Boer-ised Lee Metford

[joseyclosey]

When looking through the inverted sight at a mans head, the head sits really neatly in the inverted Vee. Personal preferences???

Brewstop, your idea of a battle damaged rifle does sound very feasible, i never thought about that.

JJ. K in the heart, does point to sweethearts, i`m inclined to think too.

It is a fascinating piece and i do wish it was mine

Joe

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v14/j ... /19735.jpg[/pic]

[coggansfield]

20 Oct. 2005

11:45pm

Joseyclosey:

I can see the bolt serial number is 58(5?)4D. Can you tell me if this is the same as on the barrel and action body, please? I am assuming there is no serial number on the backsight (most are generic replacements, installed at the time of mk. I* upgrade), though I'd appreciate confirmation of this. I am building a database of long Lees and carbines.

Here is the stock disc from my MLM mk. I* (Sparkbrook, 1890), also a South African veteran, issued to the 2nd battalion, King’s Own Royal Lancaster Regt. (4th Foot), in January 1893, presumably immediately after its mk. I* upgrade. The 2/4th served in South Africa, 1899-1903. My rifle’s foreend was also cut back and the current foreened from the band up is a modern replica.

The second shot shows her in full. (Five minutes later: okay, how the heck do you add a second photo? There has got to be an easier way than this!)

Joseyclosey, thanks for sharing this interesting rifle with us.

Coggansfield

[Niner]

It's easy enough. Just have to get the hang of it. Hit browse. Find the picture. Hit attach. Wait for it to load. Hit browse again and repeat. If you want to link, that can be done too. Just hit img, "paste" then hit *img, as long as they are reasonable size.

Pictures attached at this site must be jpgs or others compatible, not bitmaps, and of a reasonable small size.....otherwise they won't post. We won't get bent out of shape if your picture is too big in a link. We'll downsize it for you.

[joseyclosey]

Hi Coggansfield, yes, all serial numbers are matching. I would be very interested in seeing more pictures of your rifle if you can get round to posting them please.

Joe

[coggansfield]

21 Oct. 2005

5:45pm

Joe, I’ll try and get some photos up this weekend, now that Niner has set me straight on how to.

Returning to your pal’s MLM, is the serial number 5844 or 5854? And is there a serial number on the backsight?

Speaking of the backsight, it seems to me there are two possible explanations for the mysteriously inverted slide.

The first and duller one is simply that someone somewhere along the line, presumably after the rifle had been retired, took the backsight apart for the purposes of cleaning or tinkering and simply put it back together incorrectly.

The second, and much more intriguing, possibility is this. For a start, the inverted slide would have no effect when shooting at anything inside 500 yards because, for that, you’d be sighting along the ramp anyway; the ladder would not be raised. However, for longer ranges, what if the rifle had been a chronic undershooter? It seems to me that one crude remedy for this would be to invert the slide. Notice that the slide has a vertical sighting line. Under normal circumstances, you would align the bottom of the V with the front sight. On an undershooting gun, you would want to ensure that the muzzle was always raised fractionally. This could be brought about by inverting the slide and aligning the now top (previously bottom) of the sighting line with the front sight. This is because the muzzle would now be being aligned with something (the top of the inverted slide) a tad higher than previously (the bottom of the V with the slide the right way up). Just a thought. I think I have the physics of this correct.

Personally, I’d put my money on dull old option 1, however.

Coggansfield

[coggansfield]

22 Oct. 2005

8pm

Joe,

Per your request, here are some Lee-Metford photos, which have given me an excuse to launch into a Lee-Metford lecture. MLM mk. I*s are my current fetish.

There are four subtypes of the MLM mk. I*, of which I am fortunate enough to have three. The first three variations correspond to three of the four variations of the MLM mk. I, from which the mk. I*s were converted.

