I acquired this in 1964. Still don't know what it is. any input?
Printable View
I acquired this in 1964. Still don't know what it is. any input?
Yep! Its a lee Enfield, Sht .22 II. It was converted from a MkII Lee Metford (Long Lee) in 1912 as part of a contract for the Royal Navy that saw 1000 .22cal rimfire trainers made.
It looks to be in very nice condition too. The magazine would not belong as they were left off this model. After it had become obsolete, other models has an empty mag case fitted to act as a brass catcher, that magazine looks like it was drilled for a cutaway rifle....
thanks, I will remove the magazine. The side hole made no logic. Now here is my trainer number two. FTR 1954. I need more input..
This one was converted from a BSA Sht LE MkIII (unsure if III* from pics) prior to 1926. This .22 trainer pattern was to be the last for the No1 rifles, and became the Rifle No2 MkIV from 1926 onwards...and were still being converted in Australia to this pattern into the 1950's.
Would like to see the FTR markings, I would have to do some checking, not sure the trainers were FTR'd... maybe someone else will know for sure.
here are the requested pictures. it is so easy to do now.
The hole in magazine was done at conversion IMHO to allow the feel of a normal rifle while not collecting brass. it fell out when handed from recruit to recruit during use.Quote:
Originally Posted by Son
The pattern for the model required the removal of the magazine. years later there was an order to fit stripped magazine cases to all .22 trainers for collecting brass. They were to have .22 stamped into the side of them. The Sht .22 II had already been obsoleted prior to this, so it (and many other models that hadn't complied with the "new" pattern and couldn't be on- converted) were not included. The MOD had deemed any rifle not at the current pattern could not be used by British troops. These rifles had been held in store waiting to be stripped for any useable parts for a few years when they were sent to the colonies. This is why the vast majority of lesser known early trainers are in Canada and Australia.Quote:
Originally Posted by arado
I have never seen anything to indicate a magazine with a hole was for a trainer. Willing to stand corrected here, but it would fly in the face of everything official in their history.
No correction. just an idea. The rifle still has it's long range sights, original barrel, bolt, rear sight and wood. what was changed is a .22 tube insert and bolt head. The magazine is difficult to remove and has no distinguishing markings and the cases came out when I handled and fired the rifle. Did you check the FTR on my other trainer? opinion? Gary.
I did. It's marked in a way I hadn't seen before, but then I am not right up on any rebuilds BSA might have done for the MOD late in WW2 or even post WW2. I was hoping one of the resident Englishmen would be able to shed a little light on it. When I get a chance I'll wade through a couple of books, see if there's anything I have missed when reading on the subject.
In the meantime, keep the pics coming, mate. Enjoying the trainers!
So far as I am aware, the UK Ministry of Supply (MoS) did not award any contracts to the privately owned BSA company for post war FTR work. BSA only undertook their own contract work for foreign governments. The Government/MoS were desperately trying to keep their OWN factories busy.
BSA FTR marks are a dead cert mark that the weapon was in Foreign hands (or certainly destined for) by the time it was FTR'd