20 replies to this topic

[4thGordons]

Just off out to my evening class, but thought I would post two quick snaps of a newly acquired one.
Anyone want to guess what about this all matching but generally unremarkable 1918, No1 MkIII* set my Enfield antennae quivering?
I have been looking for one of these for a while.

 Right.jpg   16.07K   1 downloads

 Left.jpg   17.07K   0 downloads

(and no it isn't the QEII coin jammed in the marker disc inletting!)
Chris

[shippingsteel]

Wouldn't be one from the Siamese contract that was stamped with the Wild Tiger Corps markings by any chance.?  

Cheers, S>S

[18th Battalion]

Without any close ups, the only thing that stands out for the age of the rifle is it having the old style cocking piece, but I don't imagine that would set your "antennae quivering", otherwise it looks exactly like my 1918 No.1 MkIII* including the missing fingers around the rear sight.

You'll have to give us a clue.

[smleenfield]

18th Battalion, on 24 February 2012 - 12:35 AM, said:

Without any close ups, the only thing that stands out for the age of the rifle is it having the old style cocking piece, but I don't imagine that would set your "antennae quivering", otherwise it looks exactly like my 1918 No.1 MkIII* including the missing fingers around the rear sight.

You'll have to give us a clue.

NRF?

[4thGordons]

smleenfield, on 24 February 2012 - 02:21 AM, said:

NRF?

 NRF.jpg   54.76K   1 downloads

Yup! I have seen very tatty mismatched ones and very expensive ones. This was the first I have found all matching and complete (minus the fingers)
The forend is not visibly serialled but it is also very dirty at the moment so I have not been able to investigate.
Bore could use a clean but looks decent.
It is interesting to me that it has both the old style cocking piece and slim foreend - in profile far more like the MkIII than the MkIII*
Barrel is orignal and dated/numbered to the reciever and everything else (with the exception of the coin!) looks to be too.
Chris

[smleenfield]

I won an Indian grenade rifle that used the screwed together steel bands for a little over $150 on gunbroker. I didn't need another RFI rifle but wanted the bands for my collection. When the rifle arrived and I was pulling it out of the box much to my surprise it was an NRF not an RFI as described. I love it when people have no clue as to what they are selling. By the way the  rifle was in almost pristine condition.

Yup! I have seen very tatty mismatched ones and very expensive ones. This was the first I have found all matching and complete (minus the fingers)
The forend is not visibly serialled but it is also very dirty at the moment so I have not been able to investigate.
Bore could use a clean but looks decent.
It is interesting to me that it has both the old style cocking piece and slim foreend - in profile far more like the MkIII than the MkIII*
Barrel is orignal and dated/numbered to the reciever and everything else (with the exception of the coin!) looks to be too.
Chris
[/quote]

[smleenfield]

One very good condition NRF former grenade rifle

Attached Files

•  P8260115.JPG   53.19K   0 downloads

[4thGordons]

Nice!
That is an Indian forend on it though right - is it a replacement?
Suprised it has no reinforcing bolt.
Chris

[TonyE]

Very nice Chris. I am sure it will clean up very nicely.

Cheers
Tony

[smleenfield]

4thGordons, on 24 February 2012 - 05:44 AM, said:

Nice!
That is an Indian forend on it though right - is it a replacement?
Suprised it has no reinforcing bolt.
Chris

I don't know what the seller was thinking when he listed it as an Indian made rifle. It showed no indication that it came out of India. No reinforcing bolt or black paint. I believe the forend is probably original to the gun or maybe replaced in a factory up grade. No FTR markings on it so I don't know if it was redone at some time in the past. The most interesting thing is that it lacks all the markings on the right side of the butt socket that are usually there but it does not look like they were ground off. Lots of questions but few answers on this one except the NRF markings on the rear of the receiver.

[4thGordons]

smleenfield, on 24 February 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

I don't know what the seller was thinking when he listed it as an Indian made rifle. It showed no indication that it came out of India. No reinforcing bolt or black paint. I believe the forend is probably original to the gun or maybe replaced in a factory up grade. No FTR markings on it so I don't know if it was redone at some time in the past. The most interesting thing is that it lacks all the markings on the right side of the butt socket that are usually there but it does not look like they were ground off. Lots of questions but few answers on this one except the NRF markings on the rear of the receiver.