For those that are interested, these MLM mk. I subtypes are:

• Type 1, model as originally approved (from 1889);

• Type 2, oiler-cavity brass transverse pin deleted (from May 1890);

• Type 3, safety catch deleted and no oiler-cavity pin (from January 1891);

• Type 4a, resighted for black powder for Mediterranean garrisons, no safety, no oiler-cavity pin (from summer 1891);

and

• Type 4b, conventional, not Lewes, sights affixed, no safety, no oiler-cavity pin (from summer 1891).

It should be stressed that all this had happened by summer 1891, six months before the advance to mk. I*.

The first three mk. I* types correspond to the first three mk. I types, from which they were, respectively, converted. There is no analogue to the mk. I types 4a and 4b, as their distinguishing characteristics were their sighting arrangements, which would have been removed upon upgrade to mk. I*.

Instead the mk. I* type 4 is the new-made, purpose-built mk. I*. The type 4 is not a conversion from the mk. I. All mk. I* types 4s are dated 1892 or later. (My particular one is Enfield, 1893.) Because the type 4’s backsight is original to the rifle, it is numbered. On the first three subtypes, the backsight is a generic replacement installed at the time of conversion, so it is frequently not numbered. (I have never seen one that is numbered, but such a creature may exist.)

Because the mk. I* type 4 never had Lewes sights, its front sight is of the traditional long Lee type, that is, milled from a solid piece of iron. On the conversions, types 1-3, the barleycorn is an addition slotted into the old Lewes sight groove.

Anyway, pardon the pontification.

Coggansfield

P.S. I have got the type 4’s magazine. I just forgot to put it in for the photo.

P.P.S. Observant readers may be wondering why my type 3’s buttstock wrist is recessed for a safety lever when the action was built with no provision for such a leaver. The answer is that the butt is a replacement from a type 2 (no oiler-cavity pin, but still having provision for the safety).

[joseyclosey]

Hi CF, seial no. is 5854, just e-mailed my pal to see if the sight is numbered too as i cant remember. As regards the upside down blade, i dont think the rifle would have been sent into the field if it was an undershooter, so you may be right with option 1. Over a hundred years in military possesion who knows how many fiddlers may have played with it.

Thanks for the pics of your rifles you have a nice little collection there, and the info on sub types is interesting, as i am not particularly clued up on the Lee Metfords. I think one of these will have to go on my wish list.

Get back to you later,

Joe

[coggansfield]

23 Oct. 2005

1:50pm

Canada's the place to get them, Joe — and reasonably priced too. I have not lived in Britain for almost two decades, so I have no idea how you'd go about importing. Perhaps there's a way. Anyway, keep an eye on Canadian dealers' web sites.

See you,

Coggansfield

[joseyclosey]

coggansfield, here is the e-mail reply i recieved from my pal as regards the rear sight...

"Joe just had a read of some of the points on Milsurp the rear sight has no

rifle numbers. The rear sight cap has not been removed for a very very long

time and there would have been no reason to remove it by the DLI. I am

pretty sure it was johnny Boer who altered it. Because the sight is inverted

it will actually shoot much lower that the first increment on the slide and

could therefore have been used at closer range. i.e when the slider

indicates a specified range because the V is on the bottom edge of the

slider and not the top the rifle will actually be sighted for closer ranges

than shown on the slider (if that makes sense)"

...hope its of interest to you. The DLI is the Durham Light Infantry, BTW

Regards, Joe

[coggansfield]

24 Oct. 2005

2:20pm

Fascinating, Joe. Thanks for sharing.

Coggansfield

Need:

• MLM mk. I/I* handguards, two.

• MEAC/MLM/MLE buttstock swivel, one.

• CLLM/CLLE foreend wood, one.

• CLLM bolt, one.

• LEC mk. I* buttstock, one.

• MLM mk. II buttstock, BSA&M, one.

• MM and ME clearing rods (okay, I’m dreaming here, but nothing ventured, nothing gained).

• LEC bolt #1311 (if you have this, it must be mismatched because I have mk. I carbine #1311; I have a bolt available for swap plus cash).

___________________________

“My father worked in profanity as other artists work in oils or clay.” — A Christmas Story.