Long Lee marking question

Woftam · Post by **Woftam** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 4:22 pm

Perusing my firearms photo's (which are all I have access to at the moment unfortunately) and I noticed a marking that I don't recall seeing. The rifle was fairly new to me before it went into storage.

The mark I refer to is the "P" just after the buttsocket. Any ideas ?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/w ... eae4da.jpg[/pic]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/w ... 81913e.jpg[/pic]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/w ... 22a5ea.jpg[/pic]

Brian the Brit · Post by **Brian the Brit** » Fri Oct 28, 2005 4:56 pm

Woftam,

Quoting from Skennerton's Small Arms Identification Series No 7 ".303 Magazine Lee-Metford and Magazine Lee-Enfield" page 23:

"The letter P on butt indicates that it has been treated with paraffin wax and benzole and compressed"

I knew I'd seen it somewhere!

Hope this helps.

Brian

Woftam · Post by **Woftam** » Sat Oct 29, 2005 3:17 am

Brian,

Thanks. I knew I'd seen it before also. But not having any reference books with me it was slowly driving me nuts.

Tom-May · Post by **Tom-May** » Sat Oct 29, 2005 5:29 am

"The letter P on butt indicates that it has been treated with paraffin wax and benzole and compressed"

Presumably this was a wood preservative treatment (to replace BLO?) yes/no?

How effective was it and when was it discontinued?

Regards

Tom

coggansfield · Post by **coggansfield** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:26 pm

1 Nov. 2005

5:25pm

The treatment served to prevent shrinkage of the buttstock wood. During Boer War many butts had shrunk. This had allowed the stock bolts to work loose, whereupon the butt would fall off and get lost.

In March 1902 for Metford rifles and carbines, and for some bizarre reason not until September 1902 for Enfield rifles and carbines, the paraffin treatment was authorized for the replacement butts, all of which have the P stamp. Your rifle appears not have have a replacement butt, but presumably it was assembled after September 1902 and so got a treated butt anyway.

The practice was discontinued after the long Lee and carbine series because it was no longer needed. There was a design modification. With the new design, the stock bolt, protruding all the way through the socket, was locked in place under the action. It could only be removed once the foreend had been removed. As such, there was no need to worry about shrinkage because the stock bolt could not work loose anyway.

Hope this helps,

Coggansfield

P.S. That’s a nice looking mk. I* you have there. As an aside, what is the big round stamp on the butt to the right of the sold-out-of-service arrows?

Woftam · Post by **Woftam** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:16 pm

The roundel to the right is an early Australian military marking. The rifle was in service with the Victorian Rifles (from 10/05 obviously) and the roundel is VICTORIA surounded by COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (from about 8 o'clock around to 4 o'clock clockwise) and across the bottom is MILY FORCES (with the Y half size as a superscript). Rifle also has nice VIC markings.

Aughnanure · Post by **Aughnanure** » Wed Nov 02, 2005 3:39 am

This seems like a good spot to remind one and all that the experiment of the locking plate in the forend of the No1 was not a success. The butts still shrank and became loose,but now they could not be tightened without removing the forend, which meant an armourers job. Because tightening now required the front and rere guard screws to be removed along with the outer band,the trigger guard and the innerband screw. Also the sling.

No longer could the CSM do the job with the Coy's trusty screwdriver.

India woke up early and cut the square end off their stock bolts as did unit armourers who would put their own mark on the butts so that they didn't have to fool around. If you have a No1 with an un-identifiable letter stamped somewhere then your s/bolt just might be cut off.

Bye the way, that's a lovely looking rifle.

Eoin.

coggansfield · Post by **coggansfield** » Wed Nov 02, 2005 10:27 am

2 Nov. 2005

10:30am

Eoin, you are certainly right. I should have written "there was no need to worry about shrinkage because the stock bolt SUPPOSEDLY could not work loose anyway."

Anyway, it's still a really, really nice looking mk. I*.

Coggansfield

Woftam · Post by **Woftam** » Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:52 pm

Thank you for the compliments gentlemen. Would love to tell you how it shoots but that is a pleasure for when I return to Australia. You do realise all compliments compel me to post more photo's don't you ?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/w ... Lee011.jpg[/pic]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/w ... Lee008.jpg[/pic]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/w ... Lee007.jpg[/pic]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v33/w ... Lee006.jpg[/pic]

Aughnanure · Post by **Aughnanure** » Wed Nov 02, 2005 4:20 pm

OK, Colour me green, again.

Eoin.

Long Lee marking question

Long Lee marking question

Got it!