82 replies to this topic

[welshdoc]

The wife would go ballistic if she saw where I photographed it but she was out so I got away with it. Just as well it wasnt her victorian lace one !

[7t2ndswinger]

The wife would go ballistic if she saw where I photographed it but she was out so I got away with it. Just as well it wasnt her victorian lace one !

You mean you don't sleep with the rifle then !!

Keith

[Peter M]

Nice duvet Doc indeed.

But love the gun.

Awww...I'd love one you know.

[welshdoc]

SMLE lives in the corner next to the bayonets and accross from the wifes collection of bloo*y dolls and antique pushchairs.

[4thGordons]

Here, for compatative purposes is the stamping on an 1896 long-lee

There are a few more pics of various examples of No1MkIIIs etc at

http://mcdonald.chris.tripod.com/Collection.htm and a rather amateurish attempt at a guide to all the component parts at
http://mcdonald.chris.tripod.com/SMLE_rifle.htm

most of the pictures are thumbnails so if you click on them there is a larger version. I started this site a few years ago and cannot find time to complete it or update it with better images....maybe over christmas....

Chris

[welshdoc]

Chris, thats quite a collection. Nice photos and very useful guide. Gareth

[Bootnecks]

Hello Marc,

                I notice that the chap you mention is telling you that the deac cert is not that important. It most certainly is! That cert is telling the police that you have a lawfully and correctly deactivated firearm. You will be causing yourself no end of unnessessary bother if you dont aquire the deact cert as well. My advice.... no cert, leave the weapon well alone...  walk away.

Seph.

[Fuzzy]

Great thread.  I recently purchased a 1916 and was wondering why it was marked "SHTLE" and this has cleared that up.  What is great is all the serial numbers match, it has the markings to indicate it was made in Great  Britain and owned by the British military. I had the bore checked out and it's in fantastic shape with no rust or pitting and the sights are right on the money.  The wood is not cracked, but it is a bit beat up and has someones initials carved in the left side of the forestock.  As usual it's missing the oiler, etc and the brass regiment disc. Also the magazine block has been removed.  This rifle has turned out to be the best shooter I own at this point and love to shoot it.  The only drawback is the ammo is hard to find and expensive when you do.  I did score some ammo from a local guy and got 110 rounds for $75.  The action is silky smooth and has never failed on me.  I also found that the rifle had been imported from Eastern Europe in 2009, but I have no idea where it's been since then.  I found it in a small saddle and blanket shop that sells a few guns.  I was absolutely amazed to see it on his rack among the Saiga's, AK's and AR-15 and knew I had to give it a home.

[4thGordons]

Fuzzy, on 04 February 2012 - 05:23 PM, said:

Great thread.  I recently purchased a 1916 and was wondering why it was marked "SHTLE" and this has cleared that up.  What is great is all the serial numbers match, it has the markings to indicate it was made in Great  Britain and owned by the British military. I had the bore checked out and it's in fantastic shape with no rust or pitting and the sights are right on the money.  The wood is not cracked, but it is a bit beat up and has someones initials carved in the left side of the forestock.  As usual it's missing the oiler, etc and the brass regiment disc. Also the magazine block has been removed.  This rifle has turned out to be the best shooter I own at this point and love to shoot it.  The only drawback is the ammo is hard to find and expensive when you do.  I did score some ammo from a local guy and got 110 rounds for $75.  The action is silky smooth and has never failed on me.  I also found that the rifle had been imported from Eastern Europe in 2009, but I have no idea where it's been since then.  I found it in a small saddle and blanket shop that sells a few guns.  I was absolutely amazed to see it on his rack among the Saiga's, AK's and AR-15 and knew I had to give it a home.

So do we get to see pictures?
Out of interest, how do you know it came from E.Europe? That would be a relatively unusual source for Enfields - might be interesting.

One word of warning: regarding the ammunition - if it is military surplus it is quite likely to be corrosive (not necessarily but likely) and that will make a mess of your bore if you do not clean it correctly. You need to make sure you get all of the corrosive salts out after firing - leave them in for any length of time and corrosion starts quickly. Although there are a number of potions and concotions that can be purchased for this - probably the simplest way is to pour a kettleful of boiling water through the bore after shooting then dry and clean as normal.

