Updates to Canada and England - Milsurp Knowledge Libraries

:beerchug:

In reference to the Canada - Milsurp Knowledge Library (click here) and the England - Milsurp Knowledge Library (click here)

With thanks to terryinvictoria and stencollector, we have updated the "Collector Comments and Feedback" sections of these entries:

1944 C No.7 .22 Caliber Lee-Enfield Training Rifle (click here)

1945 Enfield No.4 Mk1*(T) Long Branch Sniper Rifle (click here)

1944 Enfield No.4 Mk1(T) Sniper Rifle (click here)

Terry wanted to raise a point in regards to stencollector's MKL entry about the C No.7 .22 Caliber Lee-Enfield Training Rifles, particularly in reference to the use of target sling swivels on these type of rifles. Although his comments were directly in reference to the 1944 C No.7 .22 MKL entry, they also have been added to the other two entries as the same information applies.

Stencollector in-turn has provided follow up comments about Terry's observations and as a result, I began to think about the whole subject in more detail.

Since I had little to do on a snowy afternoon, I decided to start dragging out ~Angel~'s C No.7 .22's and No.4(T)'s from her collection storage. As a result, I've also posted as a separate item, my findings as an additional follow up to terryinvictoria's feedback in all three MKL entries above.

If anyone would like to discuss about this subject, to perhaps add more clarification and develop the MKL entry content of these rifles further, then please respond in this thread and we'll use it as the basis for consolidating everyone's opinions.

Regards,
Badger

Maybe Terry had it backwards. Perhaps the PH high style sling swivel is the commercial after market swivel which should be suspect. I have only seen one or two of these over the years on the various Ts I have had.

Badger, is there any chance that the rifle you show with the PH high style swivel was one I sold you? Seems to me two or three of my snipers went your way over the years?

Also, I have to wonder why you find the little loop broken off on many Cno7s, while it is rarely missing on the snipers. I would suggest 2 possibilities to this. First is that the cadet rifles were usually simply issued to the next shooter, and that no attempt would have been made to remove the swivel to index it properly for an opposite handed shooter. A no4T was usually issued to a specific shooter, and would not have been going from left to right handed shooters as often. My second theory is that the cadet rifles were subject to a lot more abuse, and that the breaking off of the loop would have meant nothing to the cadet or the instructor. In my years as a cadet, we rarely cleaned the rifles, besides worry about the little loop with no known purpose. We never moved our slings to that sling position anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stencollector

Badger, is there any chance that the rifle you show with the PH high style swivel was one I sold you? Seems to me two or three of my snipers went your way over the years?

---

That's possible, I'd have to check the records .... :)

It's hard for me to keep up with her buying habits .. :lol:

On the subject at hand, you may be right partner, Terry may have it backwards. I don't know what else would account for the discrepancy in the empirical data across so many different No.4(T)'s. That combined with your part number analysis seems to be the most logical conclusion.

It appears to me that it's the Parker Hale sling swivels that have the longer post, not the other way round.

Regards,
Badger

:beerchug:

With thanks to Lee Enfield, we have updated the "Collector Comments and Feedback" sections of the entries mentioned in the first post of this thread.

He has expanded further on the discussion about whether these rifles should have a target swivel that rotates 360 degrees or not. He's also pointed us to some interesting remarks by Peter Laidler on the subject.

I think we finally have a conclusive answer. :super:

Regards,
Badger