No. 4 (T) DP rifle

Has anyone else noticed that this one looks to have been a No4T where there would have been the distinct 2.5mm or so allowable gap between the front pad and the breeching up ring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

;)That's the engineer in you speaking!

---

And quite the bothersome little fellow he is! I've about unburied the old lathe bed that could possibly, maybe, be utilized in a fashion similar to H&H's concept of lore. Just one good photo of their rig would be horrible. The amount of unprofitable work following...

Peter: With this one being a BSA, why would they have set the pad back like that? Surely Shirleys are all the same. Would it just be variability in the process due to different operators of the old hand controlled machinery and some "artistic license"?

Ridolpho

Nothing to do with that. The allowance was made under a special agreement in order that the front screw of the rear pad would clear the induction hardened surface of the rear locking shoulder should the hardening have extended further into the body. Moving the pads rearwards by 2.5mm or so just allowed the screw to clear. You'll also notice that this is the reason for the front screw to be slightly higher than the rear one too

There....., another little bit of useless Enfield info!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

The allowance was made under a special agreement in order that the front screw of the rear pad would clear the induction hardened surface of the rear locking shoulder should the hardening have extended further into the body.

---

So that means each one had to undergo a hardness check before drilling? Aside from the potential loss of the front support for the front pad, which seems not to be a real factor, why not shift them all back?

That's a good Q JM. Ain't got a clue why they didn't do them all. But I suspect that the breeching up ring was a constant datum. Like you say, there's no frontal support loss bringing the pad slightly rearwards. I am not quite sure whether they were hardness tested as such but with an old IZOD tester of the era, it would have been a simple and quick matter, but seem to think NOT. You could actually see the hardness marks when that part of the steel was chemically washed clean to work the body although even under bluing you can see the material colour change

Love the character to it. If only they could talk.....

I'm glad to see that the rifle has generate dsome discussion. Quite educational. If she only was a shooter, it would make it all better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brit plumber

I'm wondering if someone has filed paperwork to state AT4242 has gone to England and someone has found this rifle and realised rifle 5L4242 (Longbranch) was sent instead and so this rifle has a sticker with some dodgy hand writing to highlight that the wrong rifle was sent or the wrong serial number was recorded. It appears to say somthing like '?????? #10 listed as gone to England 5L-4242 went to England'

I also suspect the person who wrote the note on the sticker was an idiot and was most probably the same individual who sent the wrong rifle in the first place. I don't think I've ever seen some one fluctuate back and forth between capitals and lower case letters so much in such a short note. Perhaps he was what we like to call 'A Blanket Stacker' AKA, a storeman.

---

Took a look at it again today "Crate #10 listed as gone to England"

Something else I just noticed going back to the photo's at the start of the thread; it has a modified SMLE mag in it. Note the flutes running to the very bottom of the mag casing. However, the locating rib down the rear face of the mag looks to have been shortened as per the norm for No4 mags. I have a couple of these somewhere - not fantastically rare, but scarce-ish.