She just popped up on one of the internet gun auction sites........oh what a shame. I know the pic's do not show much but the markings on the side are:
Enfield, 1931, A1443
Printable View
She just popped up on one of the internet gun auction sites........oh what a shame. I know the pic's do not show much but the markings on the side are:
Enfield, 1931, A1443
Even with all the damage, it would be worth putting right. ugh!
I notice that the backsight ears are missing too. There's a problem because the axis pin holes were used as the datum and jig fixture for many machining operations on the partially finished body, including positioning it to index the breeching up thread
Did we ever get to the bottom of the rifle photographed here with the backsight axis pins apparently (but impossibly....) bored out too low down from new. It was on the forum some months ago now
All here should be aware that what some view as butchery today was once a sincere attempt (from the picture, at least) to revive a piece of military surplus that had little or no value on the market. Someone in the past converted this fine rifle for their sporting purposes just as someone in the past converted surplus Jeeps to civilian use for hunting vehicles. While we can be critical today of such decisions, those present today must recognize that Enfield rifles sold for as few as $6 and even snipers were sold off for $69 from HyHunter in the last 1960's. I know, because I bought mine and kept it all original for four decades, but I realize that most of the others were cut and used as hunting firearms without so much as a thought. No one ever dreamed that these would bring four figure prices from dealers, as they are today.
I have converted a fair number of Brits back to their original, as-issued condition and even today look for more to convert back. The older rifles are worth more as I find the barrels in better condition than some of the newer surplus rifles. Not there aren't some very decent newer surplus rifles out there, however. I just purchased an original rifle with a FTR done in 1948 and left unfired until I got it about six months ago. It cleaned up into a very nice rifle and will remain a gem in my collection.
I confess to having two converted or sporterized rifles in my collection, one a job I did in my misspent youth. It is a Long Branch that must have seen rough service. It came to me with no stock, no sights and a barrel seriously eroded by lack of cleaning, so I cut the barrel back, reblued it and fitted a Sile stock to make a short-barreled truck gun with a Weaver K2.5 scope and it has served it's due for almost 40 years. The other is a No. 4 Long Branch that someone did a nice moderate job on and I am in the process of accumulating parts necessary to rebuild it. I have a new birch buttstock and forend, but have no yet secured bands or front sight parts.
Don't be too critical of these older sporters. They stand as a transition from a non-hunting public who could not afford to buy a large caliber rifle to the hunting rifles we see advertised today for as little as $299 new. Do we really think that Marlin, Remington and others would be making entry level rifles as inexpensively as they are if the older (and now disappearing) generation had not converted some surplus rifles and gotten interested in shooting some forty to fifty years ago? Those interests were passed along to this generation. We stand on the work they did both as hunters and collectors.
Would you like more cheese on that sir?
I don't mind a modification that shows skill, workmanship and a good relation between "initial need" and "actual task performed efficiently". I guess others agree too since the Parker-Hale sportered Lee Enfield sell for a high price. A botched sporterization done without skill or showing improper use of the wrong tool, I have a harder time looking at it.
In a way, the one sporterized No4 I have, with shortened barrel and drilled receiver, actually shoots straight and is a good hunting rifle... Sure I would have refurbed it if the metal was intact or if it was the last LE on the planet, but... Hey, it's a cool deer hunting rig.
Lou
Hi Peter,Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
I have a 1930 no1mk6, it came with no rear sight so I've been trying to fit one for some time.
The rear sight ears holes are too low for a conventional rear sight and plunger to work, the sight will mount in a vertical position but will not fold down as there's not enough room on top of the plunger for the sight to rotate past.
The spring hole is also half the depth of a no4mk1 and the diameter for the plunger is smaller than on a no4mk1, so I cut a spring and narrowed a plunger to get it in.
I made it work somewhat after I took a full 1/4 inch corner off the sight and rounded it in order for it to work, however when vertical its now about 10 degrees off vertical, and folds down extremely easily, not good when firing.
My theory is that the sight was on a spring and ball, ala no1mkV, not a spring and plunger, however I haven't seen a picture of the original mk6 set up to know how to modify a later sight to work with this set up.
If anyone can solve this it would be much appreciated as the missing rear sight is the remaining faeux pas on the rifle.
Quite a few Enfield barrels were badly damaged at the muzzle by cord wear, I've seen several two groove bores that were worn to an oval at the muzzle.
Now days a damaged muzzle might be counter bored, but that wasn't even thought of back then.
A friend has a cut down No.4 Mk I I hope to trade him out of. He picked it up as a junker with parts missing for 50 bucks. The muzzle end was not onlt corroded inside and out for about three inches, it was bent and flattened on one side and the milled sight ears were bent almost touching the sight blade on one side.
He picked this rifle especially for a jungle carbine clone project because the barrel was unusable unless cut back to carbine length.
The undamaged rear portion of the barrel cleaned up great, the rifle is a fine shooter.
When you see a bubba'ed rifle that is not restorable it can be raw material for a guilt free sporter project of your own, or a JC clone, or a target rifle conversion.
Back in the day spare parts were like hens teeth, if a front sight blade was missing your best bet was a Williams bead. If a military butt stock was broken, you'd come out better getting a Bishop or Fajen semi inletted stock than letting the rifle sit unused for years waiting for a replacement to show up.
A good quality sporter built on a military action often cost more than a good used commercial sporter. People invested that sort of cash because they wanted that particular type of action instead of a generic commercial type.
They picked the wood they wanted, the sights they wanted, and the finish they wanted, rather than whatever happened to be on the rack at the pawn shop.
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler View Post
I notice that the backsight ears are missing too. There's a problem because the axis pin holes were used as the datum and jig fixture for many machining operations on the partially finished body, including positioning it to index the breeching up thread
Did we ever get to the bottom of the rifle photographed here with the backsight axis pins apparently (but impossibly....) bored out too low down from new. It was on the forum some months ago now
I just went an compared the no1mk6 and a 55 mk2, the height difference in the same place being .070 inch.
RJW, does 10 degrees off vertical mean it leans fore or aft rather than canted right/left?
RJW NZ your deduction on the rear sight sitting on a spring and ball bearing is exactly right. At least that's how my No.1 Mark VI is put together.
Yes, its a forward lean,certainly due to the rounding off I had to do and or the lack of metal on that forward platform for the plunger to rest on. Its not too bad, just not right.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmoore
M1917's seem to have a built in top forward lean, it always seems a bit odd but there it is.
Any chance of a pic in that area? I desperately need a couple so I can figure out how to reshape the bottom of a no4 sight properly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amatikulu
Have you ever had it apart and could comment if the spring seems the same shapes as a no4? Mine seems to indicate the spring would be just over half as long as a no4 and this seems to make the resistance on the sight to be softer. Perhaps the mk6 spring has less coils or thicker wire or ...who knows?
many thanks...my longest lasting enfield restoration ever, so far five years easy and counting, lol.
I guess I shouldn't complain about my one full year P14 restoration then! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by RJW NZ
Lou
Ony one year? Took me a LOT linger to restore a N.Z. carbine where bubba had CHOPPED the forend, then thrown away the handguard, and the nosecap!:move eek: