|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 6, 2009, 06:01 PM | #1 |
Junior Member
Join Date: October 6, 2009
Posts: 1
|
Info wanted on this gun please.
First I will say sorry for the poor quality of the pictures. They were taken while on a visit out of state. The gun was offered to me for sale but I want to find out what it is and worth first. I was told it was a 1917 British Enfield 303.
http://s169.photobucket.com/albums/u211/thestonesaver/ A newbie to guns I just want a little history of the gun and what it is worth so I dont overpay for it. Thanks for any and all help. |
October 6, 2009, 06:29 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 16, 2007
Posts: 712
|
robhof
From the pics. it appears to be an Enfield in fair condition (a shooter) with a recoil pad addet, that reduces any collector value. Look an Gunbroker and Auctionarms to get an idea of the range of prices as they can vary greatly, also check the bore and rifling, as many older millitary rifles have been shot enough to wear out the barrel.
|
October 6, 2009, 06:55 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 10, 1999
Location: High Desert NV
Posts: 2,850
|
Looks like a Lee-Enfield Mk I, sportorized and missing the magazine.
It should look like this rifle pulled at random from Gunbroker: http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=141118896 |
October 6, 2009, 07:48 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 7,172
|
It's a No. 1 Mk III* Lee-Enfield that looks to have been a nice old gun before it got butchered. The good news is that it could be restored as it looks like nothing has been done to the barrel or action. Personally, I wouldn't pay more than $75.00 for it, mainly because you are looking at another $100-125 in parts to make it right.
|
October 6, 2009, 08:51 PM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 22, 2009
Location: NE,PA
Posts: 390
|
Quote:
|
|
October 7, 2009, 01:40 AM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 7,172
|
Quote:
I still wouldn't pay more than $75.00 for it. |
|
October 7, 2009, 02:27 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 12, 2009
Posts: 520
|
If yo don't want it I'll give the guy $20 bucks for it!
|
October 7, 2009, 06:44 AM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 6, 2009
Posts: 392
|
realisticly its worth about 140-170
__________________
Liberal Newscaster Katie Couric, while interviewing a Marine sniper, asked: 'What do you feel.....when you shoot a Terrorist?' The Marine shrugged and replied, "A Slight Recoil." |
October 7, 2009, 12:22 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 10, 1999
Location: High Desert NV
Posts: 2,850
|
I would take a pseudo-restoration with Ishi furniture over how it is now. That being said as it sits it looks like a decent utility rifle (if you stuck a magazine in it of course).
How much is he asking? |
October 7, 2009, 03:09 PM | #10 |
Member In Memoriam
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
|
Come on, guys. There are a gadzillion of those "sporterized" L-E's out there. They make cheap but reliable and powerful hunting rifles. Period. To attempt to "restore" one is plain silly, no matter how good it might make you feel, and buying one for that purpose is a waste of money. There is little point in doing a restoration that will never be really "correct", while spending twice or three times what the gun would ever be worth in doing so.
There are plenty of un-Bubba'd L-E rifles if one wants one in something approximating original condition. Trying to restore a junker is pointless. Jim |
October 8, 2009, 06:47 AM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 19, 2008
Posts: 4,678
|
I wouldn't buy it at all.
Even if it was given to you, to find/buy a mag alone would cost at least $25 - almost half it's worth. And that's w/o knowing if the headspace/bolt head's correct. There's a LOT of fish in the sea - Look for a better example, if you GOTTA have a British .303. . |
October 8, 2009, 09:06 AM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2007
Location: Northern Orygun
Posts: 4,923
|
Quote:
|
|
October 9, 2009, 10:08 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 5, 2009
Posts: 904
|
There was about zero "collector" interest in these things back in the 1950's and 1960's when they were so plentiful that they were a drug on the gun market. But beacoup of them were sold for a pittance to guys who wanted a hunting rifle but couldn't afford a fine new gun. So, they'd spend a few bucks to buy one of these heavy-as-lead surplus Lee-Enfields or Mausers or whatever, and then "sporterize" it, which usually meant either completely restocking it or cutting the military stock down like was done to this one. Once the gun was a few pounds lighter, that .303. got tough on the shoulder, so a lot of these guns had recoil pads added. I agree with Jim Keenan that the result was usually a reasonably effective, very inexpensive hunting gun. There's not much interest in these homely "sporterized" military surplus guns today. The long, uninterrupted, ever-growing economic prosperity that this country enjoyed for about 50 or 60 years after WWII (until it ended in the recent downturn) put a chicken or two in most of our pots, and now most of us are affluent enough that we can afford hunting rifles that were actually built to be hunting rifles. It wasn't always that way though, and it's a cheap shot today for someone to sneer at an earlier and less prosperous generaton for "sporterizing" surplus military weapons into practical and effective hunters. That's adding arrogance to ignorance. Nevertheless, it is true that the"sporterization" work that was done on this gun and others just like it, has, in fact, greatly depreciated "collector" value. Since there isn't much hunter interest anymore in these "sporterized" military surplus guns either, the result is that they are not worth much to anyone anymore. I'd say $50 to $75 would be top dollar for the OP's gun today. That's still probably $30 to $50 more than the gun was purchased for in the 1950's or $60's. (Yeah, yeah, I know that the dollar's worth a lot less now than it was then.)
|
October 9, 2009, 10:38 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2008
Location: Florida, east coast
Posts: 2,106
|
DG, That may be the the largest paragraph ever written.
Without going into all of the details, the .303 was similar to the 1903A3. If the action a bbl are good it's a perfectly servicable rifle. I bought and sold about 1K of them in the late '60's , early '70's. They were generally going for about $35 back then. I'd just make it work for you, it's really a great rifle.
__________________
NRA Patron Member |
October 10, 2009, 12:33 AM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 5, 2009
Posts: 904
|
You just haven't read much of my stuff Swampghost. That's nowhere near the longest paragraph I've ever written.
|
October 10, 2009, 08:41 AM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 16, 2007
Posts: 712
|
robhof
My brother and I were intersted in guns as teens in the 60's and bought gun magazines; when they sold guns via the mail and there were pages of war surplus and none over $100. with rifles usually being cheaper than pistols. Found an old mag when cleaning out my parents house a few years ago; M1carbines $50-$75 depending on condition, Enfields $25 to $50, Lugers from $50 to $100, Garands were the exception $100 to $175, but the $175 were new. That all ended with Kennedy in Dallas.
|
October 17, 2009, 07:36 PM | #17 |
Junior member
Join Date: December 10, 2006
Location: MANNING SC
Posts: 837
|
SMLEs
they were selling for$9.95 in natick Mass.in the 60s.and carcanos for $7.95.
1903A3 for $15 from DCM and 1917s were $7.50 1911s were $18 + shipping. I got two new 1903A3s |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|