1917 Enfield SMLE mk3 303?

Discussion in 'General Rifle Discussion' started by briandj, Jan 1, 2011.

  1. briandj

    briandj New Member

    2
    0
    0
    I recently was given this rifle it says its an 1917 enfield smle mk3 303 rifle.
    I searched all over the internet trying to find info about it and pictures that look like it. I cant find anything that looks like it, all the pics i found have different looking barrel they are shorter snub barrel. So Im looking for anyone who has any info to help me decide if its a fake or if it is real and perhaps the barrel has been replaced or if its original. I know the strap and shock absorber on the barrel arent original, but I really dnt have a lot of knowledge about antique rifles, so if you have any info that could help me out I would appreciate it if you emailed me back.

    Thanks Brian J
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Jan 2, 2011
  2. c3shooter

    c3shooter Administrator Staff Member

    21,327
    168
    63
    This is a SMLE- click here:Collecting and Shooting the Enfield No. 1 Mk III - HISTORY

    Further down on the same site is the US Mdl 1917- there was an earlier version made in .303 for the Brits. One of the two should be your rifle.

    Your pics are pizza boxes, can't see. Us the paperclip to the right of the white smiley face icon on the toolbar above your posting to attach pics,
     

  3. briandj

    briandj New Member

    2
    0
    0
    enfield

    thanx for the reply i reuploaded the pics you should be able to see them now. It doesnt look like the other pics of the enfield mk3 rifle i have found on the webor even the pics on the link you sent me. Its got me confused, Im just trynna figure it out :confused:
     
  4. TimL2952

    TimL2952 New Member

    1,354
    0
    0
    your enfield is a sporter version....same as the military version in every aspect except for the barrel, fore grip and sights. my friend has one too...ill try to get some pics
     
  5. c3shooter

    c3shooter Administrator Staff Member

    21,327
    168
    63
    Yep- it started life as a military rifle, but was "sporterized". Common thing to do between wars, when milsurp rifles were cheap. Unfortunately, that killed the value to a miltary collector, leaving only it's value as a shooter. But that was a SMLE.
     
  6. Phelenwolf

    Phelenwolf New Member

    876
    0
    0
    I hate it when people take a great rifle and try to "sporterize" it. My wife picked up a 1917 Enfield in 30-06 for me a couple of years ago. What the guy ended up doing was cutting off the rear leaf sight guards on it to try and mount a scope. $1500 rifle sold for $100 some people just do not know what they are doing.
     
  7. jpattersonnh

    jpattersonnh Active Member

    5,360
    3
    38

    Why are you yelling??
    In the 1950's, '60's, and '70's you could buy most surplus rifles for under $20.00. For the budget minded poor guys that needed a hunter, it was a good deal! They removed all the weight they could and had a rifle that could put meat on the table. It happened all the time. It is not your rifle, so get over it!!!
    In 1976 I was making $3.00 an hour off the books, minimum wage was $1.95 I think. I wanted a rifle to hunt w/ so I could go out w/ my buddies. The shop my Dad took me to had wooden barrels filled w/ Arisaka s, MKIII's, Mausers, most w/ cracked handgaurds or stocks, rust, for under $30.00. I ended up buying a New Mossberg 12ga bolt/ slug gun w/ irons for $60.00. You need to look at it in that context. I was really styling in the Mountains of Eastern NY back then. At the time the surplus rifles were considered old relics that were outdated at the end of the war. What was the cost of 100 pounds of meat in 1976? Chicken was .39cents, Chuck(beef) .59 cents. Do the math and figure that 2 to 3 people would use that rifle to fill a $5.00 tag from their license. A $45.00 investment could yield 300 pounds of meat the 1st year. The next year it cost $15.00. That would equate to a 5.75 pound piece of chuck today or 25 pounds back then. 300..25, 300..25.
     
  8. cpttango30

    cpttango30 New Member

    13,934
    3
    0
    $1500 1917 LOL Now that right there is funny.

    I have a 1917 that had the rear sight milled off. I never understand the guys that get all bent out of shape over a stupid hunk of metal. It is a rifle it is meant to shoot. If it was meant to be collected it would be wrapped in wax paper with a nasty piece of rock hard chewing gum.

    Would I sporterize a M98, 1903, 1917, M1, Krag now no I wouldn't not a big deal. If some one wants to put time and money into THEIR rifle and you don't like it SHUT YOUR MOUTH and move on.
     
  9. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    11
    38
    if money was tight why spend more money wacking bits off a rifle and spending more money on a scope for a gun that already had very good sights?? never understood that thought process.

    whomever original bought it its their right to destroy it. no matter how silly it is.
     
  10. Phelenwolf

    Phelenwolf New Member

    876
    0
    0
    First of all I am not yelling. Sorry if it may seem that way but I am not.

    Second, in 1976 I was 5 yrs old and not able to fully enjoy all the surplus rifles for the prices you remember.
     
  11. TLuker

    TLuker New Member

    3,937
    0
    0
    Not Destroyed

    I understand wanting to preserve something of historical significance like a rifle. I also understand and appreciate why someone would make such a rifle more functional and then use it. My best rifle is a modified .303 Enfield that was given to me by my father when I was 16. I got a fine inexpensive rifle at a time when we didn't have much money. I still love that rifle, scope and all.