[MGWLLW]

I bought this rifle from a fellow forum member and received it earlier this week. After looking it over, I have several questions:

1. Is that a South African property mark?

2. If so, can I assume that the FTR was done in South Africa in 1944 when a new barrel was installed?

3. While the buttstock looks original, are the forend and handguards Australian coachwood? Would that type of timber been installed on a FTR outside of Australia?

If this rifle has been shot since FTR, it hasn't been much, as the bore is in excellent condition. I'm just trying to understand the probable travels of this mixmaster rifle a little better. Any help on shedding some light on its history would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Mike

 

[MGWLLW]

More pictures

 

[jrhead75]

The forestock is beech, and it looks like the handguards might be as well (a little harder to tell). It is a South African property mark that has apparently been cancelled.

I've seen that FTR mark on dispersal rifles, so I'm wondering if it's not a mid/late WWII British job (there's at least one post WWI EFD mark that I can see there). I don't know much about South Africa's way of doing things, so I suppose it could be an S.A. FTR, but if so, why the strike out?

 

[JB White]

Here's my "What if's"

What if...it was provided to SA for armament either during WW1 or during the interwar years where it was marked U^.
Then, what if...it was returned to UK service either post-Dunkirk, or....following SA's declaration of war provided to UK/Commonwealth forces during the North Africa campaign?

That MIGHT explain a '44 FTR, a cancelled SA property mark, and a WW2 beechwood forend. The handguards I have my doubts about. They don't really look British-fitted and the nipped fingers look like a postwar mod, at least to me.