No. 4 Mk. II forestock on Mk. I?

[Alexander A]

I have two No. 4 Mk. I rifles that are badly in need of replacement forestocks (they're shrunken, gouged, cracked, patched, etc., etc.). At the moment, however, NOS Mark I forestocks, especially in walnut, are all but unobtainable. That's not the case with Mark II forestocks, which seem to be relatively plentiful.

I'm thinking of fitting Mark II forestocks on my Mark I rifles. Any opinions on this? I could even put Mark I tieplates on them, so that from the outside they would appear to be Mark I's. Of course this wouldn't be "purist" from a collector's standpoint, but I don't care. I want working rifles.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Peter Laidler]

This Mk2 fore-end opn a Mk1 rifle variation was sanctioned for us BUT only for DP rifles to cater for the shortage of Mk1 fore-ends in Ordnance stockpiles. I know it happened elsewhere but don't really know why it wasn't sanctioned across the board. It was this shortage of Mk1 fore-ends that saw the retro modification of L42 fore-ends from Mk2 spec to Mk1 spec for the L42's. And dire they were too! I was told however that the problems arose because following continual firing of Mk1 rifles with Mk2 type fore-ends, the screw and nut, tie fore-end would pull loose and need tightening too often. Not coming loose in the usual sense, but by the heads cutting into the wood at either side causing looseness.

That would seem to be a good, logical reason but if that really were the case, surely the same would ocur when the open end Mk2 fore-end was fitted to a Mk2 rifle. I didn't question it but there it is. So, yes it will fit and will work. I would do it if it were me...........

[Alexander A]

Thank you. I like your use of the term "variation." That gives a sort of official sanction to what I'm thinking about doing. At least it's been done before.

[ssj]

and yet if you look on ebay there seem to be mostly mk1 type forestocks for sale (im looking for mk2s from ppl that will ship to NZ).

---------- Post added at 01:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:14 PM ----------

The mk2 could be routed to have the mk1's cutout for the tie either side and you can buy the ties or re-use off an old stock btw. Then Id epoxy in a new centre block of wood to solidify it. If you wanted "authentic" Id go this way.

[ssj]

This Mk2 fore-end opn a Mk1 rifle variation was sanctioned for us BUT only for DP rifles to cater for the shortage of Mk1 fore-ends in Ordnance stockpiles. I know it happened elsewhere but don't really know why it wasn't sanctioned across the board. It was this shortage of Mk1 fore-ends that saw the retro modification of L42 fore-ends from Mk2 spec to Mk1 spec for the L42's. And dire they were too! I was told however that the problems arose because following continual firing of Mk1 rifles with Mk2 type fore-ends, the screw and nut, tie fore-end would pull loose and need tightening too often. Not coming loose in the usual sense, but by the heads cutting into the wood at either side causing looseness.

That would seem to be a good, logical reason but if that really were the case, surely the same would ocur when the open end Mk2 fore-end was fitted to a Mk2 rifle. I didn't question it but there it is. So, yes it will fit and will work. I would do it if it were me...........

but did they put a middle piece of wood back in?

Otherwise, the No4 mk2 Parker Hale target rifle I have has brass tubes either side to stop this, I assume.

[Alexander A]

and yet if you look on ebay there seem to be mostly mk1 type forestocks for sale

I scour ebay daily. I did find a new Mk. 1 walnut forend from a source in New Mexico sometime back, and it's now proudly on one of my rifles. (But I have two more rifles that need this treatment.) Lately, all I can find on ebay in new walnut are Mk. 2 forends. Hence my question.

Sometimes it's hard to judge the type of wood from the pictures on ebay. I recently ordered a complete set of new wood from an ebay seller in England, but it turned out to be the birch/beech type. I can't really complain because it is new (old stock) wood, and it is what was pictured. But it's so clearly inferior I don't want to put it on my guns. (I have very nice walnut buttstocks on them already.)

[villiers]

A couple of years back, I had hell of a time looking for a Mk 2 fore-end for my faux .308 No. 5. Looking through the evil site mentioned above, I still don´t see any. A.A., where did you see that plethora of Mk 2 fore-ends?

[Peter Laidler]

On our DP rifles we didn't replace the missing rear centre section. The trouble with putting a spacer in, as suggested in thread 5 above is that the head of the nut and bolt butt up against the spacer as opposed to the shoulder of the wood - unless you mean a washer as opposed to a spacer.

There was a bit of a palliative for crushed screw holes within the hole as opposed to a cure. And that was to insert a COLLAR, backsight, (as used to space the Mk3 and 4 backsights on the axis pin) under the bolt and/or nut head. ot a cure in my humble opinion, but a quick fix for a DP.

There, another useless bit of Enfield related info

[ssj]

Um.....the inserts in my parker hale are what look like brass. So in section I think its a Tee with the leg hollow for the screw to pass through. The top of the tee is washer like in function it might well come up against the trigger bracket. There is one either side. I'll see if one is easily removable to take a pic of to confirm what I think I see.

From what you are saying it almost seems best to take the mk2 rear end back to mk1 spec, not a hard job.

regards

[Maple_Leaf_Eh]

If you have a good No4 Mk2 stock, I will happily trade you a good No4 Mk1. I'm in Canada.