I only mention this as I have seen otherwise mint condition Enfields that have had their bores reduced to sewer-pipe status in this manner.
Chris

[Fuzzy]

4thGordons, on 04 February 2012 - 05:40 PM, said:

So do we get to see pictures?
Out of interest, how do you know it came from E.Europe? That would be a relatively unusual source for Enfields - might be interesting.

One word of warning: regarding the ammunition - if it is military surplus it is quite likely to be corrosive (not necessarily but likely) and that will make a mess of your bore if you do not clean it correctly. You need to make sure you get all of the corrosive salts out after firing - leave them in for any length of time and corrosion starts quickly. Although there are a number of potions and concotions that can be purchased for this - probably the simplest way is to pour a kettleful of boiling water through the bore after shooting then dry and clean as normal.

I only mention this as I have seen otherwise mint condition Enfields that have had their bores reduced to sewer-pipe status in this manner.
Chris

I agree, it really shocked me to learn it was out of East Europe. What I did was contact the importer for this information and this was what they sent back. They refused to provide anything further stating it was "proprietary". I know all about the corrosive ammo as I've been shooting an AK-47 and a lot of that ammo is corrosive.  My policy is to clean as soon as I get done, even if it's not corrosive. That comes from many years as a cop and always cleaning my service weapons. Not to mention that's also how I was brought up.  I use a commercial spray followed up with a good bore scrubbing with a brush, then a cleaning patch following by clean ones and then a thin coating of gun oil. This procedure has worked well for me for many years.

I'll try and attach a photo, but the ones I have at the moment are poor. Working to get some better ones as I keep a photo record of all my guns.  100_0424_opt.jpg   45K   0 downloads

[Fuzzy]

Fuzzy, on 05 February 2012 - 04:24 AM, said:

I agree, it really shocked me to learn it was out of East Europe. What I did was contact the importer for this information and this was what they sent back. They refused to provide anything further stating it was "proprietary". I know all about the corrosive ammo as I've been shooting an AK-47 and a lot of that ammo is corrosive.  My policy is to clean as soon as I get done, even if it's not corrosive. That comes from many years as a cop and always cleaning my service weapons. Not to mention that's also how I was brought up.  I use a commercial spray followed up with a good bore scrubbing with a brush, then a cleaning patch following by clean ones and then a thin coating of gun oil. This procedure has worked well for me for many years.

I'll try and attach a photo, but the ones I have at the moment are poor. Working to get some better ones as I keep a photo record of all my guns. 100_0424_opt.jpg

Stopped by my favorite gunshop today and too it in as the owner of the shop is very good on military weapons.  It seems it was re-furbished between WWI and WWII according to the markings etc on it.  It's had the forestock replaced apparently for service in WWII, it has a WWII MIII style magazine in it so I'll need to replace that in order to install a mag cutoff plate. The stock needs to be modified abit as the WWII stock just covers the pivot point. Also, it's had the front sight replaced and it has a different serial number on it indicating it should have had a scope, but the there are no indications one was ever attached to it.  Just adds more mystery to the life and times of this great old firearm.  I fear I'm getting the fever to look for more of them to add to my growing collection of military and police firearms.

[TonyE]

I suspect you really mean that the nosecap has been replaced, which is not unusual. That serves to protect the foresight but is quite independent of it as the foresight block is attached to the barrel and is not numbered.

Also, since all the British WWI SMLE sniper rifles had side mounted scopes (to allow chargers to be still used) I would be interested to hear why a change of nosecap would indicate the rifle was fitted for a scope.

Are you sure it is actually a Mark III and not a Mark III*? It would not be particularly unusual to find a 1916 III* still with a cut-off slot but with high wall woodwork.

With regard to the Eastern European origins, it might be using the term a little loosely, but there were plenty of Pattern '14 rifles and some SMLEs sent to the Baltic states post WWI and these and their ammunition have been surfacing over the past few years.

Regards
TonyE

[Fuzzy]

TonyE, on 14 February 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

I suspect you really mean that the nosecap has been replaced, which is not unusual. That serves to protect the foresight but is quite independent of it as the foresight block is attached to the barrel and is not numbered.

Also, since all the British WWI SMLE sniper rifles had side mounted scopes (to allow chargers to be still used) I would be interested to hear why a change of nosecap would indicate the rifle was fitted for a scope.

Are you sure it is actually a Mark III and not a Mark III*? It would not be particularly unusual to find a 1916 III* still with a cut-off slot but with high wall woodwork.

