Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 3 of 3 Posts

· Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
761 Posts
DD it's your rifle. If you want it with a cut-off then put one on. It's all about what feels good to you, within reason of course. I just bought a 1940 BSA #1MkIII with a light FTR no date, complete with volly sights & cut-off, obviously someones fantasy gun. The furniture went on a 1915 LSA #1MkIII (no FTR) whose furniture had been sporterised but retained its cut-off. So which rifle is historically correct? I don't know, but I feel good handling both rifles as they would have gone into battle all those years ago.
Rant off
Sprog
 

· Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
761 Posts
Obviously Sprog likes destroying historical pieces...in 1940 BSA was still making (officially) Mark III rifles, complete with cut-off and occasionally Volley sights!!!

Destroying one historical piece to make another (after conversion) piece is a bit strange, but as one said, "it's your rifle".

Disgustedly your,
Doc AV
AV Ballistics.
Nice snide attack Doc AV, tact & diplomacy are obviously not listed among your strengths, but have you proof of what you claim? I have never seen one shred of evidence to hold up your assertion but if you prove me wrong I will gladly restore the 1940 BSA to the condition in which I bought it. I much prefer to share knowledge than to sling insults,which is what I thought this forum was about.
Regads
Sprog
 

· Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
761 Posts
My Dear Sprog,
If I really wanted to put you down, I would have really let you have it...it seems Aussies are getting to be a very touchy-feely mob these days... Must be some of that Yankee Litigiousness rubbing off, with all these US TV Lawyer shows....
in anycase, I am old enough (and maybe foolish enough) to say what I think and be damned for it. It's known as "Calling a spade a Bloody shovel!"

As to the BSA rifles, BSA was Britain's Only Exporter of SMLEs for overseas Contracts in the 1920s and 30s. (The British Gov't, ie, Enfield, did not fill foreign orders.)

BSA , in 1939-40, was still filling orders for various Empire colonies and smaller Dominions, and the majority of these were in "Mark III" layout.(with cutoff, and occasionally with volley sights as well.)

In 1940, after Dunkirk, all BSA production (irrespective of existing contracts) was directed to making up the losses of SMLEs, and so many BSA (Export) Rifles ended up in the British Army; When the Blitz got to its worst, and BSA dispersed the production of SMLEs outside Birmingham, they also changed over to "Mark III*" production. These will have the almost anonymous ("B") socket markings, with 41-43 dates, and of course "GR" etc. marks

IN any case, BSA used up all possible receivers, whatever their markings, and also transferred complete rifles from store, as mentioned above. So it is possible to find "Dispersal" rifles with post-1940 marks, with cutoff slots (but not fitted), and later Mark III* wood.

Regards to all,
Doc AV
AV Ballistics.
What the hell has Australians being touchy feely got to do with me or 1940 BSA #1s?
As a Yorkshiremn born & bred I am well aware of calling a spade a spade or speaking me bloody mind or whatever expession you care to use, it usually boils down to "right or wrong I'm going to be as rude as possible".
The rest of your self opinionated tirade gives no proof that a 1940 BSA #1 MkIII would have had more than a cut-off & remains exactly that merely YOUR OPINION.

I'll stick with your 1st opinion on the 1917 #1 MkIII which you stated as, "so a "Mark III" stamped receiver may or may not have exited the factory with a cutoff fitted....in anycase, it would have been removed by a fireld armourer at the earliest opportunity..".
I wonder what happened for you to change your mind?

Sprog
 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top