Enfield Sht 22 IV trainer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claven2

Even if someone had one, it wouldn't fit well in that rifle and also it would be very incorrect to put a CNo.7 mag into your rifle. What's wrong with using it as-is?

---

It's for something else I just grabbed...:beerchug: A No 4 based .22.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiriaq

Strictly speaking, a CNo. 7 magazine wouldn't be correct for a .22" IV* rifle. I think the magazine shell used would have been a SMLE pattern, with 22 stamped on it. Doesn't mean that No. 7 magazine couldn't have been fitted, the rifles overlapped in use.
When I was in high school, cadets was part of the program. We had Cooey 82s, No. 7s, No. 4s, Brens, and until '59, Stens in the school. One of the older schools in town still had IV* rifles. The Cooey sight bases apparently would work loose, so the shop teacher brazed them on.

---

The magazine shell in the Sht 22 IV isn't stamped .22 unfortunately. I was told it could have been either way.

I wouldn't be surprised if they could have been marked or plain.
Let us know more about the No. 4 based .22 when you've got it.

I've had three MkIV*'s that I know were all original given their source. Two had 22 marked shells, the other had a shell not marked 22. I think it could have gone either way and replacements likely weren't marked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiriaq

I wouldn't be surprised if they could have been marked or plain.
Let us know more about the No. 4 based .22 when you've got it.

---

You're just going to hate this...it wasn't me that Bubbaed it, but I can see the value in it. I just sold my Jungle Carbine and now this popped up...some nice work there. I like oddities like this...and .22's are a lot cheaper to shoot.
Collector value nil but as for resale value...can't see how I could lose on it.

Do you think that's a barrel sleeve or a real No 4 .22 barrel? The action looks like it may be a No 4 Mk 2, see the screw head at the back of the forend. Numbers are matching too. Looks like a Numrich 4-5 flash hider, and an actual JC buttstock. Note the correct 800 yd JC rear sight, someone went to a lot of trouble to assemble this. The stock is crying out for some BLO...

https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif
https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif
https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif
https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif
https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif
https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif
https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif
https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif
https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif

A while back, I sold an unfinished No. 7 barrel with the muzzle end of the bore damaged by corrosion (the buyer knew this) to a chap who wanted to make a .22 No. 5 clone. Wouldn't be surprised if this is it. It is certainly an interesting rifle, nicely done, and should be a lot of fun as a shooter.
As far as I am concerned, there are plenty of rifles around that have been sported, altered past any reasonable restoration, and there is absolutely no harm in using them for projects.
I think we have all seen mudpuppy's photographs of his Delisle clones, and I would just love to get enough information to be able to make a simulated Charlton. I have a copy of the original Charlton patent, but that is hardly a set of dimensioned drawings.

I could ask the guy I'm buying that JC from where he got it...it'd be nice to know some background on it. He doesn't know anything about Enfields...couldn't anwer any of my barrage of detailed questions...:)


Charlton- this would sure be one difficult thing to copy...

https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif