Attachment 65194
First time I've seen this. :confused: What's it for?
Printable View
Attachment 65194
First time I've seen this. :confused: What's it for?
Magazine cut-off.
Perhaps the woodwork came from a "Trials Rifle".
I didn’t know trials rifles have the magazine cut-off. Thank you.
Yep, they did and it took a little while before the message got through to the fore-end making contractors too because the early run of work ones came with the gut-out recess too.
As a matter of interest Vince ALL No4 magazine production catered for cut-off rifles. Look at the right side of the magazine and the wall is lower. Guess why? Yep, for the cut-off, even at the undercut rear right retaining lip. Nobody thought to alter the spec or the drawings and as I have said many times before. It's sometimes better AND cheaper to keep making what you're already making than to change the design. Think MGB bonnets............
Thanks Peter. I wondered why the right side of the No4 magazine is lower.
Do the trials rifles use the same magazine cut-off parts as the No1?
Peter would a raised wall on the right side of the No 4 magazine prevent the magazine from working with the cutoff? If it did, then the magazine wouldn't be interchangeable or work in any older rifle that still had the cutoff installed, would that be correct? If so, might be the easy answer as to why it wasn't re-designed and was left that way. Just a thought. Of course I seem to be short on good thoughts lately, example the scope cap thread earlier, Lol, RayQuote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
That is the reason they remained the way they were Ray. But it would have been an efficient way of culling the trials rifles. On the other hand, taking my MGB bonnet comparison, learned during my production engineering phase, if the press tools are already churning them out by the zillion, then leave things as they are.
The No.1 MK. VI and the early No.4 Mk. I rifles (1931, 1933 and 1941) had the extra lower cut on the right side of the forestock to clear the magazine cut-off even though the 1941 production had no slot and magazine cut-offs were not fitted on them. By 1942 the makers switched to the variation of the No. 4 wood that did not dip down for the non-existent magazine cut-off. The wood continues straight and covers where the cut-off would have been on a Trials No.4.
I have a 1931 Trials No.4 Mk. I made at Enfield and converted to a sniper at Enfield that was Factory Thorough Repaired (FTR). The magazine cut-off was removed at some point and the rifle was fitted with a later forestock in service. The slot in the metal for the magazine cut-off is now hidden. At first I thought of restoring the rifle to its early features (I had a spare No.32 Mk.I scope and bought a Mk. I button cocking piece, magazine cut-off and screw, butt disc, low cut forestock and a hinged upper band) but in the end decided to leave it as is. This rifle had remained in service to at least 1963 (ref. serial numbered army stores stickers in the No.15 chest with it) and was matched with a 1945 No.32 Mk.3 scope in-service. The later style forestock is also serial numbered to the rifle so it has beenproperly fitted in service.
The cutoff on my Trials rifle had been removed when I got it and I had ordered a cutoff and screw for it a few years ago but, if I remember right, the screw did not fit in the hole so I put it all on an early no. 1, Mk1 rifle that was also missing the cutoff. Apparently the screw was a slightly larger dia, RayQuote:
Originally Posted by Vincent
Vincent did you check to see if the screw fit your rifle? If it does and you are not going to use it, I'd be happy to buy the cut out and screw from you as my Trials is all original except missing the cutoff, Ray
All this talk about the MG reminds me of the two English cars I used to have, Parted w/them years ago, the Flying Eight stayed in the family with my Nephew, the Healy went to a friend. Had fun in Parades w/them. RayQuote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Attachment 65345Attachment 65346