Yesterday's Weapons Forums

no , its not a krag -it may even be a bannerman rework [although i cant see it well enough in that small photo] that could be a M1903 front sight , and i see what you may imagine resembles a krag stock , but the conspicuous krag loading port is absent to start , but they do explain its a rework of a metford so it might not fit the common image you have of enfeilds , if thats a metford stock it looks to have the cutoff dimple and grasping grooves , but the buttstock is not original , and the bayonet boss looks wrong , and i dont see the volley dial bolt , there were List-Of-Changes that governed the upgrades of those early rifles to later marks and even to configure to the SMLE specs toward the end of their servicable lives , but this doesnt fit the pattern ,

it looks like it could have been a pattern room trial , but that doesnt explain the bannerman connection does it ,
its worth mentioning that about the time that enfeild was messing about with the developement of the P13 , they were studying the springfeild M1903 and mausers , thats why those rifles look like a cross between a mkIII and the M1903 , the first world war set things back to 303cal in the P14 and 3006 in the M17 ,

the one in the link that caught my eye was the patten 1914 they describe as ERA "emergency reserve arms" i think it to be an eddystone , which were marked ERA on the reciever ,

I'm slowly getting the picture of what the Bannerman .303 rifles were.
One source says that the receviers, and bolts no doubt, were Springfield, either 1901 or low numbered 1903. The barrels were used Krag barrels set back and chambered for the 303. I'd heard earlier that the used barrels were lapped out to remove pitting to around .310.

The stocks were apparently made for these rifles using Krag machinery and stock blanks without the magazine cut outs.

A source said the Krag trigger guard was used, but I can't see how that would supply a floor plate for the magazine, perhaps it was a blind box type.
The upper band and bayonet lug were Krag.

I first heard of these from an interview, an old British Homeguard veteran said the rifles would not feed so they were used only for drill and as single shot target rifles. He said that due to the tight bore and lapped and polished rifling they were very accurate and always beat out the Enfields in competitions.

why convert a 3006 to a 303 ? i could see the krag receiver and bolt extracting the 303 case but not the rimless 3006 ?

i never could figure out all that bannerman was about - but i think it might be best described as the ultimate bubba

BTW because i like this topic i revisited the photo - it does look to be a krag rifle , and that chamber/bolt would lend itself to 303 conversion , yet id be fearfull of the cartrige preasures of that type of change

not to be argumentative in any way but the M1900 springfeild borrowed only the triger and sear system , sights and stock length & design from the krag , it employed the cutoff system from the enfeild and the receiver/bolt system complete with front locking lugs from the mauser , and the single stack magazine design of the mannlicher ,

it did look very much like the krag , with its stock design , bbl length and sights being the same as those of an 1896 krag , also employing the same bayonet , but this is primarily cosmetic ,

the M1901 rod bayonet rifle was revised for the rimless cartrige , and they copied the mauser 98 magazine as well to improve loading , they revised the cutoff to the familiar one on the left of the receiver , this did away with the mauser type bolt release , they went to mausers trigger/sear system , and only retained the krag appearance in stock and length as well as rear sight ,

by the M1903 rod bayo rifle the rifle was shortened like the SMLE and the rear sight was relocated to just in front of the receiver , the primary item resembling the krag at this point is the knurled chargeing knob at the rear of the bolt , and the rear sight ,

in 1905 they went back to the krag style bayonet lengthened to add back the 5" the rifle had been shortened , and redesigned
the rear sight to what we are familiar with on the M1903s ,

mostly what they kept from the krag in this development was things that they could reuse existing machinery for , the basic action and function is mauser - thus the payments to them ,

i agree the M1903 cutoff is not at all like an enfeild , and its not at all like that used on the M1900 springfeild ,the cutoff on the M1900 was exactly like the enfeild , but by the M1901 that was gone and it looked like the M1903 we see ,

i noted the steps of evolution from krag thru M1900 & M1901 to M1903 with the intent of showing they robbed from everyone as well as retaining a bit of krag , but it was mostly [important parts] a mauser ,

the brits at the same time were looking at combining bits from the springfeild[and thus the mauser] as well into their enfeilds developement

excelent synopsis , and i agree in point on the 'captured' elements of designs , yet there were so many "contracts" where enemys were producing each others arms prior to a conflict that im suprised they could keep anything straight ,

this has been enlightening and fun , i find the essoterics of the contrats thru history interesting and disturbing , one would almost accept the idea we were all about eliminateing each other , yet my mind wont quite go there