D7E is simply another Enfield examiners mark. In this case an Enfield examiner stationed at BSA in much the same way as D6E was based at H&H and D7Z was based at Singer.
Printable View
D7E is simply another Enfield examiners mark. In this case an Enfield examiner stationed at BSA in much the same way as D6E was based at H&H and D7Z was based at Singer.
Thanks PL - that's what I was getting at when I said, tongue in cheek, that maybe Harry H spotted an omission by the fellow at BSA & 'rectified' it by bashing his into the rifle twice!
ATB.
Unless I am seeing things, is not the receiver gray?? It appears to me to be one of the Belgian TEFLON (tm) coated No.4(T)'s that were dumped on the market some years ago. Recall those Roger (nice seeing you again by the way and next time make time for a cuppa tea) when a load of kit was dumped by Belgium. There was also a load of .22 No.4 conversions as well (200 units seems to run to mind) hit the market around the same time.
IF this is in fact one of the Belgian Teflon coated rifles what scope it had with it when it was released is anyone's guess. In fact, I seem to recall they came out into the market scopeless.
Yes, looks like it could be a Belgian release to me.
Roger - Yes, the barrel and recover are gray so this must be a Belgium import. Actually the coating was applied nicely on the receiver, barrel, and misc parts.
I did a search on the forum and found some interesting information. Anyone have any idea why they parted with these, timeframe, etc. - Thanks!
It would probably be fair to say that a rifle that had been equipped with a Mk.3 scope would not be retrofitted with a MkI - except by a civilian. I believe the SOP was for the old scope numbers to be struck out rather than filed or sanded out. There is a gap between the shoulder of the butt and the socket on the left side that I don't think would pass inspection either. But you probably know all this already.Quote:
Originally Posted by mjolnir2
IMHO you might as well complete the job someone started and degrease the rifle and paint it black. I believe BDL offers Suncoriting, to coin a verb. ;)
...I see Roger has covered this already - never mind!
If the expert types here believe it to have a finish applied by a previous military owner (ie. Belgium) I think I'd leave it be. The Belgian ownership/ re-finishing ( if this is, indeed the case) adds to a chain ownership and authenticity. I'd love to have it, as is, as well as one of those rough and ready Indian owned No. 4 T's we see from time to time. Paint it black and it's just another T with a nice but historically meaningless finish. My own favorite T, a '43, was subjected to a Maltby refurb and the black paint is ugly as hell but I wouldn't change it.
Ridolpho
Do we know for a fact that the grey finish is Belgium/Holland Benelux - or whatever? It is a tough coat of whatever it is. We had a Crown Agents contract to refurbish a lot of No2 and L9 pistols for ........ I seem to recall saying this some time ago so won't repeat it. But do we KNOW where the grey finish comes from for a FACT?
Surpmil - Actually the butt stock seems tight into the socket. I can't imagine it would/can be any tighter, but since this is my first Enfield, you guys will have to let me know. It's on so tight, I was disuaded from removing it and looking for a serial number. Would love to know the serial number lurking underneath!Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...d9c6beca-1.jpg
I tried in a very discrete spot to remove the gray with thinner and it is not coming off without some serious effort (e.g., blasting). At this point I think I'm going with Ridolphe and leave it as is since it is part of the rifle's history. It would be a shame to spoil its history if in fact it was performed by a Belgium armory. The application of the gray was very well done since there is no flaking, runs, etc. so I'd be shocked it being a bubba job ( I've seen them bubba jobs since I'm living in the heart of the South). If anyone out on the forum can verify the coating as challenged by Peter, I would really like to know.
As per everyone's feedback and excellent support, it seems it is a legit No. 4 MK 1 (T) so I am very pleased with the rifle. I can deal with the gray versus a suspect (T) rifle. Picture below is of the index mark for the barrel where the serial number is stamped (see picture below). Looks like its been on there since 1945, but you guys will have to let me know.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...439f40bb-1.jpg
One of the most import attributes to me is if the rifle will shoot well. I took it out to the range this weekend and took a few shots at 100 yards with Previ ammo. I think I can do better with my hand loads. To me it is such a privilege to be able to own such a piece of history.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...c4d29d2e-1.jpg
Peter - Seems your book is out of print; however, I can find a few for sale on Amazon but they are over $150. Are planning to issue a second edition? I will be tempted to hold out otherwise! :lol:
Gentlemen - Thank you again for all your insight!
---------- Post added at 08:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 PM ----------
Gentlemen - Any useful information on the underside end of the barrel?
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...a8e42540-1.jpg
Are there any US import marks on the rifle and if so are they under this grey finish or do they penetrate it?
Where the grey is worn off, does the metal underneath appear to have been grit blasted or can you see the original finish?
If it seems clear that it has not been grit blasted and that the original "blue" is still underneath the grey paint or whatever it is, you might consider removing it chemically. Of course being sure that however you remove the grey finish will not harm what is left of the original finish.
I can't see a military outfit refinishing just the barreled receiver and not the bolt body at least, though it should be noted that H&H did just that during the war, after the conversion work. In that case however, the polished bolt body was the standard finish at the time, with the exception of the handle and the tops of the recoil lugs.
Please disregard my earlier comment on the buttstock; the previous photo suggested there was a problem, but there obviously isn't.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...c69d1922-1.jpg