Printable View
I have just bought my first No.4 mk1/2 rifle ,that was FTR at Fazakerley in 1953.
I am curious, when a No.4 rifle was, FTR was it given a new body,or receiver..? {as the Brits say}, or was the original used when changing the trigger attached to the receiver..:confused:
As i mentioned this is my first No.4 Mk1/2,..all my other Lee Enfield No.4's are Long Branch No4 mk1*
A No. 4 Mk1/2 is a modified No 4 Mk 1 (no star) that has had the receiver modified to accept the hung trigger from the receiver, instead of the trigger housing.
A No. 4 Mk1/3 is a former No. 4 MK1*
These rifles that are in circulation right now are by far the best buy going in Enfields; these will be the good old days in a few years.
x westie, The conversion process essentially consisted of brazing a Mk.2 style trigger block to the Mk.I or Mk.I* action body. A new Mk.2 trigger guard or a Mk.I trigger guard with the trigger removed along with a modified Mk.I or a new Mk.2 fore end completed the conversion.
Brad
During FTR when a MkI or I* was given the hung trigger was the original fore-end modified or was a new MkII fore-end used?
Fore-end modified by cutting away and patching where necessary. Even the trigger guards were modified. Waste not, want not as we tight fisted poms say
Were the triggers used the mk1/1* ones hung in the same position from a different point? or was/is the mk1 trigger different from the mk2?
The triggers were the same throughout the whole range/series and all rotated about the same axial plane. The difference was that the Mk1 and Mk1* trigger rotated about a pin fixed to the trigger guard while the trigger of the Mk1/2 (the upgraded Mk1) and the Mk1/3 (the upgraded Mk1*) rotated about the same pin but fixed to a block brazed onto the body. Ignore the Mk2 as this was effectively a 'new build' Mk1/2
While the Mk1 and 1* trigger hinged about a pin on the trigger guard was liable to move with the stresses, strains, warpage and foibles connected with the wood fore-end. On the Mk1/2 and 1/3 it was attached to the body and therefore not subject to any influential movement.
It was widely reported that this was not quite the WHOLE truth. The big part/reason for the upgrade was that the time taken for the semi-skilled final assemblers within the workforce, they refused to accept piece-work for the assembly of the No4. Because to set the pull-offs was extremely time consuming and therefore equally costly because each time the trigger needed adjustment for the 1st and 2nd pull off, the rifle had to be stripped down, pull-offs adjusted by stoning the trigger ribs, then assembled again for it to be checked.
By allowing the fitting and adjustment of the trigger and bolt while the rifle was stripped to the bones meant that 5(?) Mk1/2, 1/3 and 2 rifles could be correctly assembled in the same time it took to correctly assemble 1x Mk1 or 1* with all the stripping and assembling it took to get it correct
There, another little oblique bit of useless Lee Enfield history
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Also, correct me if im wrong, but when a No.4 rifle went through FTR, along with the improved trigger, a strengthened pattern of bolt,{using a higher grade of steel}, elimination of the hole in the bolthandle, and a new type of spring and 3/32-in. diameter steel ball to repace the spring and plunger for the rear sight.
All the above info, is of course, courtesy of "Ian Skennerton",and his book "The British Service Lee".:beerchug:
You're not quite correct Westie. The bolts weren't changed as the steel spec for the bolts was the same right through production, regardless of whether they had a hole in the bolt handle or not. The hole was eliminated as a wartime concession to the bolt makers by the Pilkington committee for the simplification of small arms. If leaving it out speeded up production, then they left it out. On the other hand, if the hole formed part of setting the bolt in a jig for example, then the hole stayed. When we had No4's and No5's running together, the different styles of bolts made no difference to us
The same applied to the backsight clicker plunger. It was asier to obtain ball bearings than make the tiny plungers AND harden them afterwards!