.22 Enfield's Part 3

.22 Pattern 1914 Short Rifle No. 1

My favorite .22 just due to the history you can see on the rifle, forgive me if I spend a little longer on this rifle. I have owned four, kept two and hate myself for selling the two I let go!

Converted from SMLE Cond II and II*’s during WWI, its creation was just due to the lack of trainers available during the Great War. The rifle had its barrel tubed to a .22 and sights recalibrated; the rear sight also had a .22 line stamped into the leaf. Official recorded production was in the low 400’s but I feel that these were just one contract as they can be found easier then the .22 Pattern 1914 Short Rifle No. 2! Like the .22 Short Rifle Mk III, these conversions can be found on non-textbook SMLE Mk I/I* receivers; I unfortunately have been unable to obtain an example (damn auctions!!)

The two companies that completed the conversions were AG Parker & Co. and Westley Richards & Co. I feel that Westley Richards did not completely convert the rifle as all the examples I have seen have both Westley and Parker conversion stamps.

Below are two examples of the .22 Pattern 1914 Short Rifle No. 1; both have Australian ownership marks and have a rack number stamped into the top of the butt. These rack numbers are “C464” and “C539”. One of the two rifle’s I let go and now resides with a good friend in Washington State also had Australian ownership marks and the rack number “C1”. This makes me conclude that over 500 of the type were delivered just to Australia. Anymore out there with rack numbers????

First up is a Westley Richards with AG Parker assist conversion of a 1904 Enfield converted SMLE ConD II which was originally a 1894 LSA MLM Mk II. (In photo AG Parker stamp is stamped over Westley Richards stamp) Of interest is the excellent butt cartouches these rifle have (like they were never used) and that in its former life back in April 1909 it was rifle #3 for the 3rd Devonshire Regt. Why the disc is crooked I have no idea, but it is not alone…

Second up is a AG Parker conversion of a 1904 Sparkbrook converted SMLE ConD II which was originally a 1896 LSA MLM Mk II. (for some reason I am an LSA magnate). Of coincidence this rifle also has an excellent cartouche and in its former life was rifle #356, issued in April 1909 to the 3rd Devonshire Regt. Its disc is also crooked!!

I purchased these rifles about 3 years apart because I wanted a Sparkbrook conversion as Sparkies are hard to find even though they numerically make up 25% of the ConD II and II* production. (To this day, this rifle is my only Sparkbrook converted rifle). I was shocked to see that they were originally from the same unit prior to conversion at two different companies.

.22 Pattern 1914 Short Rifle No. 2

Like the No.1 rifle it was created out of the shortage of trainers during the Great War. It is a conversion of SMLE Mk III, III* and ConD IV rifles that had their barrels tubed and sights adjusted. Its only significant difference to the .22 Short Rifle Mk IV* that followed it a few years later was the tubed barrel, where the Mk IV* had a solid barrel.

This is why “original” .22 Pattern 1914 Short Rifle No. 2’s are a hard find. A large percentage were rebarreled in their lives with solid barrels, thus making them .22 Short Rifle Mk IV*’s. After being rebarreled some had their markings updated, some did not but to a collector they are no longer Pattern 1914’s. Even later during WWII when tubed barrels were allowed again the rifle was still called a No.2 Mk IV*. If more detail on these rifles is needed please read Skennerton, he does a great job with how these rifles were upgraded to No.2 Mk IV*’s.

Below are two examples of the .22 Pattern 1914 Short Rifle No. 2, again one textbook and one not.

Textbook example, a AG Parker converted 1915 LSA SMLE Mk III that was accepted in August 1921 by the 2MD in Australia and given the rack number of #511. Nothing fancy but the markings and barrel, of interest to the collector is that it has a few WWII Australian made parts but was never rebarreled or marked as upgraded to the No.2 Mk IV*.

Non-textbook, an AG Parker conversion of a Enfield converted .22 Short Rifle Mk III, which was converted from a 1905 Enfield converted SMLE ConD II, which was originally a 1893 BSA MLM Mk II! She is on her 4th life, you got to love how Enfields were recycled. As you can see it is fitted with SMLE Mk III furniture so it is up to spec’s.

Final photo are the different models in order.

I wonder if this little thread will lead onto the sub calibre adaptors for the L1A1 and the L85 SA80. Or shal I do the SA80? Not that there will be any demand, but it's Enfield.............

Lance. At the risk of confusing the issue, here's some info I've gathered along the way since having a Patt14 No1 virtually lob in my lap several years ago.

As usual, everything below is open for discussion.....

As far as the contractors go, Westley Richards Co was in serious financial trouble at the outset of WW1. This I found out from their own history section of their website ages ago. They would have shut down forever if it hadn't been for the MOD (or was it still W^D) throwing them a few contracts. Doing some of the Patt14 No1 conversions allowed them to put their name on the rifles, but as the sleeved barrel was a patented design of AG Parker, they had to acknowledge them in the markings as well. The Parker markings look almost like an afterthought on mine.

Something unusual about mine, the original receiver markings were scrubbed. I was told by a certain barefoot bandit, that meant it was a commercial made rifle but he couldn't explain how it got all the other service markings on it many years before and after conversion. (All matching parts, EFD marks evident) Skennerton himself says in the LES that some contractors scrubbed receivers so they could be re-marked, but (IIRC) it was the exception, not the rule. The other option was to stamp over the royal cypher which was frowned apon anyway.

A bit of history from the book, in 1926 when the changes to nomenclature were made, all rifles were to be brought up to the standard of the current pattern and re-named to that pattern. The Patt14 No2 was mentioned for upgrade to No2 MkIV (as it already closely resembled the No1 MkIII) but others like the Long Rifle trainers were declared obsolete. There was no mention of the Patt14 No1 here, but they were to have been replaced by the Patt14 No2 when they were introduced back in 1916. They were small enough in number, perhaps not warranting mention (?), probably already in storage...
Anyway, the older "obsolete" trainers were stored. The Patt14 No2 rifles were packed away to go through a process of conversion to the new pattern.

Sometime toward the end of the twenties, into the early thirties the MOD boxed up a heap of trainers to send to other countries of the Commonwealth. Australia and Canada seemed to have received an influx of trainers that included a lot of the previously "obsolete" rifles. I don't think it was a case of "all the Patt14 No1 rifles being sent to Australia", as maybe more "send them old crappy ones to the colonials first". Butt markings of D^ and "33" appear to indicate arrival into Aust.
My Short .22 II and Patt14 No1 have rack numbers only 50 apart. X450 and X500. I spoke to an elderly gent a few years ago who recalls going to the barracks in Sydney where they were stored to quote on purchasing them. He said there were several distinctly different types there including the Long Rifle type all mixed together. Maybe this helps explain a few things.... Like why the Patt14 No2 seems rarer (most were upgraded) than the Patt14 No1 (perhaps all were stored and later shipped here & to Canada).

Here's some pics. If there's any other views you need, please ask. I also have a few pics of others- Not sure if I had sent those to you previously or not- (I know I had intended too...)

The first butt pic is the Sht .22 II (rack # X450) Last pic shows EFD production mark partially obscured by broad arrow.

Greetings Son

Thanks for the info, I like picking up new bits of info from other collectors.

Have you ever taken the butt off your .22 Patt 14 No.1? I am curious if the right side of the receiver appears to have been thinned, thus the original markings removed, or if the receiver appears normal thickness. If that is the case I propose that it is a spare unissued MLE receiver was thrown into the works during the SMLE ConD II conversions. I have seen a couple SMLE Mk I receivers without right side marks and ConD II marks on the left. Unfortunately I have been unable to purchase one!