Enforcer - "Happy Days"

Finally got to pick it up this morning - many thanks V (you know who you are)
It seems like for ever since I decided to get one but now its "happy days".

Enforcer No134 (Ex South Wales Police supplied 26th April 1974)
3 (numbered 134) magazines
Spare (numbered 134) Forend - why a spare forend - who knows !
4-10 Pecar scope (numbered to the rifle 134)
PH 5E rear sight

One does wonder why when so few were manufactured (767 ?) and many have been scrapped why the prices are not more in line with the 4T. I dont see mine coming up for sale in the future,
To quote Prole on the old jouster forum :
How much did it cost ? Do I give a rodent's sphincter? I do not. How much is the rifle worth now? I have NO idea, nor do I care - because it is Not For Sale. It does not represent money to me - it represents one of the last of the Lee Enfield bolt-action dynasty.

Anyway heres some pics :

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...nf_28129-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...nf_28429-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo..._DSC_enf-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...11_28529-1.jpg

That means that my Enforcer 'clone' (pretty good clone if I might say so) is coming up for sale - any interest ?

The 'clone'

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF0031-1.jpg

Wow, Alan, indeed that's quite a collectible artefact.

Hmm, two-tone wood... Intentional?

Those mags are not original to the rifle, and neither is that forend; is the whole thing a rebuild?

Thanks for the comments guys - I'm always grateful for info from the more experienced members of the forum.

The bottom picture is my 'built-up' clone so sorry if thats confusing the issue.

Maybe others can correct the information I've picked up over the last few months :

a) Whats wrong with the forend ? It looks like many others i've looked at. The only difference I can see between the 'spare' forend & the one on the rifle is around the rear of the forend where the pind goes thru' - the one mounted on the rifle looks as if it has a piece of wood (very well done) slpiced into the forend - you can see a small circle around the pin on the original photo, below the 5E sight. On the spare forend it is just a hole drilled thru with no splicimg or inserts.

b) I understand that the Monte Carlo Butts were 'standard' Parker Hale butts and whilst they tried to match them into the new-built forends it didnt always happen. I'd guess that over 50% of the Enforcers I've seen have "two-tone" woodwork. The pictures on AM Stevens website also show slight colour differences between the forend and the butt.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...11_28329-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...nf_28829-1.jpg

c) Two of the 3 mags are marked with the Enfield part number CR141A and the 3rd magazine is identical in allrespects,(shape, pressing marks, etc) but does not have the CR number. What magazines should an Enforcer have if these are incorrect ?

The fore end is a modified No 4 Mk 1 fore end. Have seen a number like it on No 4 Mk 1/2s and 1/3s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jona

The fore end is a modified No 4 Mk 1 fore end. Have seen a number like it on No 4 Mk 1/2s and 1/3s.

---

Maybe the forend was changed over ? The 'spare forend is marked up "134" but the forend on the rifle is not numbered. The 'spare' has no damge or splits / cracks so maybe the Police Marksman just liked a slightly different (fatter / slimmer ?) forend and it was changed.

Pics below are the numbered spare forend.
As usual appreciate any comments.

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t...d/DSCF0053.jpg
http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t...d/DSCF0054.jpg
http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t...d/DSCF0055.jpg
http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t..._enf_28829.jpg

The forend on the rifle is a converted No4 Mk1 item, so not original to the rifle.

The spare forend appears to be the correct L39-type Mk2 item, but is missing the steel insert that should be under the front of the trigger guard. The number on the underside looks quite fresh, so maybe it is is an L39 forend thats been numbered to match.

Two of the magazines are correct Enfield types; if the third hasn't any markings then its probably one of the Charnwood copies that were made up. All three mags have new engraved numbers in a slightly incorrect format and location, so they are evidently new additions.

You should find the rifle number pencilled on the unerside of the handguard, and also stamped on the front edge of the butt (inside the butt socket).

Looks like a nice rifle. How about some shots of the sidewall, scope and bolt markings?

Just a couple of views Al, although I know absolutely zilch about Enforcers as Police rifles.........., apart from asking the question 'do they REALLY need them?. Anyway. If the spare magazine hasn't got the Enfield DE mark and the Ministry of Supply CR mark, then it is a copy made by Charnwood. Others have said that they are, er........... Lets put it another way. They are to magazines what Jimmy Young is to singing!

