Enforcer - "Happy Days"

Alan,

I think you're reading too much into the rather scanty documentary evidence relating to Enforcers.

I am sure that the rifles were more or less complete by the time they left Enfield, albeit they were assembled using some PH parts. The reason I say this is that the forend and its markings are identical to L39A1 items, and must therefore have been fitted at the factory. Enfield had developed the Enforcer to meet a contract specification (as detailed on Steven's website) and would probably not therefore allow a third party to assemble the rifles - perhaps risking quality issues, etc.

Since Enfield had typically met the Enforcer specification in the cheapest possible way (by tarting up an L39A1), I doubt that they allowed Parkers much of the profit margin - the butt, PH5E4, Matchmaker and scope mounts are all simple screw-on items that didn't require any specialist contractor to sort out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon

Alan,

I would love to corroborate your points but it wasn't me who made that statement. I've got a feeling it may have been Enforsore.

Cheers,
Simon

---

Apologies - you are correct - I've looked back at the postings and it was Enforsore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunderbox

Alan,

I think you're reading too much into the rather scanty documentary evidence relating to Enforcers.

I am sure that the rifles were more or less complete by the time they left Enfield, albeit they were assembled using some PH parts. The reason I say this is that the forend and its markings are identical to L39A1 items, and must therefore have been fitted at the factory. Enfield had developed the Enforcer to meet a contract specification (as detailed on Steven's website) and would probably not therefore allow a third party to assemble the rifles - perhaps risking quality issues, etc.

Since Enfield had typically met the Enforcer specification in the cheapest possible way (by tarting up an L39A1), I doubt that they allowed Parkers much of the profit margin - the butt, PH5E4, Matchmaker and scope mounts are all simple screw-on items that didn't require any specialist contractor to sort out.

---

Yes - I guess I am trying to extrapolate the "Enforcer Story" from little snippets of information - I have been bitten by the Enfield bug and try to find out as much as possible about each model / Mk that I own (and may even be a bit anal about it).
Not putting words into your mouth but are you suggesting that :
a) If the L39 woodwork is identical, that Colin Moon made the L39 woodwork as well as the Enforcer woodwork ?
b) Enfield fitted the woodwork to the Enforcers ?
c) Parker Hale just 'screwed on' the sights and butt ?

There seems to be so little knowledge about these rifles.The amount that we know about 100 year old LE's in comparison to 30 year old Enforcers is incredible.
There must still be people out there who were involved in the Enforcer programme, where are they ?, who are they ? how can we find out the 'true' story ?

a) Colin Moon was certainly one of the MoD contractors who made top handguards and Envoy/No8 forends (as he is still doing), but I don't know if he also converted the No4 Mk1 (L42) and No4 Mk2 (L39, Enforcer, 7.62 CONV) forends - this would have been easily done by Enfield itself.

b) I'm certain that Enfield would have fitted the forend and handguard - they were doing the same work on L42, L39 and Envoy. They were a rifle factory, after all! The forend is numbered in the same manner & font as an L39; ergo it came off the same work bench...

c) I'm personally sure Enfield also screwed on the butt; why would they send out half a rifle to be completed? Since Enfield also sourced Matchmaker foresights (as sent out with L39s and fitted to Envoys) and PH target sights (as fitted to Envoys), I see no reason why they shouldn't have attached these bits to the base rifle.

I can imagine Enfield not wanting to bother with fitting and calibrating a 'scope, so perhaps this was the work that was contracted out?

An interesting and informative thread - another thing that has always niggled me - some Enforcers have the handguard 'shaved' to permit clearance of the scope objective - others dont. Some Enforcers seem to have been supplied with 4 - 10 Pecars, others not, others are fitted with differing scopes(aftermarket?). Who did the 'shaving' and subsequent refinishing?

Would Enfield have supplied rifles --- with sights, but with or without Pecar 4 - 10 scopes/boxes/bipod brackets/bipods/slings --- (all alternatives?).

When and who numbered scopes to the rifles?

Presumably Enfield invoiced the Home Office/ Police Forces for their goods?

Simon - do your records give any delivery note details?

Alan - you question whether you are anal - with luck this has a way to run yet!

I am certain the 'scopes were fitted at Enfield, 100pc. The topwood was consequently shaved before fitting. Unshaved ones could be a later replacement.

