Indian Rifle No. 2 Mk 4*____set up for L1A1 training????

Here is a follow up to a previous thread from November, ".22 sight" , where No. 4 rear sights were modified and fitted onto .22 Short Rifle Mk IV*'s possibly/probabley for primary training for the SLR. My assuption, due to why bother modifing SMLE trainers to a No. 4 profile when converting No. 4 receivers into No. 7 or No. 9 profiles would be easier.

Complete and incomplete sights are being sold by Apex, and rifle's (where I just got mine) are being sold by SOG. One puchased by another collector is now up on gunbroker for comparison.

Rare Lee Enfield Ishapore 22 Trainer Very Good NR : Curios & Relics at GunBroker.com


The rifle I received is almost identical to the one up for auction. All the original receiver markings have been scrubbed most likely in 1942 when the rifle's where rebuilt to .22 Short Rifle Mk IV*.

In 1962 the receivers where modified by the addition of metal blocks to the aft part of the receiver giving it a similar profile to the SMLE Mk V. The rear sight modified to allow bolt removal (see pic) but no recalibration of the rear sight markings were done.

This modification was possibley done at "502 W/S"; as the non-standard parts are marked with their identity stamp. (On this rifle the receiver and rear sight slide are marked with the "502 W/S"; on my example of a spare rear sight only the leaf is marked.)

The rifle were then shipped to distribution depot(?) marked by "E.S.A.", this example being marked "4.63" on the right side of the butt and "E.S.A." over "A" on the opposite.

All of my assumptions are just that, assumptions. Please tear them apart as my goal is to start a converstion which would shed some information on these previously undocumented conversions. If anyone else has an example please share any confirming or conflicting photo's.

502 Command Workshops. Definately not one of ours. Indian Army. Conversion is another way of duplivcating work. Unless you have surplus man power. This seems to be the case here

I was skeptical of these when they first appeared but Lance says they're legit so I found one and my wallet is now signifigantly lighter (thanks a lot, buddy). The markings are pretty much identical. One thing I found unusual is that it has a two groove bore. Seems to shoot OK.

Thanks for coming back for the final on that thread. Now we have some closure.