The Down Range Forum

Member Section => Tactical Rifle & Carbine => Topic started by: Bic on December 07, 2014, 08:54:49 PM

Title: Not even 'tactical' in 1936!
Post by: Bic on December 07, 2014, 08:54:49 PM
when it was made in Australia. Presently residing chez moi whilst the owner figures out how much he wants for it ??? :

1936 SMLE Lithgow 1936.
Nice condition, matching numbers:
(http://i1232.photobucket.com/albums/ff372/StuartCowley/P1010630_zps5e4b1dfa.jpg)

of course some drongo had to paint all over it!
(http://i1232.photobucket.com/albums/ff372/StuartCowley/P1010633_zps42d293ef.jpg)

optimistic rear sight:
(http://i1232.photobucket.com/albums/ff372/StuartCowley/P1010632_zps8ecfb95d.jpg)

there's a Jon Jovino import mark there somewhere
(http://i1232.photobucket.com/albums/ff372/StuartCowley/P1010631_zps67152ee7.jpg)
Title: Re: Not even 'tactical' in 1936!
Post by: Majer on December 07, 2014, 08:59:22 PM
somewhere in my pile of accumulated gun stuff I have a magazine for a "smelly".303" with ammo, have no clue where I got it or what I'll ever do with it.
Title: Re: Not even 'tactical' in 1936!
Post by: Bic on December 07, 2014, 09:43:07 PM
it does accumulate...I have a bayonet (but no scabbard) that fits this old dog.
Title: Re: Not even 'tactical' in 1936!
Post by: alfsauve on December 08, 2014, 05:07:17 AM
Very nice.  Of course that was major 'tactical' in 1936.
Title: Re: Not even 'tactical' in 1936!
Post by: tombogan03884 on December 08, 2014, 09:06:50 AM
Bic, I don't know if you are writing "tongue in cheek", or if you really don't know a lot about Lee Enfields so I will throw out a couple comments on your post.
1st off, of course it was sufficiently tactical to stay in service from the 1890's (Second Boer war) until the 1950's (Post WWII) in England and much later in Dominion countries, in Afghanistan they were used well into the 1980's being the primary rifle used against the Russians until we started supplying large quantities of AK's to supplement those captured.
It was SO tactical that during the WWI battle of Mons, Germans thought they had run into British troops equipped with large numbers of machine guns rather than the rifles they were actually using. (That actually says more for the training of the "Old Contemptibles " I suppose )
2nd, The number painted on the side is of course a "rack number", if you look it over carefully there may be a unit designation stamped some where. I don't recall where the British stamped them, or if all units did so, but I do know that it was a common practice with the colonial Indian Army.
3rd, the sight is not all that optimistic when you remember that it was common to practice "volley firing" where a whole company or platoon would set their sights to a certain elevation and fire at a specific mark that a single shooter would never attempt, and the .303 British, being comparable to the 30-06 or 7.62X 54 was quite capable of doing damage at that range.
Oh, and #4, While the magazine is indeed "detachable", it was not intended as we use them today. The magazine was intended to remain in the rifle being reloaded through the action and only intended to be removed to make cleaning easier.
Title: Re: Not even 'tactical' in 1936!
Post by: Shoot the guns of history on December 08, 2014, 11:55:04 AM
somewhere in my pile of accumulated gun stuff I have a magazine for a "smelly".303" with ammo, have no clue where I got it or what I'll ever do with it.

If you decide it needs a new home, I would be interested, I have a No1 Mk III from 1918
Title: Re: Not even 'tactical' in 1936!
Post by: tombogan03884 on December 08, 2014, 03:13:32 PM
If you decide it needs a new home, I would be interested, I have a No1 Mk III from 1918

Didn't those have flip up "volley sight" mounted on the receiver ?
Title: Re: Not even 'tactical' in 1936!
Post by: Hazcat on December 08, 2014, 05:56:37 PM
I have an Ishapore MkII in .308.  Cool rifles, the SMLE.
Title: Re: Not even 'tactical' in 1936!
Post by: Shoot the guns of history on December 08, 2014, 09:28:28 PM
Didn't those have flip up "volley sight" mounted on the receiver ?

Mine didn't, it had gone thru overhaul at one point in it's life, the magazine cut off was removed and it had a later model rear sight.
I picked up a drill rifle for parts and swapped out the sight

(http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s97/MGUNSCH/DSC_0192.jpg) (http://s150.photobucket.com/user/MGUNSCH/media/DSC_0192.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Not even 'tactical' in 1936!
Post by: tombogan03884 on December 09, 2014, 07:06:33 AM
Shoot the guns of history, I've looked over you FaceBook page, you've got some really cool stuff on there, I would recommend it to any one here who does FB.
You wouldn't happen to have a Lee Metford around would you ?
It was the predecessor of the Enfield.
Title: Re: Not even 'tactical' in 1936!
Post by: Shoot the guns of history on December 09, 2014, 12:24:52 PM
No I don't, the SmLE is the only British arm I have, my foreign stuff are Swiss 1911, K11, K31, Japanese  Type 38 and 99 Arisaka, German K98, P08, P38, C96, Russian Mosins, a AK,  a Chinuzi aka norinco UZI, and Hungarian PA-63
Title: Re: Not even 'tactical' in 1936!
Post by: tombogan03884 on December 09, 2014, 01:37:04 PM
The C96 is so cool even Han Solo used one ;D
Title: Re: Not even 'tactical' in 1936!
Post by: Shoot the guns of history on December 09, 2014, 02:58:10 PM
The C96 is the latest one I started to reload for, and I had a pain trying to find a load that worked, but I got it solved so it might be going out more often.

I need to get a mold so I can do 303, I have only taken the SmLE out once or twice since I bought it.