Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi guys... I was at a local gun show on Saturday and picked up a SMLE No1 Mk3. This is a CAI import from India, I'm not an expert on these , but from what little I know it seems to be an Ishapore made rifle.
The problem I'm having is that the safety will not rotate into the safe position when the rifle is cocked, it will when the rifle is decocked. I took the bolt out and checked to see if the safety was functioning properly and I can see the two points closing when the safety is rotated with the bolt out.

So I examined the cocking piece and tried to compare it to images I found on the web.

If you look at the diagram I found , this example shows a cocking piece with two cutouts where the safety can be engaged in the cocked and decoked position. On my rifle there is only the rear cutout, the forward cutout is missing. You can even see marks where someone tried to engage the safety where no cutout exists.

Is this just a random defective part, or did the knuckleheads at CAI use an incorrect part? or am I wrong about the cutout being necessary to engage the safety?

Any help would be appreciated, thanks

 

·
Copper Bullet member
Joined
·
574 Posts
That picture is of a No. 4 safety, not an SMLE safety. They are similar but not exactly the same.

Your safety is probably just assembled incorrectly. There are several points on which the safety catch (19) can be screwed onto the locking bolt (18) but only one of them is correct. The correct location should allow the catch to rotate just slightly past vertical alignment with the locking bolt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
That picture is of a No. 4 safety, not an SMLE safety. They are similar but not exactly the same.

Your safety is probably just assembled incorrectly. There are several points on which the safety catch (19) can be screwed onto the locking bolt (18) but only one of them is correct. The correct location should allow the catch to rotate just slightly past vertical alignment with the locking bolt.
I'll try to get a pic of my rifle, I can see two points where the safety would catch the locking piece , on the bottom and on the side and it works when the rifle is decocked. But it does not match any groove or cutout on the cocking piece ( when the rifle is cocked).

I'll try to get a picture posted... thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,422 Posts
Here is an Ishapore cocking piece mounted on it's bolt. Very crude manufacture, but all is as it should be and it works fine.

View attachment 519160


If I am reading you right, you say your cocking piece is missing the forward recess that is cut to receive the hook of the safety lever? The one on the left in this photo?
If that is so, you have a defective part and ought to replace it if you plan on using the safety.

Just in case, here is a WW2 expedient cocking piece for the No4 rifle. It has both recess cuts for the safety lever hook, but lacks the half cock notch that occupies the same area as the forward recess cut. It might be possible that this combination of No1 bolt and No4 striker assembly would not allow the safety to engage, due to tolerance problems.

View attachment 519164


If this is what you have in your rifle, you'll need to replace the striker and the cocking piece, because the threading is different from No1 to No4.
-----krinko
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Here is an Ishapore cocking piece mounted on it's bolt. Very crude manufacture, but all is as it should be and it works fine.

View attachment 519160


If I am reading you right, you say your cocking piece is missing the forward recess that is cut to receive the hook of the safety lever? The one on the left in this photo?
If that is so, you have a defective part and ought to replace it if you plan on using the safety.

Just in case, here is a WW2 expedient cocking piece for the No4 rifle. It has both recess cuts for the safety lever hook, but lacks the half cock notch that occupies the same area as the forward recess cut. It might be possible that this combination of No1 bolt and No4 striker assembly would not allow the safety to engage, due to tolerance problems.

View attachment 519164


If this is what you have in your rifle, you'll need to replace the striker and the cocking piece, because the threading is different from No1 to No4.
-----krinko
Here's a picture of the cocking piece on my rifle. I think the slight dimple is where the safety is hitting the cocking piece.



and the entire rifle ...

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,463 Posts
Can you post a picture of the markings on the right side of the rifle wrist.
It would appear to me that there is a DP stamp on the butt of the rifle - are there any of those anywhere else (on the metal anywhere? Bolt reciever etc)

I would be very careful about trying to fire this rifle until you have got to the bottom of this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 · (Edited)
Can you post a picture of the markings on the right side of the rifle wrist.
It would appear to me that there is a DP stamp on the butt of the rifle - are there any of those anywhere else (on the metal anywhere? Bolt reciever etc)

I would be very careful about trying to fire this rifle until you have got to the bottom of this.
I'll get a picture of the other side tonight. I won't shoot it until the safety is funtioning and I know the bolt is correct for this rifle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Yeah, that cocking piece is pretty dodgy. They just used substandard/junk parts to build DP rifles.