With regard to the Eastern European origins, it might be using the term a little loosely, but there were plenty of Pattern '14 rifles and some SMLEs sent to the Baltic states post WWI and these and their ammunition have been surfacing over the past few years.

Regards
TonyE

No the sight, not the nose cap.  According to my guy, there is a serial number on the sight, along with with the seating marks on it. It really appears that when the sight was changed they probably grabbed what was available as there is no indication a scope was ever mounted on it. This guy is a military collector along with being a gunsmith and is one of the more knowledgeable military people in the area.  And yes, it's a MarkIII according to the stamps on the rifle. It's also marked as being owned by the British military.  Right now he has the gun checking out the trigger, etc as I had the trigger jam up and after some fiddling something fell out, bounced of my bumper and into the desert. Never found what it was, but even though the trigger freed up I wanted it checked out just to just make sure.

[4thGordons]

Fuzzy, on 14 February 2012 - 05:25 AM, said:

Stopped by my favorite gunshop today and too it in as the owner of the shop is very good on military weapons.  It seems it was re-furbished between WWI and WWII according to the markings etc on it.  It's had the forestock replaced apparently for service in WWII, it has a WWII MIII style magazine in it so I'll need to replace that in order to install a mag cutoff plate. The stock needs to be modified abit as the WWII stock just covers the pivot point. Also, it's had the front sight replaced and it has a different serial number on it indicating it should have had a scope, but the there are no indications one was ever attached to it.  Just adds more mystery to the life and times of this great old firearm.  I fear I'm getting the fever to look for more of them to add to my growing collection of military and police firearms.

I may be misunderstanding but it looks to me as though almost all of this is inaccurate

1) there is no such thing as a WWII style magazine (unless you mean a magazine for a No4 rifle -which can be made to fit it jammed in hard enough) look at the rear spine if it has a rib all the way down it is for a MkIII if it stops half way it is for a No4
2) the style of magazine has no relationship to the cut-off
3) front sights are not numbered apart from the blade height on some. Do you mean the REAR sight (these are numbered to the rifle on the underside) but these were not removed when scopes were fitted. They are however, often mismatched as a result of rebuilds but this has nothing to do with telescopic sights, it is indicative of a rebuild (official or unofficial - although official ones are often renumbered) but not of fitting of telescopic sights

Fitting on MkIII* wood to MkIII bodies is not unusual in my experience (especially in the changeover of 1916 or with a later refinish)
Chris
Chris

[Fuzzy]

4thGordons, on 15 February 2012 - 02:53 AM, said:

I may be misunderstanding but it looks to me as though almost all of this is inaccurate

1) there is no such thing as a WWII style magazine (unless you mean a magazine for a No4 rifle -which can be made to fit it jammed in hard enough) look at the rear spine if it has a rib all the way down it is for a MkIII if it stops half way it is for a No4
2) the style of magazine has no relationship to the cut-off
3) front sights are not numbered apart from the blade height on some. Do you mean the REAR sight (these are numbered to the rifle on the underside) but these were not removed when scopes were fitted. They are however, often mismatched as a result of rebuilds but this has nothing to do with telescopic sights, it is indicative of a rebuild (official or unofficial - although official ones are often renumbered) but not of fitting of telescopic sights

Fitting on MkIII* wood to MkIII bodies is not unusual in my experience (especially in the changeover of 1916 or with a later refinish)
Chris
Chris

Ok, with the current magazine in place you can not slide the mag cutoff through the slot in the receiver.  I've see 2 different magazines, mine which has 2 what look like "stops" on the rear of the mag, and one I found at a parts site that only has one of the "stops" on it. The front sight does, in fact, have a serial number and not to be sarcastic, but, I trust the guy I'm working with as, like I said, is considered THE man to go to with a military rifle of any kind. The rear site has the same serial number as the rest of the rifle. The only different one is found on the front site along with markings indicating it's been replaced and reseated.  But, you know what, none of this matters as the rifle is in about as good of shape as you'd want from something built in 1916 and having more than likely gone through at least 2 world wars and who knows what other conflicts it may have see action. The only things I've found missing are the cut off wing, oiler, sling, bayonet and regiment disc, all of which I've located at a decent price except for the bayonet. Too expensive as I can't see paying almost as much for a bayonet as I did the rifle. Either way, once I get the cutoff we'll see if it fits or not with the MarkIII magazine as it does have a spine that goes all the way down. Still my favorite firearm to shoot.

