Enfield enforcer #189

To my untrained eye, it looks to me as if the end mill has been used to remove previous markings of some sort. I know I'm probably wrong and it's just my suspicious mind working overtime but we used to something identical with out No2 Brownings and L9 pistols. Replacement slides and barrels would come from Ordnance as P/W or Part Worn. We'd mill out the small recess and over engrave the 2T1234 or BL68A1234 to give the P/W slide and barrel a new lease of life.

Anyone got a part worn or milled out Browning slide and/or barrel to show what I mean?

The Enforcers are getting more mysterious every day..................................

Looks like it sold very quickly.Actually not a bad price.I paid more than that for mine 5 years ago!
I remenber when collectors source had some for sale about 18 years ago for $795.00!

One thing that stands out to me is the two different backing plates on Alan,s and TB,s AJ Parker sight and TB,s looks like there is a faint outline where another one may of been?

On a Engineering point of view, if I was to go to the trouble of using an end mill to remove previous marks etc I would choose the correct one so to remove the marks with one pass, the photo shows it has had two passes with a cutter due to the incorrect size of mill being used.
That tells me that only one size of mill was available at the time, and I very much doubt Enfield had only one end mill ? I would of thought they would of removed the previous marks with one straight pass, with an end mill or a horizontal miller, or grinder.

Superbee mentions a price 18 years ago, I would feel a lot safer or not as suspicious as I would now buying something like an Enforcer, due to the fact not many of us had a PC back then so the information required for the not so honest was not available.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunderbox

E.g. Here is some food for thought: the rifle immediately before your 395:

http://pic100.picturetrail.com/VOL60.../395210867.jpg

---

Thanks Thunderbox - Its not my rifle, its just one of the pictures and part of the information I have accrued towards (hopefully one day) the booklet I hope to produce.
This is why I've been doing the FOI requests, tracking down the named people who received them etc etc.
One of the Enforcers was sent to ERDE (Explosives Research & Development Establishment) in Waltham Abbey - later renamed Royal Armamant Research & Developement Establishment (RARDE) I have been fortunate to find the now very elderly gentleman who it was issued to to undertake experiments.

Inspector T Bxxxxxxx was the officer receiving the Enforcers in the Devon & Cornwall Police.

I know the name of the Assembly shop foreman at Enfield (Mr J. Kxxxxxx) but cannot trace him - he was responsible for scrapping 9 (nine) Enforcers which failed testing.

Its a frustrating project with many twists and turns but one I feel should be done before we lose all / any of the knowledge we still retain.
How can there be so much mystery around a rifle where so few were produced, and realatively, so recently

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigduke6

On a Engineering point of view, if I was to go to the trouble of using an end mill to remove previous marks etc I would choose the correct one so to remove the marks with one pass, the photo shows it has had two passes with a cutter due to the incorrect size of mill being used.
That tells me that only one size of mill was available at the time, and I very much doubt Enfield had only one end mill ? I would of thought they would of removed the previous marks with one straight pass on a horizontal miller, or grinder.
.

---

It is odd, given the neat job that was done with the "ovoid" rifles:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...34777738-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigduke6

One thing that stands out to me is the two different backing plates on Alan,s and TB,s AJ Parker sight and TB,s looks like there is a faint outline where another one may of been? .

---

Not all Enforcers were supplied with a scope - they would all have the scope mounts 'as standard' but depending on the 'cash left in the budget' they could be purchased with or without the Pecar scope, with or without a bipod, etc, etc. As funds allowed the local Police Force would buy the scope, bipod etc.
Talking with a 'scope repair' expert who was contracted to many of the Police Forces this resulted in some 'odd' (non-Pecar) scopes being used

385 looks to have an AJP4/47 sight fitted whilst TB's 384 has the correct PH5E/4

That's an interesting project AdeE. I'll ask the person here who was on the HO standing committee on the Police sharpshooter rifle if he'd be prepared to chat to you. Interested in the future?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunderbox

I have 332 - and have a couple of others +/- a few numbers in the low 300s - and they were all standard "flat side" rifles.

I know that there is a justification for the "double ovoid" rifles, but I personally would not touch one with a barge pole... still find it hard to accept that Enfield would make such a crude lash-up in milling out "old Envoy marks".

E.g. Here is some food for thought: the rifle immediately before your 395:

---

My very early 300 series is flat sided no oval.