The forend has a metal backstrap, that is why I asked - I think these were only manufactured / fitted on post WWII Indian Service rifles so I think it would be unlikey to be original to the rifle as you say most likely fitted at a later date - the matching of all the wood suggests it was done as a set. The grinding off of marks is also consistent with a post WWII Indian refinish in my experience - they are sometimes dated with an FR mark below the safety - but I too have seen rifles where this mark is not visible.
Chris

[TonyE]

They certainly made this one visible, but it is struck out because there is another 1938 Refurb mark, as you say Chris, almost invisible behind the safety.

Regards
TonyE

Attached Files

•  RFI small.jpg   32.03K   0 downloads

[smleenfield]

4thGordons, on 24 February 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

The forend has a metal backstrap, that is why I asked - I think these were only manufactured / fitted on post WWII Indian Service rifles so I think it would be unlikey to be original to the rifle as you say most likely fitted at a later date - the matching of all the wood suggests it was done as a set. The grinding off of marks is also consistent with a post WWII Indian refinish in my experience - they are sometimes dated with an FR mark below the safety - but I too have seen rifles where this mark is not visible.
Chris

You're right about the backstrap. I had forgotten about that.  The only markings are the NRF, serial numbers and a few inspector marks. No import marks. What ever the history is it is still a very nice piece with a very good bore. No matter what the rifle is worth, the steel grenade bands were worth the price paid for the whole thing. They are very rarely seen. I transferred them to another Indian grenade rifle that the wire had come apart on so that I could use the NRF rifle for shooting.

Attached Files

•  P8260107.JPG   48.44K   0 downloads

[MartinBennitt]

sorry, for those who are not anoraks -- what's the fuss about?

cheers Martin B

[4thGordons]

MartinBennitt, on 24 February 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

sorry, for those who are not anoraks -- what's the fuss about?

cheers Martin B

Nothing of any great remark sans anorak, it is really a question of scarcity.
.... NRF (National Rifle Factory) is probably the rarest of the WWI vintage manufacturers producing rifles (probably! there is some suggestion they did not actually produce rifles just receivers) in 1918 only. They were the successor to SSA (Standard Small Arms) which was a company set up to challenge the monopoly of Enfield rifle production SSA marks are also scarce (production never really got going) but even these are more common than NRF.
These rifles have a slightly different cypher on them but are in all other respect identical to any other SMLE of Great War vintage
on both the wrist stamp uses a more stylized crown and there is no maker name
Left standard BSA right                         SSA/NRF mark
 1918BSA.jpg   11.99K   2 downloads    ssacypher.jpg   38.79K   1 downloads

there - you nearly qualify for your starter anorak!

[MartinBennitt]

4thGordons, on 24 February 2012 - 08:19 PM, said:

Nothing of any great remark sans anorak, it is really a question of scarcity.
.... NRF (National Rifle Factory) is probably the rarest of the WWI vintage manufacturers producing rifles (probably! there is some suggestion they did not actually produce rifles just receivers) in 1918 only. They were the successor to SSA (Standard Small Arms) which was a company set up to challenge the monopoly of Enfield rifle production SSA marks are also scarce (production never really got going) but even these are more common than NRF.
These rifles have a slightly different cypher on them but are in all other respect identical to any other SMLE of Great War vintage
on both the wrist stamp uses a more stylized crown and there is no maker name
Left standard BSA right                         SSA/NRF mark
1918BSA.jpg   ssacypher.jpg

there - you nearly qualify for your starter anorak!

thanks Chris. In fact I follow all the threads on the SMLE that are posted, as I agree with most people that it is almost the perfect bolt action rifle (and I did fire them, though only No 4s). National Rifle Factory imples something state-owned. Was it?

cheers Martin B

[4thGordons]

MartinBennitt, on 24 February 2012 - 09:36 PM, said:

thanks Chris. In fact I follow all the threads on the SMLE that are posted, as I agree with most people that it is almost the perfect bolt action rifle (and I did fire them, though only No 4s). National Rifle Factory imples something state-owned. Was it?

cheers Martin B

Yes. SSA Co which had been set up by a couple of Brimingham based gunmakers(Johnstone and Peterson - there was a third party whose name I cannot remember) but as I mentioned there were all sorts of problems with production, labour shortages, machine shortages etc.
The whole concern was eventually purchased by the Ministry of Munitions in June of 1918 and the SSA works became "National Rifle Factory No1" and a factory that belonged to another gunmaker (Greener?) was also taken over as NRF no.2
Chris

[MartinBennitt]

how long did the NRF last? and were there any problems with it, being nationalised, compared with other producers? (Perhaps I'm thinking e.g. R100 & R101 airships here)

cheers Martin B

[4thGordons]

MartinBennitt, on 24 February 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

how long did the NRF last? and were there any problems with it, being nationalised, compared with other producers? (Perhaps I'm thinking e.g. R100 & R101 airships here)

cheers Martin B

I do not know the answer to this. Perhaps TonyE might be able to shed more light. I assumed from the scarcity of the rifles that they only produced from July until @ the end of the war. I have only ever seen 1918 dated rifles with the NRF mark.

I will have a bit of a dig through the standard reference works but I had always assumed that the concerns were closed down in fairly short order at the end of the war. I am not sure what happened to the facilities, I have not seen reference to them by the NRF name later.
Chris

[smleenfield]

MartinBennitt, on 24 February 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

how long did the NRF last? and were there any problems with it, being nationalised, compared with other producers? (Perhaps I'm thinking e.g. R100 & R101 airships here)

cheers Martin B

NRF took over SSA mid 1918 and ceased production shortly after the end of of the war in early 1919.

[Mk VII]

I wrote this piece for another forum (and subsequently saw it reproduced, without attribution) based on the account in the History Of The Ministry of Munitions, Vol.XI

" Standard Small Arms was formed by Mr S J Waring (later Lord Waring, 1860-1940) of the Waring  & Gillow concern ,together with a Mr Peterson, who was a man of  standing in the Birmingham gun trade. They believed that the skills of  the Birmingham gun trade were being neglected and could be more fully  utilised in the war effort than they were. They planned to make all of  the action and the nosecap, less magazines, screws and pins, and  organise eight small firms and a number of individuals in the trade  (probably outworkers, of whom a great many worked in the trade at that  time). The barrels were to be subcontracted to Westley Richards and the  wood to be cut by Waring & Gillow and  Rudders & Payne (both these firms eventually dropped out). They  contracted to supply rifles at 75/- each, which was the same price that  BSA was paid. After a year or so it became apparent that the factory  would never produce complete arms and it was instructed to produce four  items; body with charger guide, bolt, bolt head and trigger guard. The  company was to produce 1500 sets of components a week, rising to 4,000  when new machinery was installed. Other firms were contracted to produce  less specialist items, the sets of components being delivered to  Enfield for assembly in the bayonet shop, production of which was  shifted to Wilkinsons and Sanderson Brothers & Newbold.

" The downside of this scheme was that it only allowed for the exact  number of components needed. Thus assembly of rifles was held up for  want of quite minor items which inexperienced firms were struggling to  produce. The scheme was revised in 1916 and became known as the Rifle  Components Pool, taking every component which the 'Big Three' could make  in excess of their complete rifle production as well as all that  Standard Small Arms could turn out, and those produced by the 'peddled  scheme'  firms. Ordnance could also draw on the pool for repair parts. A  considerable stock of components was built up so that any of the Big  Three could draw on it if short of some item, and this was done  continuously by LSA, and occasionally by BSA, and by Enfield (the pool  being on the spot). Standard Small Arms did not attain an output of  2,000 bodies a week until April 1917 and two years after the start of  work only 5-6,000 had been produced. By this time SSA were in financial  difficulties and a government loan had to be made to keep them going. On  June 1st 1918 the factory became National Rifle Factory No.1 with Mr  Peterson as superintendent and instructed to prepare for manufacture of  components of the Farquhar-Hill automatic rifle, although NRF-marked  SMLE bodies were made after this. SSA seem to have turned out  2,000-4,000 bodies a week, depending on the Ministry of Munitions'  requirements at the time. "