forward of the trigger gaurd is a normal screw. Is there something I need to know to keep from cracking the stock?
4/10/2012 9:23:57 PM
Originally Posted By Lyons:
The screw just forward of the trigger gaurd is a normal screw. Is there something I need to know to keep from cracking the stock?
The screw just forward of the trigger gaurd is a normal screw. Is there something I need to know to keep from cracking the stock?
Nope, you're good to go. The Indians just went overboard with what was originally a repair.
4/10/2012 9:25:06 PM
Ok, thanks for the info. So far Im really happy with the gun!
4/11/2012 11:14:38 AM
Originally Posted By MVolkJ:
Well, it's not right for this rifle because it's not this rifle's bolt (mismatched), not because the cocking piece is wrong!
As was said, parts were used until they were used up, and were swapped about at various repair and rebuild facilities. If it works, it's correct. The cocking piece wasn't part of any spec.
Bolt appears to be early BSA based on the view marks and cocking piece.
Well, it's not right for this rifle because it's not this rifle's bolt (mismatched), not because the cocking piece is wrong!
As was said, parts were used until they were used up, and were swapped about at various repair and rebuild facilities. If it works, it's correct. The cocking piece wasn't part of any spec.
Bolt appears to be early BSA based on the view marks and cocking piece.
Yeah, my Mk III has a round cocking piece, but the bolt is mismatched.
Thw bolt was glued in place by cosmoline when I bought the rifle, so it wasn't a modern swap. I can only imagine that when the rifles were stored, they matched up whatever parts they had. It could just be blind luck that my Mk III had the round cocking piece, but maybe the guy putting these to sleep did the best he could put them in the proper configuration. Who knows!?
4/11/2012 2:05:38 PM
Anyone know what the "MRD" stands for on the butt stock?
