Is this the right place for this rifle or should we be looking at the .22" RF site? Anyway......................
Has anyone made a detailed study of the little Naval No9 rifle? I ask, because we have one at work and I wondered why the designation in the paperwork was always:
RIFLE, .22” RF N9 Mk1 then in brackets (conv from Rifles No4 .303”). Further information shows that the rifle was provisionally approved on 7th May 1956 by the Chief Inspector of Naval Ordnance. All existing markings were to be removed by grinding and the rifles re-marked by engraving with the designation, the newly allotted serial number, the contractors name, initials or logo and the year of conversion.
Clearly, by 1956, the No9 (.280” EM) and the No10 (provisionally to the 7.62mm EM rifles) rifles had been allocated the ‘number’ designations so where does this leave the Naval No9 rifle? The fact is that this rifle was never an approved Ministry of Supply item nor was it subject to the usual procurement processes or standards. The management of the rifle was via the Chief Inspector of Naval Ordnance and the acquisition of the rifle and further supplies of spare
HEADS, breech bolt .22”RF,
PIN, firing, Rifle N9, .22”RF and
EXTRACTOR, rifle N9 .22”RF were all via the Naval Armament Depot at Frater in Gosport.
The accepted rifles were all marked with the INO(Po) (Inspector of Naval Ordnance, Portsmouth) mark on the body and barrel. Oh yes, like me, I bet you always wondered why there was an apparent duplication of the RIFLE No9 designation didn’t you? The No9 designation didn’t ever apply to this rifle. Don’t forget, it was RIFLE N9. The N indicated NAVY. Quite what the 9 indicated is left for you owners to research further.
Colin Wren, an old Naval Armourer of the immediate post war era told me, before he died very recently that the N9 rifle was a result of demands for a competitive rifle to replace the old and by now worn out No2 rifles (and some even older according to Colin…..) and reports that it would be many years before the ‘new’ No8 rifle would be available to the Royal Navy. He could offer no opinion as to the ‘9’ except that it was - or seemed to be - a natural progression in the numbering system. Presumably being unaware that the No 9 designation had previously been allotted to the ill fated EM
Can anyone add to this and these enigmatic little rifles
