16 replies to this topic

[auchonvillerssomme]

This morning on a general antiques stall I saw a bolt with a round cocking piece, I first took it to be an SMLE but there was a slight variation that one side of the cocking piece was slightly flattened, I have looked through Lee Enfield Story but the pictures aren't clear enough, were there variations? I didn't buy it because it was intact and still had the firing pin so didn't want to take the risk legality wise. It was 20 quid so not sure if that was a good price or not.

[Stoppage Drill]

Probably right not to buy itif you're in UK  - a component part of a firearm is controlled in exactly the same way as the complete gun.

[4thGordons]

In the US a complete bolt assembly for an SMLE can be purchased for $45-50.00 (so currently about 30 pounds sterling) there are no restrictions on the bolt in the US, it is only the reciever that is controlled, if made after 1895 (?).

The "round" cocking piece does usually have a slightly flattened side. I am not sure which edition of Skennerton you have - but if you look on p127 of the Lee Enfield Story (the second ed with a red cover/paratrooper on)the cocking piece is pictured in the middle of the parts array and shows the "flat" clearly.

Early No4 rifles had a variation of a round cocking piece but it looks rather different (like a top-hat on its side)
and of course some marks of long-lee (without the bolt mounted safety) had very similar bolts to the SMLE with round cocking pieces.
Chris

[GRANVILLE]

Here's a conundrum that has never been very clear to me at least. You hold an SMLE that's been rebored to .410 on a shotgun certificate because its become a shotgun. Take the bolt action away from it and your in possession of a component part of a Section 1 Firearm, but without certification for it??

DU

[4thGordons]

GRANVILLE, on 21 January 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

Here's a conundrum that has never been very clear to me at least. You hold an SMLE that's been rebored to .410 on a shotgun certificate because its become a shotgun. Take the bolt action away from it and your in possession of a component part of a Section 1 Firearm, but without certification for it??

DU

I do not know the legal status in the UK it has been too long since I lived there.

but: is a converted SMLE reproofed as a shotgun? If so, would both the action and bolt (as load bearing components) be stamped with proof marks for a shotgun, thereby distinguishing the bolt as a shotgun as opposed to rifle component?

Chris

[GRANVILLE]

4thGordons, on 21 January 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

I do not know the legal status in the UK it has been too long since I lived there.

but: is a converted SMLE reproofed as a shotgun? If so, would both the action and bolt (as load bearing components) be stamped with proof marks for a shotgun, thereby distinguishing the bolt as a shotgun as opposed to rifle component?

Chris

I'm not able to answer that for sure. Its 30yrs since I had my first SMLE (on a shotgun certificate) and as far as I was aware at that time, the only work done on it was a reboring of the barrel to .410, no specific mention was made of any restamping of any component parts to suit because the size of chamber said it all.
This used to be an old police training school classroom question, which never really got answered. 'Your on patrol, you stop a car and search it. You come across this rifle bolt from a Lee Enfield .303 army rifle. You know its a component part of a Section 1 Firearm and the man in possession of it has no Firearms Certificate for it, what are you going to do about it?' 'Lock him up Sarge.' 'Good answer Smith, however he now tells you the rifle is no longer .303 but a shotgun and he hasn't got his certificate with him because he didn't think he needed it'. 'Lock him up Sarge?'
No definitive answer.  
DU

[auchonvillerssomme]

Chris, yes you are right, flattened side, but I don't recall that from previous ownership of one, not as observant as I thought.

And Granville, having once been the subject of a conundrum involving another subject involving police and customs it isn't a nice feeling.

[Stoppage Drill]

4thGordons, on 21 January 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

but: is a converted SMLE reproofed as a shotgun? If so, would both the action and bolt (as load bearing components) be stamped with proof marks for a shotgun, thereby distinguishing the bolt as a shotgun as opposed to rifle component?

Chris

Yes.

I come across converted Lee Enfields frequently. There is a German version, which I have only seen a couple of in the last decade, where a G98 is converted to 12 or 16 bore. They were marketed by a firm called Geha. They frighten me - the barrel is completely replaced (original would not have been large enough ) and forward locking lugs on the Mauser bolt are redundant. It relies on the one rearlug for locking.

[4thGordons]

Stoppage Drill, on 21 January 2012 - 06:45 PM, said:

Yes.

I come across converted Lee Enfields frequently. There is a German version, which I have only seen a couple of in the last decade, where a G98 is converted to 12 or 16 bore. They were marketed by a firm called Geha. They frighten me - the barrel is completely replaced (original would not have been large enough ) and forward locking lugs on the Mauser bolt are redundant. It relies on the one rearlug for locking.

Thanks, but I am not sure you have understood my question.