[4thGordons]

Fuzzy, on 15 February 2012 - 07:39 PM, said:

Ok, with the current magazine in place you can not slide the mag cutoff through the slot in the receiver.  I've see 2 different magazines, mine which has 2 what look like "stops" on the rear of the mag, and one I found at a parts site that only has one of the "stops" on it. The front sight does, in fact, have a serial number and not to be sarcastic, but, I trust the guy I'm working with as, like I said, is considered THE man to go to with a military rifle of any kind. The rear site has the same serial number as the rest of the rifle. The only different one is found on the front site along with markings indicating it's been replaced and reseated.  But, you know what, none of this matters as the rifle is in about as good of shape as you'd want from something built in 1916 and having more than likely gone through at least 2 world wars and who knows what other conflicts it may have see action. The only things I've found missing are the cut off wing, oiler, sling, bayonet and regiment disc, all of which I've located at a decent price except for the bayonet. Too expensive as I can't see paying almost as much for a bayonet as I did the rifle. Either way, once I get the cutoff we'll see if it fits or not with the MarkIII magazine as it does have a spine that goes all the way down. Still my favorite firearm to shoot.

Interesting. Where on the front sight is the serial number? This would be most unusual in my experience.

The circular boss for the bayonet below the muzzle is usually numbered but this is the front sight protector band (The "ears") as described by TonyE, not the sight. The front sight itself is made up of a block, a blade and pin and a wedge to holt it to the barrel and I cannot think where it would be possible to stamp a serial number.

When you talk about markings indicating it had been replaced do you mean tool marks (ie scores/scratches etc) or do you mean an armourer's stamp indicating resighting?

When I get home I will paste some pictures to try and illustrate what I am saying as I am intrigued to get to the bottom of this!

I'll also post some pictures of different magazine types. It sounds to me as though you might be describing the No4 magazine. There are also some after-market magazines which have a less than stellar reputation for reliability so I suppose that might be possible too. A correctly fitting magazine should not interfere with the magazine cut-off. Be aware fitting a cut off can be a fiddly and annoying experience and it has been my experience that some simply do not fit/function in some rifles.

I accept that this is, in the big picture of things, all beside the point as you say and that the rifle is in great condition and shoots well, but I would be interested to try and resolve this for my own satisfaction (and learn too.) I do not claim broad expertise with military rifles but I have handled a fair few Enfields.  I am constantly suprised by the odditities and variations this reveals and like to try an account for them when I can.
Cheers
Chris

[4thGordons]

OK - so  here are the front sight components:
Band, block/blade disassembled with block and pin removed (you can see the slot in the top of the barrel where they fit)
and then assembled on a rifle barrel.

 front-sight.jpg   21.31K   0 downloads

This is the foresight protector / bayonet mount/front band
As you can see these are usually serial numbered to the rifle, but are a separate assembly from the sight.
 sight-protector-side.jpg   17.08K   0 downloads    sight-protector.jpg   16.42K   0 downloads

Here is a comparison of two magazines (sorry they are very battered examples) showing the diference.
There are minor variations of both types in terms of construction but this shows the key differences.

 Mags.jpg   15.71K   0 downloads    Mags2.jpg   15.61K   0 downloads

Chris

[Fuzzy]

Thanks for the pics, and yes, they will help. First, the sight issue. It is the first photo that was replaced and has a serial number on it that is different than anything else found on this rifle. I spoke with my expert and he still says that when they scoped a rifle a new front site was usually added with the same serial number as the scope. Now, having said that, there is no indications a scope was ever put on this rifle.  On to the mag, mine looks like the MarkIII with the exception of the spine. It does appear to be different, but I can't say for sure until I get the gun back.  As I stated, I have it in being checked over for a reason for something jamming the trigger and then falling out. I wish I could have found it, but if you've never been in the Southern Arizona desert, things can be very hard to spot, even when picking up your spent brass. Anyway, we both agree it was probably an old piece of primer that broke of and landed in the mechanism where it stayed until it came loose and fell in to the thing and jammed it. My playing around with it obviously jarred it loose. after looking it over he found no damage to the trigger mechanism. He still has it because the butt stock is a little loose and the screw used to secure it is in as far as it will go. He's going to remove the stock and put a thin leather washer on it to tighten it up so it doesn't continue to loosen.

Now, as soon as I get it back, I'll try and get some good shots of the front site to see if we can figure out what is going on.  Oh,the marks, the are what you would expect to see when a gunsmith seated the new site.  Had to use a good magnifier to find them.  Again, it's a great shooter and I look forward to getting back to the range with it.

