Just quick clarification, they are Birmingham Proof House markings, rather than BSA's (By law, only the Birmingham Proof House and the Gunmakers Company are allowed to Proof Firearms) and they are supposed to be sceptres not swords. (I know that they don't look much like swords but then the Gunmakers Seax takes a bit a leap of belief as well.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederick303
Is it necessary to keep the square ended stock bolt to engage the keeper plate for civilian type use?. The old square ended one is wonky and I have only been able to obtain a new bolt without the square end.
Should I try and straighten the old one and re-use it or just forget it and fit the new one?.
When you say 'wonky', what exactly do you mean. It's a bit of a non too technical term......... Duff, chattered or stripped threads, bent shaft, knackered screwdriver slot, rounded square end...... or what? I'm not being pedantic but if it's bent then I'd put it in a lathe and straighten it although I'm blowed if I ever saw a bent one unless the butt had been run over by a three-tonner!. Then, I'd use the same bolt again but this time, I'd put a double coil thackray washer (from a No4 bolt.......) between your bolt and the flat plain washer sunk deep in the bowels of the butt. Make sure that you have one in there...., you'll feel and hear the metallic clunk when you tap it with a long screwdriver.
Then you've got the best of both worlds. You have the original square ended stock bolt that you can screw the butt tightly on with. AND when it's as tight as a ............., er........, anyway, pretty tight...... you can back the bolt off a tad so that it aligns with the square of the keeper plate.
It won't protrude as far as it did into the fore-end keep[er plate but what the heck! The butt is tight, the bolt is original - what else do you need?
Not that I doubt you Beery, but where is it recorded that the BM is 'Birmingham Military' proof, and it's status?
Thanks Peter. It's bent, and yes it does look as though it could have been run over by a 3 ton truck or possibly in a fire, but it looks salvageable.
I agree it should stay as designed if possible. I have obtained a new washer so I'll try and straighten it.
I had seen on another thread that stock bolts without the square end are fitted to No1's fitted having the original keep plate which seemed to indicate an acceptable practice.
Fitting a No4 stock bolt and some other screws, after chasing out the old threads to suit the No4 rifle BA thread pattern was an approved method of repair according to the EMER's. Strangely, it also says that grip screws/nuts from the 'new' bayonet can be used in place of the No1 bayonet grip screws and nuts. It doesn't say what 'new' bayonet they are referring to. It could be the No5 or even the No7!
Fulton seems to have blazed a trail with regards to action welding to help with action alignment,
Hi Frederic 303, you mentioned this welding on the action body a couple of times, can you clarify what this was or have a picture? Most interesting post you made, I predict a book on enfield target rifles would be a really interesting addition to the pantheon. thanks R
Welding the bodies........... most interesting! I'll ask Robert this afternoon when I see him. Even when the trigger block was brazed onto the Mk1/2 and 1/3, after the relatively low brazing temps required, the body was still subject to hardness testing at the locking-up surfaces
A small plate was welded or soldered onto the action side , opposite side to the Magazine cut off boss to even out the action footprint to make it symetrical and therefore more stable.
Ah, question answered. I suppose a small weld that far forward wouldn't have affected the temper or hardness of the locking shoulders. Mind you, I'd like to test the veracity of such a mod in a lab with a calibrated press! But, like homeopathy, if it works for you, it works!
Gents,
With regards to the action welding, XL39A1 is correct; it was added on the left side of the action body, to increase the bedding surface around the front action ring. The only rifle I had a chance to closely examine was brazed on, or so it appeared by looking at the filler material. I spoke with the NRA armorer back some years ago and he informed me the welded ones were done by a firm for Fulton’s fairly close to Bisley. At the time, (mid 2000) the fellow that did the welding was still alive.
The preponderance of the information I have collected indicates welding was a 1950s modification. The only caveat to that is that if you examine the NRA rules, it appears that the allowance for this change was made in 1934 which allowed the additional metal of up to 2 oz. In addition the action I examined had GE Fulton markings, which is a pre WWII marking. Now when one is talking about regulated Enfield rifles, the problem is that rifles were tweaked over their service life, so any feature on a rifle does not indicate that when sold it had that feature, it was quite possible that it is a later modification.
It may be that the action reinforcement was done first around 1934 with brazing and then went over to welding in the 1950s. I do not know the answer. I have never actually seen a welded action, though I have corresponded with folks that had seen or had at one time owned one. Some years ago there was a description of a rifle that had the action fail at the weld.