doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com lee enfield sporterized by WW Greener?

The Enfield (SMLE) is NOT a strong action and was made for relatively low pressures. It stretches even at that low level. There were three bolt heads carried at the armorer level to replace the bolt heads when the action stretched, which was a common thing.

Never thought I'd see an enfield I liked...

Kind of hard to read, but it looks like an LSA (London Small Arms) mfg Magazine Lee Enfield (L.E.) Mk1.
The Mk1 MLE came out in 1895, eccentially the same rifle as the Lee Metford with the rifling changed to Enfield style. A few other small changes too.

These are the Long Lee Enfield rifles, not the later SMLE version. These were non-charger loading, dust cover on bolt, and starting with the late version Lee Metford they had a cocking piece safety.

I've been told LSA did build some Lee Sporters. BSA building the bulk of them. I know the BSA guns were made as commercial rifles and have no military markings on them.
I don't have an LSA Sporter or a pic to compare to.

I would assume (bad thing to do I know) that LSA also built the sporters as commercial rifles and would not have any military markings as this rifle does.
Whats missing on the right side of the socket is the Crown VR and date of mfg'r if military. But I think perhaps the engraving has been carefully placed to cover up those areas where the unwanted markings were removed.

On the left side of the socket, a military MLE would have had a rear volley sight and it's tension spring. Those I believe have been carefully filled and engraved over. The spring retaining screw is right about center on the socket and there is a perfectly round circle of engraving there.

A Carbine MLE action could have been used to avoid the volley sight problem as they didn't have any,,but the right side of the action would have been marked L.E.C. I (Lee Enfield Carbine MkI) instead of L.E. I

The dust cover is missing from the bolt. It may have been purposly left off in sporterizing. They are held onto the bolt by 2 lugs on the bolt body. If the lugs are nicely trimmed off, I'd guess the cover is missing for a reason.

The stock and forend look as any other Lee Sporter rifle stocks. There are variations and options but the style, checkering etc look Lee sporter to me.

I can see the receiver and bbl serial number stamped on the left side. I don't believe the sporters were numbered on the bbl on top in most cases, but I could be wrong. My 2 are not, IIRC but that's nothing to base a theory on. MAybe I should go look first!

Most factory sporters also use assembly numbers on the parts as well as the serial numbers on the major parts. Military rifles do not.

Look for any military proof marks of what may be left of them.

I'd hazzard a guess from the pics,,and it's only a guess,,that its a LSA military MLE MkI sporterized.

But maybe someone can confirm that LSA's small sporter production did infact use x-military actions for their basis. Then that changes everything..
Greener could go from a sporterizer to a retailer in that case.

It certainly is a nice looking rifle. Anyone interested in Lee Sporters wouldn't mind owning that one.

Probably slightly off topic, but the New Zealand government bought up the last of BSA's Commercial long Lee Enfield barreled actions in the twenties.
They were a mix of military proof and commercial proof.The military proved ones carry a 20 date stamp.
They were used to "rejuvenate" our well used long lee rifles.The woodwork and other fittings were simply put over onto the new barreled actions.
So if you see a NZ marked long Lee whether sporterised or in military trim with the plain BSA co receiver they are not commercial rifles or a volunteer pattern,just the NZ military doing things on the cheap!

GDU

I'm not sure why this exact same thread was started on two different sub-forums here at doublegun. Are we supposed to post our replies on both?

See http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=252051&page=1
...

It's not a military action. This was purposely built for commercial sale to civilians. The Crown/VR markings are not missing and were not removed---they were never there. Also, there was never a volley sight on this rifle, and no provision for one.

Be cautious when trying to apply military service dates to commercial rifles. Official military changes (e.g., "adopted in 1895,"or "made obsolete in 1902" etc) have very little relevance for commercial models made for private sale. BSA and LSA offered a .303 carbine years before the British military adopted one, and they continued making Lee Metfords (and Martinis for that matter) for years after they had been "replaced" in British service.

LSA made commercial actions and supplied them to retailers, such as Greener. They could not and did not offer government-stamped, military marked actions or rifles for private sale. Those belonged to the Queen.

If we can see all the markings on this rifle, we can probably date it.

As for being a "Lee Speed," the short answer is yes (at least as I loosely define the term). The long answer is that "Lee Speed" was never really the name of a model of rifle. It was patent acknowledgement that was applied to a rifle during the years when the patent was in effect. Afterwards, it was no longer stamped, but the rifles continued to be made. For convenience, I call all the commercial Lee Metfords and Lee Enfields "Lee Speeds" regardless of whether they have the "Lee Speed Patent" stamp. Other collectors disagree and use the term only if the rifle has the patent stamp.

I agree, it's a nice rifle!