There were official conversions of the SMLE into shotguns done in India (referred to as "muskets" and shooting a special .410 round (basically an unnecked .303 case) A lot of these were imported into the US in the 1990s. Then those that are far more common in the UK, rifles that were converted to .410 to allow them to be held on a shotgun certificate as opposed to the full license.
My question was whether these recent civilian conversions to .410 needed to be reproofed by a proof house as shotguns after they are converted and that if they did it is likely the bolt and the receiver would be marked as shotgun rather than rifle components. (This was specific to the conundrum in UK law identified by Granville where an identical component-group could have two very different legal statuses)

None of the bolts on my .410 Indian musket conversions have any distinguishing markings although the left side of the receiver under the safety is marked with the conversion date. The Indian conversions also have the magazine removed and the well blocked with a piece of wood to which the follower is attached to provide a loading platform for what is now a single shot weapon. Ishapore also converted some SMLEs into single shot rifles in this manner.

 410musket.jpg   31.41K   0 downloads

 singleloader2.jpg   23.01K   0 downloads
Chris

[truthergw]

Seems to me that if there is no specific legislation, as implied by Granville's conundrum, then the question of whether or not one is in possession of a component which requires a certificate could only be tested in court.

[TonyE]

If a .303 inch SMLE is bored out in the UK to .410 shotgun then the calibre has been changed and therefore it must be submitted for proof. In doing so both the action and the bolt will be stamped with the appropriate marks. Similarly, an SMLE converted in India to .410 Musket and sold in the UK would have to have been proofed in the UK.

Either type without UK proof marks would be illegal.

Thus the bolt of a .410 SMLE, whether shotgun or Musket, is the bolt from a shotgun and is not Section 1. Anomalous I know, but that is as I understand the current law.

Regards
TonyE

[auchonvillerssomme]

But it wasn't marked so should I have
1. Informed the stall holder I believe he is trying to sell an item which is a component of  a Schedule 1 firearm?
2. Made a citizens arrest, dealing in such an item I believe would fit the criteria?
3. Inform the police?
4. Come home and ask a question on the forum while enjoying a nice welsh rarebit?

[Thunderbox]

IIRC there are no proof marks that would distinguish a bolt, bolthead or receiver as specifically in use as a .410 shotgun.

When you take a converted Enfield for Proof, they will apply the new calibre marks to the barrel, but the other components will only get the usual "BNP"/London mark - and if the components already bear marks from that proof house, then they won't re-stamp them. This why people often buy .410 Enfields and re-convert them to .303".

I came across a stall at Beltring where the bloke had all of the parts less forend of an un-barrelled Lee Metford. The barrel was cut to about 16" and had a couple of drill holes in it, but was otherwise not de-activated. The action and bolt were untouched, and the barrel was an easy screw fit back in again. The guy had no idea that he was in possession of what was effectively a Sect 1 firearm....

[Stoppage Drill]

If we can get back to the original post, auchonvillers, could you elaborate on what you mean by "flattening on the cocking piece" please ?


As a matter of interest, conversions could avoid the reproofing regime quite legally because the Gun Barrel Proof Acts only create an offence for selling/offering for sale an unproven gun. Simple possession and use of one is no offence.

If you simply had your own .303 converted and returned to you without any sale being involved, reproofing wasn't (still isn't) strictly necessary, though nowadays any dealer carrying out such work will insist on having the gun reproven. Things were a lot different years back, especially prior to 1967 when sales of shotguns were almost entirely unregulated. When the converted gun eventually comes up for sale though it will need- legally - to be reproven.

However, many private sellers and buyers may not be aware of this. By way of personal example, chap I knew in Marlborough only about 5 years back became very upset when I had to tell him he couldn't legally sell an old rifle originally chambered for .300 Rook (or was it .320?)/converted .410 shotgun unless he had it reproven. He was quite entitled to continue to possess it and use it though. So unproven guns and components are not necessarily "illegal" although I appreciate that in the situation you posited the bolt was being offered for sale.

I agree that only the barrelled action would be  marked on reproof, not the bolt. Were a person to be prosecuted for possession of a bolt, and offer a defence that it was from a shotgun, then (as ever) that would be a  matter of fact which it is a jury's responsibity to determine.

[4thGordons]

Stoppage Drill, on 22 January 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:

If we can get back to the original post, auchonvillers, could you elaborate on what you mean by "flattening on the cocking piece" please ?

I believe this has been answered.
If one looks at the rear of what is frequently described as "round" cocking-piece on an SMLE (as opposed to the slab sided versions first introduced with the MkIII*) then you will see that it is not in fact round (or oval) but that one side is flattened.
It is not the best angle (directly behind would be better but I had this on my drive) the flattened side is closer to the camera.
Chris
 cocking piece.jpg   71.54K   0 downloads

[auchonvillerssomme]

As Chris says, he answered my question when he referred me back to Skennerton. I had one on a LSA SMLE a while back but I obviously didn't look to closely, in my head I thought it was round.

[alex falbo]

Stoppage Drill, on 22 January 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:

If we can get back to the original post, auchonvillers, could you elaborate on what you mean by "flattening on the cocking piece" please ?

For what its worth, here is mine which was found with 1917 Mk.III*