GNR - the spreadsheet (as we would call it today) - copies of the ledger - show 5 columns :
Rifle Number
Out To (Police Force)
EXT
Date
A.I.N.

A huge leap of extrapolation : could the AIN be Advice Note / Invoice Number ?

The majority of the AIN's all start with 444151 and then / xx, again - another leap) could 444151 be the contract / order number and then the /xx be the 'call off' of batch shipped ?

The /1 looks to be December 1973
The /2 seems to be early Jan 1974
The /3 seems to be around 22-24th Jan 1974

and so on into 1975

The 1977 dates seem to have a 'contract' number 430396
The 1980 dates seem to have a 'contract' number 4990011 (these all seem to be Export - Abu Dahbi, Kuwait, Hong Kong, Bangkok etc)
The 1981 dates seem to have a 'contract' number 4090393
The 1982 dates seem to have a 'contract' number 4090411

So maybe it could be ?

Comments ?

AIN = Advice and Inspection Note.

A myriad copies, all of differing colours. They went to all concerned parties.

They were issued when a batch of work was complete, passed inspection, PIP'd and ready for dispatch.

Edit to add: A&I notes all had a unique identity. The order/contract number would appear on them.

At this time RSAF was still Govt owned so a contract as such could not exist - you cannot have a contract with yourself. It was known as "an extract", generally taken from a list allocated to the procurement branch "up town".

The A&I note would detail the running total against the "order", ie 150/200.

EFD - thanks - that makes sense.

So the AIN is an Advice note.

Example :
So AIN 444151/19 dated 14th May 1974, covering rifle numbers 96 / 123 / 146 / 150 / 155 / 182 / 208 / 210 / 212 / 223 / 227 / 246 / 254 / 259 / 273 for Manchester Police, means that they were inspected, passed and ready for shipment 14th May 1974.

14th may 1974 is not necessarily the shipping date ?

I spoke to retired Major George xxxxxx today about these Police/Law Enforcement Enforcers. This is how he explained it

He was on the board that spoke to the Police Forces to see exactly what they wanted. They then told the Home Office who wrote their specification. It's what we in the Army would call a General Staff Requirement or 'the GSR'. When this had been finalised, the order went to the Government factory at Enfield and the rifles were produced as required. They were all manufactured to 'the GSR' because this is what the Home Office told them that they could have!

That's how they were delivered. A rifle similar to the L39. They had a telescopic sight facility. Whether this was simply the BLOCKS or just tapped holes is not known. What we do know is that there were many occasions where the tele sight block holes above the receiver/breeching-up were subsequently deepened, into the barrel, almost into the chamber. Indeed some eventually bulged fired cases INTO the weakened hole. Enfield got the blame of course but in all seriousness, Enfiend have been in the game tooooo long to pull a stunt like that.

He told me that the Police/Home Office approved rifles were all delivered in the GSR condition. If the Police Forces opted to change the butts for san-fandanglio this that and the other, then so be it

As for the woodwork. Then during the fiasco surrounding the absolutely dire (and I mean DIRE) state of replacement fore-ends, I was involved with those manufacturers defect reports (MDS's) and this is only the UK MoD L42's and to a much lesser extent, the L39's. What happened, loosely, was that at the time, there was little or no woodworking facility left at Enfield bar L1A1 butts and pistol grips. And even these were shortly due for replacement with plastic. No8 woodwork had already gone out to Parker Hale (?). The first trial L42's and L39's had the fore-ends and No8 handguards converted at RSAF but the new production handguards and modification of fore-ends was contracted out. After that, all RSAF did was recess the hole for the little foresight blade box thinggy into the knuckle of the butt. The fore-ends for the L39 and presumably Mk1/2 and 2 Enforcers was converted-from-new stockpiles of Mk2 fore-ends. Subsequent handguards were all new manufacture.

Moon certainly converted all of the fore-ends and retro converted many hundreds of Mk2 fore-ends to Mk1 spec. One wag suggested during the defect report period that he probably converted them during the Edward Heath era, when the miners were on strike and the electricity was periodic and lights were off too. They were THAT bad. Not just bad, but an absolute disgrace. Enfield would NEVER have produced such shoddy work, never, not even in the heat of war.

You can read more about these on a bit about fore-ends on the old Jouster pages