How about a Long Lee Enfield

[rayg]

Here's the one I have Serial # 7527, Mk I, BSA & M CO. dated 1896. 303 cal. The serial number places the rifle as used by Canadians and probably in the Boer war by the Canadians troops. It is all correct and matching with about 95% original bluing remaining and is complete with the volley sights. It also has the almost always missing, it's original "clearing", not cleaning, rod. The bore is about good-VG condition with strong rifling. A very nice looking excellent condition rifle. It’s complete with a correct good condition bayonet with out the scabbard, Ray

long lee2-1.JPG (22.1 KiB) Viewed 10762 times

long lee2-4.JPG (28.75 KiB) Viewed 10762 times

long lee2-6.JPG (22.04 KiB) Viewed 10762 times

long lee2-7.JPG (30.13 KiB) Viewed 10762 times

Long Lee2-11.JPG (22.45 KiB) Viewed 10762 times

long lee2-10.JPG (20.71 KiB) Viewed 10762 times

long lee2-3.JPG (30.04 KiB) Viewed 10762 times

[DuncaninFrance]

What a gem Ray, thanks for the images

[Aughnanure]

I've seen a lot better an' it's a bit old but if you want to sell it I could possibly bring myself to make an offer, but don't expect too much. Disregard what Duncan said, besides which it's the model with the awkward safety catch.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
may
look
green
but
that's
only
envy.

[rayg]

[A square 10]

very nice rifle sir , and i like the accoutrements as well

[Dave 101]

Hi

I spotted your post due to the fact Iam just about to buy a Long Lee , one which was converted to a .22 trainer , I notice the rifle has a Metford bayonet fitted on it . Iam no expert in Enfield rifles but would the rifle not be a Metford ?


Dave

[A square 10]

no , with the LE I marking its definetly a Lee Enfield , the Metford marking would be be LM and
refers to the rifling of the barrel more than anything else

the 1888 bayonet will fit both equally well ,

[Dave 101]

Thanks for the info , now I know how I can identify mine when I get it , the seller from his description isnt sure what it is , so both rifles are the same except for the rifling and markings .

D ave

[A square 10]

there are a few other subtle diferences , in the timber there is a distinctive recess below the cutoff , and grasping grooves in the forearm [later ispensed with] the early rifles of mkI pattern had a square cut handgard , and the top was grooved with a single lengthwise 'sighting cut' for lack of correct nomenclature , backsight graduations were adjusted as they were originaly for black powder , other minutia you will enjoy researching as it lets you become one with your rifle

[Jc5]

no , with the LE I marking its definetly a Lee Enfield , the Metford marking would be be LM and
refers to the rifling of the barrel more than anything else

Minor correction: Lee Metford rifles were not marked "LM". They simply had the mark number: I, I*, II, or II*. When the Lee Enfield was introduced in 1895, they began marking them LE plus the mark number.

Lee Metfords are sometimes mistaken for Lee Enfields because they could be marked "Enfield" below the crown and above the date...but this just means they were made at RSAF Enfield (rather than B.S.A. & M., L.S.A. or Sparkbrook)...they are not Lee Enfields unless they say LE.