Also, decided to leave the current wood on it and not attempt to put a mag cutoff back on, since it really would serve no purpose other than to put it back to WWI look, which makes no sense to me. It still has a great history and it gets better the longer I research it.

[4thGordons]

Fuzzy, on 16 February 2012 - 01:14 AM, said:

Thanks for the pics, and yes, they will help. First, the sight issue. It is the first photo that was replaced and has a serial number on it that is different than anything else found on this rifle. I spoke with my expert and he still says that when they scoped a rifle a new front site was usually added with the same serial number as the scope.
Now, having said that, there is no indications a scope was ever put on this rifle.  

OK so that is clarified so where on the part is the serial number?
I have to admit to a degree of skepticism here as I have never heard of this practice - however I am quite willing to keep an open mind. Logically speaking however, as the front sight would have no impact upon the operation of a telescopic site I am not at all sure why this would have been done.
One possibility: sometimes sight blades were replaced and these are sometimes numbered to indicate their varying thicknesses - but this has to do with zeroing the rifle and bears no relationship of which I am aware to the scoping of the rifle.

Just so I am clear (sorry for being dense) the nosecap has the same number as the rest of the rifle (bolt, receiver, barrel knox form, underside of rear sight, foreend) but there is another serial number on the sight. Is that correct?

The only number I am aware of commonly stamped on these parts is the height of the blade/base used for zeroing the rifle Apologies for the poor photos but I think you can see the difference here and may be able to make out the letters on the top of the base (in this case these are OA and then three digits - the OA signifies the manufacturer (Orange Arsenal in Australia in this case) and the digits the height) Unlike mauser who often numbered every screw using the last couple of digits of the serial this was not ever practice on Enfields to my knowledge. The rifle serial was on the bolt, receiver, barrel, rear-sight, fore-end and bayonet boss (and  in Indian service - although not often British on No1 rifles- often on the magazine). Sniper No 4 rifles were indeed numbered to the scope on the furniture but to be honest I do not know if this was practice on the MkIII.

 sightblade2.jpg   35.77K   0 downloads
You can probably just make out the OA and numbers here


 sightblade1.jpg   16.85K   0 downloads

Fuzzy, on 16 February 2012 - 01:14 AM, said:

On to the mag, mine looks like the MarkIII with the exception of the spine. It does appear to be different, but I can't say for sure until I get the gun back.  As I stated, I have it in being checked over for a reason for something jamming the trigger and then falling out. I wish I could have found it, but if you've never been in the Southern Arizona desert, things can be very hard to spot, even when picking up your spent brass. Anyway, we both agree it was probably an old piece of primer that broke of and landed in the mechanism where it stayed until it came loose and fell in to the thing and jammed it. My playing around with it obviously jarred it loose. after looking it over he found no damage to the trigger mechanism. He still has it because the butt stock is a little loose and the screw used to secure it is in as far as it will go. He's going to remove the stock and put a thin leather washer on it to tighten it up so it doesn't continue to loosen.

Now, as soon as I get it back, I'll try and get some good shots of the front site to see if we can figure out what is going on.  Oh,the marks, the are what you would expect to see when a gunsmith seated the new site.  Had to use a good magnifier to find them.  Again, it's a great shooter and I look forward to getting back to the range with it.

Also, decided to leave the current wood on it and not attempt to put a mag cutoff back on, since it really would serve no purpose other than to put it back to WWI look, which makes no sense to me. It still has a great history and it gets better the longer I research it.

Look forward to the pics!
Actually as the cutoffs were deleted around the time your rifle was produced it is entirely possible it was never actually fitted with one - and for most of 16/17/18 rifles with the cutoff would have been in the minority. I reckon its a good call to leave it as is.

I assume your gunsmith will have had the rifle out of the furniture and checked the drawers of the stock - these can sometimes get damaged. It is really really important to have the forend off the rifle when tightening the butt/installing the washer (I am sure your chap knows this but it is a quirk of enfields) because the stock bolt (if original) has a squared end that fits into a recess in the back of the forend and if you tighten the butt with the forend in situ then you run a real risk of splitting the forend. DOn't mean to teach my granny to suck eggs but better safe than sorry. The wood behind the trigger is relatively fragile - if all is tightened down then it is fine but as things work loose any movement here can lead to damage (and innaccuracy)

Cheers
Chris

[shippingsteel]

Chris, just a bit of trivia to add regarding the markings on your front sights (if you don't know this already) - and I've probably mentioned this before.?
Australia used a system of lettered codes to indicate the source of the various parts for the SMLE rifles produced at Lithgow and its smaller feeder factories.

