The Lee-Enfield Forum

Loading the .303 Brit?
visit
.303 British.Com
Also visit
Jay Currah's
The Lee Enfield
Surplus Rifle.Com's Rifle Data Section's
[SMLE #1 MkIII] -- [Enfield Rifle No.4 Mk 1 and 2<
Please take time to visit our sponsor.

The Winning Photo for March,
jisii’s 1918 BSA

Welcome to
ParallaxBill's
Milsurpshooter.Net
Curio or Relic & Military Surplus
Collector's and Shooter's Forums

About this site

C&R Dealer Links	General Related Links
The Member's Map	The Gun Control Forum

Due to the main focus of this site on the collecting and shooting
of C&R and military surplus firearms in their collectible original configurations,
sporterising topics will not be permitted in these fourms.
Thankyou,
ParallaxBill

Parallax's Trader Boards
See the new location at the bottom of the forum list
**Membership applications no longer required to post but you still must be registered.**
No dealers please!

Back in Production, New and Improved
Darrell's Scout Mount Page & Forum

Finnish M-91/30 photo courtesy of ParallaxBill

Click on the picture for current availability and prices

0 Kudo

Add Reply New Topic

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

help with dads old gun

Author	Comment
drinkbeer	help with dads old gun	Lead	[-]
Posts: 1 (05/31/09 11:31 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Tags : None Gday I have an old rifle 1952 no1 mk111,i know its an ishy, my father (dec) was given it when he did his nasho service in australia,He told me it was an aussie rifle but RFI tells me otherwise,I have conflicting stories? Was this rifle given to aussie troops and classed as an australian 303 or did he pick it up in india and bring it back. any info would be helpfull. matt ps not sure about his background,but have his aussie national service card/book
Crunch130		#1	[-]
Posts: 887 (05/31/09 05:06 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Beer, Yep, it's an Ishapore. I have no idea how much crossflow there would have been of those to Australia. But I did once have a '41 Lithgow that was overhauled in India. Crunch
RichardWV		#2	[-]
Posts: 299 (06/01/09 11:40 PM) active member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	By 1952 I doubt there was any official outflow of rifles from India to other countries. Go back a decade earlier and it was quite different. Reading Churchill's history of WWII (a shelf full of volumes), you find an amazing ebb and flow of arms across the empire, with stores from India being a primary source for sustaining troops in N.Africa.....which of course included a large contingent from Australia. You can be sure that some of those found their way back to Australia the same as some Lithgows finding their way to India. Considering the buildup following independence in 1947 and Ishapor's continued production to meet domestic shortages, it would be an odd duck indeed to have a 1952 rifle end up in Australian service. Unless someone has knowledge of foreign military sales, my assumption would be that any post 1947 Ishapor rifle found outside of the Indian subcontinent to be the result of being surplused and sold on the civilian market.
temperflash		#3	[-]
Posts: 387 (06/03/09 12:57 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Some Indian troops served in Korea, could be an Ishy rifle ended up among battle field pick ups sent to Australia for repair, then being orphaned and not on the books someone gave it to your dad as a souvenir as much to clear it from the books as anything else. He probably would not have been given a rifle to keep for his own if it were official Australian government property. Rifles could end up just about anywhere during war time, even during peacetime police actions or mobilizations stuff got lost in transit or sent places they weren't meant to be.
RichardWV		#4	[-]
Posts: 302 (06/06/09 11:48 PM) active member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Consistent with their role since independence, India's role in Korea was strictly as a neutral in their Custodian Force function, which supervised the exchange of POWs. They did not participate in combat and in fact distanced themselves from all combatants. As such, their equipment would not be battlefield pickups.
temperflash		#5	[-]
Posts: 397 (06/09/09 11:01 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	RichardWV wrote: Consistent with their role since independence, India's role in Korea was strictly as a neutral in their Custodian Force function, which supervised the exchange of POWs. They did not participate in combat and in fact distanced themselves from all combatants. As such, their equipment would not be battlefield pickups. Quite right, battle field pickup is probably out, but other possibilities remain. Recovered stolen weapons perhaps, a rifle or a few of them stolen from the Indian contingent by Koreans, either guerillas or simply theives, and recovered in a search then mistaken for Australian rifles and mixed in with other recovered equipment. Rifles salvaged from a vehicle accident is another possibility, or an ill or injured Indian trooper rushed to a field hospital and his rifle being stacked there with the rifles of wounded combatants. I've seen acounts of WW1 where huge piles of rifles were to be found at every aid station, walking wounded carrying theirs or their buddies bringing their rifle along as they were carried in for treatment of wounds. India did provide medical personel, and its not unlikely that at least some armed troops were there to guard the Indian personel and supplies from local bandits if not from NK military attackers.
drinkbeer		#6	[-]
Posts: 2 (06/10/09 09:39 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Thanks for your help/info guy's

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Quick Reply