As for he fore-ends. The Enforcers were all Mk2's and you can't use a Mk1 fore-end on a Mk2 (or 1/2 or 1/3) rifle because the TIE, fore-end and rivet won't allow it. So, existing stockpiles of Mk2 fore-ends were converted to short L39/Enforcer spec. Your ORIGINAL fore-end SHOULD have a long 4BA bolt and nut through the rear end. I have been informed by Major George XXXXX who was involved in the project that this is a fact for all L39's and Enforcers. This is because there was no shortage of Mk2 fore-ends. However, I stand to be corrected on the point that no Enforcers/L39's were issued with converted Mk1 to Mk2 spec. fore-ends

It was different for the Mk1 and Mk1/1 based L42 because while there were plenty of Mk2 fore-ends in the system (removeable screw and nut don't forget), there weren't sufficient Mk1 types (permanently fixed tie plate and brass rivet) to replace those needed for the L42 conversion programme. So, in order to use Mk2 fore-ends, these were retro modified.

I say retro modified in the loosest meaning of the word. In truth, they were a butchered mess, fit only for scrap. Enfield did not fit bipod rails or bipods either

All this is suggesting to you that your original fore-end will be a Mk2 type, with a nut and bolt at the rear and not the retro modified version that we see clearly on the first and second picture. That's my two'pence worth

The fog is clearing -

* The forend (which is un-numbered), currently fitted to my Enforcer is a No4 Mk1 forend modified to a MK2 by splicing in wood into the 'cut-outs' left by the tie plate and rivet. The 'proper' forend (which is numbered to the rifle) is the 'spare' and is a true Mk2 for the screw & nut and probably original to the rifle, but for some unknown reason was changed over.

* Two of the magazines are 'correct' Enfield magazines with the Ministry of Suppy CR mark, the other is a copy.

* The forend and handguard was manufactured by an outside contractor who also took standard PH butts and modified them to fit the No4 action. AM Stevens (on his website) quotes as follows :
"The most visible differences between the L39A1 and Enforcer are the one piece (Monte-Carlo) Buttstock - a modified commercially produced buttstock - with an integral cheek piece and the Parker Hale 'Target' sights in addition to the Commercially produced 'Scope'. The modifications to the buttstock and the production of the fore-end wood were done by Colin Moon of Brighton. Colin Moon remembers being impressed with the quality control imposed when making Enforcers, with more parts being sent to the 'scrap bin' than being passed on to the next stage of producton at the factory".

"Simon" in a previous post regarding Enforcers stated :
I have some home office documents that give the production outline for the Enforcer.
When the enforcers were 'made up' at the RSAF Enfield and latterly Nottingham they were shipped to Parker Hale as actions and barrels only Parker Hale fitted the woodwork Pecar scopes and bases (if ordered) and the guns were shipped, I understand from a Police Armourer that once the guns got to them, they inspected them engraved, or sent for engraving the scope, eyepieces and magazines fitted bipods if necessary (Harris BR notched legs with skinny rubber feet 70's style as in the picture below) and numbered up the woodwork (if their force policy dictated this to be done so some were not engraved).

So to summarise my 'research' :

1) Enfield manufactured the Barrels and actions and supplied them to PH.
2) Colin Moon manufactured the forends and modified standard PH butts and then supplied them to PH.
3) PH assembled the woodwork onto the barreled action, added the bipod, (or was it the Police Armourer who added the bipod ?) scope mounts and scope (if required) mounted the PH5E sight and supplied the complete "Enforcer" to the Home Office / Police.


Peter - are you still in touch with Major George S ? Would it be possible to confirm this chain of events ?

Simon - is there any chance you can expand on your "Home Office" information - maybe even scan it and post it on the forum ?

I have 'cut & pasted' bits from several sources but has anyone got the DEFINITIVE answer on how these rifles were bought into being ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by "Simon" in a previous post regarding Enforcers stated :
[I

I have some home office documents that give the production outline for the Enforcer.
When the enforcers were 'made up' at the RSAF Enfield and latterly Nottingham they were shipped to Parker Hale as actions and barrels only Parker Hale fitted the woodwork Pecar scopes and bases (if ordered) and the guns were shipped, I understand from a Police Armourer that once the guns got to them, they inspected them engraved, or sent for engraving the scope, eyepieces and magazines fitted bipods if necessary (Harris BR notched legs with skinny rubber feet 70's style as in the picture below) and numbered up the woodwork (if their force policy dictated this to be done so some were not engraved).[/I]



Simon - is there any chance you can expand on your "Home Office" information - maybe even scan it and post it on the forum ?

---

Alan,

I would love to corroborate your points but it wasn't me who made that statement. I've got a feeling it may have been Enforsore.

Cheers,
Simon