The two letters form a code and are not an abbreviation of two words - so the common OA is not Orange Arsenal but indicates Orange Small Arms Factory.
Likewise the sight on the left is marked WA, and this does not mean Western Australia but stands for production from the small feeder factory at Wellington.

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

shippingsteel, on 16 February 2012 - 03:36 AM, said:

Chris, just a bit of trivia to add regarding the markings on your front sights (if you don't know this already) - and I've probably mentioned this before.?
Australia used a system of lettered codes to indicate the source of the various parts for the SMLE rifles produced at Lithgow and its smaller feeder factories.

The two letters form a code and are not an abbreviation of two words - so the common OA is not Orange Arsenal but indicates Orange Small Arms Factory.
Likewise the sight on the left is marked WA, and this does not mean Western Australia but stands for production from the small feeder factory at Wellington.

Cheers, S>S

Quite right - my error
Remind me, BA and MA =
Cheers
Chris

[shippingsteel]

4thGordons, on 16 February 2012 - 04:25 AM, said:

Remind me, BA and MA =

Yes likewise the BA code stands for the feeder factory at Bathurst while the MA code indicates production from the main factory at Lithgow.
Exactly what the MA is supposed to stand for is something that is open for debate, as the original documentation about this has been lost.
There was also another small feeder factory at Forbes, which went under the code of FA. There were never any "arsenals" involved at Lithgow.!

Cheers, S>S

[Fuzzy]

4thGordons, on 16 February 2012 - 02:09 AM, said:

I assume your gunsmith will have had the rifle out of the furniture and checked the drawers of the stock - these can sometimes get damaged. It is really really important to have the forend off the rifle when tightening the butt/installing the washer (I am sure your chap knows this but it is a quirk of enfields) because the stock bolt (if original) has a squared end that fits into a recess in the back of the forend and if you tighten the butt with the forend in situ then you run a real risk of splitting the forend. DOn't mean to teach my granny to suck eggs but better safe than sorry. The wood behind the trigger is relatively fragile - if all is tightened down then it is fine but as things work loose any movement here can lead to damage (and innaccuracy)

Cheers
Chris

Ok, I'm a bit confused here. Are you saying the bolt/screw (as it has a slotted screw head on it inside the butt stock) screws into a square head nut located in the forestock? Not having the rifle here it's a bit tough to visualize it.

Greg aka: Virgil Earp/Mayor John Clum in the OK Corral gunfight at the real OK Corral in Tombstone, AZ

[4thGordons]

Fuzzy, on 16 February 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

Ok, I'm a bit confused here. Are you saying the bolt/screw (as it has a slotted screw head on it inside the butt stock) screws into a square head nut located in the forestock? Not having the rifle here it's a bit tough to visualize it.

Greg aka: Virgil Earp/Mayor John Clum in the OK Corral gunfight at the real OK Corral in Tombstone, AZ

The stock bolt screws into the center of the metal "wrist" of the receiver but the square end of it (on WWI vintage rifles) projects through that when tight, and sits in recess in the rear of the forestock. What this means is you have to put the butt on first and tighten it then put on the forestock. If you try and tighten (or remove) the butt with the forestock in place then you are trying to turn the squared end in its snug squared hole - which can split the forend. So the butt should always be first on and last off. Later stock bolts did not have this squared end but you can never know untill it is too late.
I'll get my camera out!

Chris

[4thGordons]

To illustrate:

Here are the tips of two stock bolts - a great war vintage one (lower) and a later modified one. Even without the squared projection it is still possible to crack the foreend by over tightening so the first-on-last-off rule should always be applied.

 stockbolt.jpg   20.5K   0 downloads

There are two views (side and from below) of the stock bolt in situ - showing the projection

 stockboltinplace.jpg   21.55K   0 downloads    stockboltinplace2.jpg   28.51K   0 downloads

Here is where the stock bolt tip sits in a recess in the forend - and (unfortunately) the effect of tighteneing it with the forend in place...doubly unfortunate in this case as it was an early MkI forend! (not guilty m'lud....I got it like this!)

 stockboltrecess.jpg   26.62K   0 downloads

Chris