#4 trials "sniper"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

...file marks on the top of the front pad, slightly off-center threaded hole in front pad. The marks made by the shell mill cutter on the front pad are interesting...

---

Had noted that, previously but keep getting distracted, so no comments until now. The threaded hole has the worst concentricty to the spigot that I've ever seen! Which would imply that the hole was cut in a completely separate operation on this early conversion. Would have to think that the bulk of the spigots and holes were formed in a single operation in H&H production. Easy enough to incorporate a drill in the center of the shell mill when new cutters were made.

The circular marks on the face of the pad are indeed odd. But other machine marks are consistant with Enfield manufactured front pads.

As far as the rest of the rifle is concerned, it seems most appropriate to keep it's WWII or later guise. Just "lose" the cut-off in this case.

ETA: Thinking a bit further, if it was mine, I'd probably set it up to reflect the latest major parts installed. So a birch Post WWII Fazackerly forestock (they seem to be most common, and ought to bed up better than the early WWII "funnel" fore stock). And probably a late Fazackerly cocking piece. With the late barrel, those two items seem more like "artificial enhancements". The scope is kind of expensive to do a swap out, but then a Mk.3 scope would about complete the picture.

But it is what it is. An "Enfield Trials Rifle" action with Enfield scope mounts and most of an unnumbered bracket! The rest is optional and can't easily linked to the military history of the core.

ETA2: The sear is kinda cool, too. Lightened on the underside.

Thanks. My feeling is that the rifle is an original trials one, which probably in the course of its service lost its scope and was just reissued as a plain #4, or else was "sporterized" post war. Someone then tried to bring it back by the addition of the cutoff and a early scope with an original but repaired bracket. If I were to leave this rifle as it is, it is not correct because it is a marriage of miscellaneous parts. If I were to try and get it to "sniper" configuration I would have to get a new butt and a replacement cheekpiece, which would not be original either. I don't feel that this rifle should still stay as a "sniper" rifle, since it has lost pretty much all of its original "sniperness" except the pads. I would be inclined to get a nice stock which matches the finish on the barrel (the most recent addition), and that would include a new butt which doesn't have chips whacked out of the comb and nice furniture. I would switch the rearsight for a late war or post war rearsight. I would switch out the bolt cocking piece, since this rifle would never have had a reason to have a Mk I Long Branch on it. I would remove the cutoff, since it would have been removed in service anyway, and then one wouldn't have to fit a low rise stock. I would ditch the scope and mount completely, since they are not original to the rifle. That would leave me with a trials receiver and action fitted out with late war or post war stock and furniture, and it could then be kept or in future sold as what it is, which is a nice well used Enfield trials rifle.

Does anyone have any need for the bracket or the scope?

And, does anyone North of the border have a nice stock set from a Brit #4 l(preferably Faz) lying around (including butt?). I hate to trash another full wood just to get the stock................

Ed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boltaction

I thought I would include a few pictures of the LEC carbine including the buttstock for interest sake, so others can see what I am referring to. That stamp also has the appearance of being doublestruck. Nice little carbine though and would probably shoot very nicely.

The last three photos are of the RNWMP stamp on the butts of my Ross carbine and my LEC carbine. You can see that the stamp on the LEC is somewhat oval, while the one applied to the Ross is circular. Both are correct, and have a fine line of stippling around the edges which has not been accurately replicated on fake stamps. The LEC's stamps are faint because it too has been varnished at some point, but it can be seen that the RNWMP and M&D stamps are equally faint. Actually, the M&D stamp is a little deeper so shows up better. Must have been given a better whack with the hammer when being applied.

Attachment 42323Attachment 42335Attachment 42334Attachment 42333Attachment 42332Attachment 42331Attachment 42327Attachment 42324Attachment 42338Attachment 42336Attachment 42337

---

Just posted on Canadiangunnutz.
Gord.