Hang it on the wall.
Yes , it's looking like this might be the case, I won't know until I look at it again. I'm hoping CAI used a DP stock , but I doubt they would take the time to assemble rifles from parts... but who knows . I do know CAI was were selling DP rifles last year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,094 Posts
They just used substandard/junk parts to build DP rifles.
I'm sorry but that is just plain wrong.

Other than not being able to go bang, a DP rifle in British service had to function smoothly and correctly in every way. The word "Drill" in this case does not mean foot drill with rifles (called close order drill in the US I believe) but rather "drills" for training the proper operation and use of the firearm, for example: Holding, loading, aiming and firing.

For example a Drill Rifle with a non-functioning safety catch would be no use for training and would have been sent for repair.
 

·
Copper Bullet member
Joined
·
574 Posts
I'm sorry but that is just plain wrong.

Other than not being able to go bang, a DP rifle in British service had to function smoothly and correctly in every way. The word "Drill" in this case does not mean foot drill with rifles (called close order drill in the US I believe) but rather "drills" for training the proper operation and use of the firearm, for example: Holding, loading, aiming and firing.

For example a Drill Rifle with a non-functioning safety catch would be no use for training and would have been sent for repair.
While I agree with you in regards to the function of the rifle in British service, this rifle is definitely outside of that.

However, as Captain Laidler has said on another forum, "This is what the Armourers bible says. "..it will be assembled as far as possible with components which are below the standard required for a service weapon"" Sure sounds like substandard parts to me. Working? Certainly, but definitely substandard.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member
Joined
·
1,362 Posts
Another possible cause of your issue could be the length of the sear. If the sear was shortened, the bolt will cock earlier and therefore the slots for the safety mechanism will not be aligned properly. It is not very likely on a non sporterized gun, but if all else fails you can check for that as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,094 Posts
While I agree with you in regards to the function of the rifle in British service, this rifle is definitely outside of that.

However, as Captain Laidler has said on another forum, "This is what the Armourers bible says. "..it will be assembled as far as possible with components which are below the standard required for a service weapon"" Sure sounds like substandard parts to me. Working? Certainly, but definitely substandard.
I do know Peter and he is often quoted but I am not sure that quote is quite in context because DPs were not "assembled" as such (which suggests built out of spare parts) but rather converted from so-called "Service Weapons". Those weapons could even be perfectly good rifles but DPs were needed at the time and no "gash" rifles were available for conversion.
 

·
Copper Bullet member
Joined
·
574 Posts
I do know Peter and he is often quoted but I am not sure that quote is quite in context because DPs were not "assembled" as such (which suggests built out of spare parts) but rather converted from so-called "Service Weapons". Those weapons could even be perfectly good rifles but DPs were needed at the time and no "gash" rifles were available for conversion.
The quote comes from his post on DP rifles and the reasons why you shouldn't attempt to reactivate them. I agree that some DP rifles were made such simply because they were old and obsolete; the key is being able to tell which - and I know for sure that I do not have the qualifications needed to make that call!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
The quote comes from his post on DP rifles and the reasons why you shouldn't attempt to reactivate them. I agree that some DP rifles were made such simply because they were old and obsolete; the key is being able to tell which - and I know for sure that I do not have the qualifications needed to make that call!
Since we're on the subject of DP rifles, my rifle ( in the pic) has the DP stamp on two or three pieces of the stock , but not anywhere on the rifle itself. The bolt appears to be unplugged/not welded and the fireing pin seems to be intact.

Could the stock have been used as a replacement? I see there's plenty of DP marked stocks for sale on the Web.

What metal parts should I examine for a DP stamp? Is the stamp always DP , do they ever use just D?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,903 Posts
Could the stock have been used as a replacement? I see there's plenty of DP marked stocks for sale on the Web.
I needed a stock and metal for my .22 Training Rifle a few years ago, so I ordered some from I don't recall who any more. The stuff I ordered all came in with DP marks. I got rid of the marks as best I could without really messing up the wood and metal, but if you look closely, the wood, the nosecap, and the barrel band on that rifle are all marked DP.

So, yes. Replacement wood with DP marks COULD have been used.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
I needed a stock and metal for my .22 Training Rifle a few years ago, so I ordered some from I don't recall who any more. The stuff I ordered all came in with DP marks. I got rid of the marks as best I could without really messing up the wood and metal, but if you look closely, the wood, the nosecap, and the barrel band on that rifle are all marked DP.

So, yes. Replacement wood with DP marks COULD have been used.
Yes , I see what you mean, the stock sets offered for sale include the bands and nosecap.

Where would the rifle be marked if it was for DP ? I just want to make sure the rifle itself wasn't a DP rifle.
 
1 - 20 of 20 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