There is a serial number that matches the receiver on the top of the barrel under the rear of the hand guard. But, no, there is not anything stamped into the stock. That would correlate with your research.

I'll still have to search for the other mag this carbine was purchased with. But, the one in the carbine has that ugly green paint on the bottom half like the bayonet. But, the carbine has no green paint.

Thanks.

Local Boy, those No.5s you showed in post #16 look really good.
What's the story on the No.4 MK1 and the Pattern 14?
P14 is another one on my want list.

I didn't expect this amount of interest and experience with Lee-Enfield rifles and other British items on the KCA Forum.

FWIW - Some rambling thoughts on early Lee 'small-bore' magazine arms.

IMHO - The 'genius idea' of James Paris Lee was the 'detachable (sheet metal) box magazine'. The evolution and efficient exploitation of this feature, probably was not realized, until applied to semi-automatic and automatic arms.

It seems, J.P. Lee and the companies in North America, that produced his 'turn-bolt' rifles, saw the 'detachable magazine' best utilized as a means of disciplined 'Fire Control'.

In its military configuration, the Remington-Lee "small-bore magazine rifle", (a.k.a. model 1899), came with four detachable magazines. This Lee rifle design also included a long 'side spring' to serve as a loading aid or platform.

This spring facilitates single loading by preventing a loosely loaded cartridge from dropping through the magazine opening, when the magazine is absent.

When a magazine is inserted, this spring is pushed aside.

The scheme was for troops to normally fire their Remington-Lee rifles as single shot rifles. When rapid fire was needed, the command was given to load a five round magazine.

With four loaded 5-shot magazines available, twenty one rounds of ammo, per man, could quickly be discharged by a unit! (Or ... so was the theory)!

It appears to me, gun designers and military thinkers were really blundering and feeling their way into this "Magazine Thingy".

In the late 1880's, when looking for a small-bore, smokeless magazine rifle, the British saw virtue in the Remington-Lee (Black Powder) bolt action design and its detachable magazine.

Having a military that knew how to fight using Bullet, Bayonet, and Butt, the British revamped the Lee's wimpy stock into a rather robust "two piece" design with provision to withstand recoiling parts.

The rear bolt lock-up, 'cock-on-closing' striker design, trigger linkage/guard design, and detachable (8 cartridge) 'single stack' magazine were pure to Lee design.

Early Lee-Metford rifles and carbines had their original magazine 'chain-linked' to a loop on the trigger-guard plate. This was so the empty magazine could be released and not lost, while inserting a  spare 'loaded' magazine.

The action had a magazine cut-off to allow operation of the rifle as a single-shot, with the magazine contents held in reserve.

The magazine was soon increased to 10 rounds, 'double stacked'. The idea of changing magazines was dropped. (Likely due to expense and poor interchangeability of magazines).

The British fired their Lee-Metford and Lee-Enfield rifles (10 round) and carbines (5 round) as single-shots. The magazine 'cut-off' was utilized to hold the contents in reserve. Replenishing a 10 round magazine was a slow process.

By 1901, the virtue of 'charger-loading' was clear to the British Army and experimental 'Charger-Loading' short rifles were being produced for trial. This was the genesis of the Short, Magazine Lee-Enfield Mark-I.

By 1907 the design was much improved.

But, within six years, the .303" Short M.L-E Mark-III rifle was slated for replacement by the .276", Mauser inspired, Pattern 1913.
(We all know how that would turn out).

Shorter & handier, charger-Loading, better sights, a quick bolt-action with a great toleration for mud and abuse, showed the British Lee to be a better battle rifle than expected!

(Attached photos showing SMLE Mk-I with early charger-guide).