Enfield Enforcer - Update

At only 767 manufactured and around 50% destroyed by the Police to avoid them getting into civilian hands it must be getting on for one of the rarest Enfields.

I now have Number 134 which was originally issued to South Wales Police, and the new one which is number 483 issued to the Northern Ireland Police.

Had a quick try-out last night (just as it was getting dark) and was getting under 1" 5 shot groups at 75 yards. It will improve.

Woodwork is dirty but it will clean up nicely.

Both have the correct Pecar 4-10 scopes, PH slings and Parker Hale bipods and the PH5E/4 micrometer sights.
No134 has 3 (numbered) magazines and a spare (numbered) forend.

A picture of the 'twins' and then of number 483

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...SCF00112-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF0014-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...SCF00202-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF0021-1.jpg

Thanks for that Al - nice one - they're hard to find these days> I think two's just being greedy! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PrinzEugen

Thanks for that Al - nice one - they're hard to find these days> I think two's just being greedy! ;)

---

If I remember correctly you turned down 483 as the reticule was upside down etc.
I looked at the reticlue on 134 and saw it just needed turning around (internally) and bobs-your-uncle. The cross hair on 483 had become detached from the reticule in shipping but the seller had a spare reticule (the same type 2) which he sent me FOC cannot say fairer than that !!!
Added a PH5E/4 (that I happened to have lying about) and its complete.
Had it out again tonight and shot sub 1" groups so subject to weather its off to the range on Saturday.

For the price - a bargain.
A bit of turps substitute and 0000 wire wool, to get the greasy marks off, loads of BLO and it'll be as good as new.

The 'Enforcer clone' I built is now up for sale (less the PH5E/4). I may strip it down as the various bits (bipod, magazine, PH mounts, PH rings, scope, butt, forend and handguard etc will undoubtably fetch more on flea-bay than the complete rifle would sell for to a dealer.

Hi Alan,

you made a good catch ! Fine rifles.

Regards

Gunner

Hi Alan!
My Enforcer is nearly finished all "correct" parts now found, i will mail you some pictures when i refinish the woodwork.

Neal

I have a problem with the engineering of the sight mountings of these rifles or indeed, ANY rifle where the front sight base is screwed into a 4mm thickness of breeching up ring. I keep thinking of my engineering physics lessons - you remember them, the total clock and anti-clockwise rotational moments and all that. I wonder just how substantial the front mounting pad grip on the body can possibly be, being retained in place with 4 or 6BA screws threaded into a base of 4mm or so.

The recoil forces and rearwards rotating forces on the telescope must be substantial. (In fact, I could work them out mathematically if I had the weight of the telescope...) I remember that even with the old No32 on the No4 and L42 could and would rotate under torque and shear off the locating spigot on the front rifle pad. In fact we had a repair policy formulated for them.

These are my views. Any comments asto the mechanical sustainability of these front pads.

As for their strength when used in the sniping role, being battered and bruised during a long stalk across Salisbury Plain..............

You can't imagine how much better I feel right now! I'd surely rather the authority confirm my engineering reservations.

They're still an important bit of Enfield history, just...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

If I remember correctly you turned down 483 as the reticule was upside down etc.
I looked at the reticlue on 134 and saw it just needed turning around (internally) and bobs-your-uncle. The cross hair on 483 had become detached from the reticule in shipping but the seller had a spare reticule (the same type 2) which he sent me FOC cannot say fairer than that !!!
Added a PH5E/4 (that I happened to have lying about) and its complete.
Had it out again tonight and shot sub 1" groups so subject to weather its off to the range on Saturday.

---

All's well that end's well then Alan - glad you're pleased with it.

Hey, hope that I haven't upset anyone! Just my comments about the strength of the sight mounts and not the rarity or strength of the weaponry.

The Enforcer was a commercial police marksman rifle. They spent most of their time sitting in a rack some place and not being carried over all types of terrain in a combat sniping role. I'd imagine they were quite sufficient for the odd trip to the range to check zero. Lets face it, I doubt many, (probably none), were ever used for their intended purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

I have a problem with the engineering of the sight mountings of these rifles or indeed, ANY rifle where the front sight base is screwed into a 4mm thickness of breeching up ring. I keep thinking of my engineering physics lessons - you remember them, the total clock and anti-clockwise rotational moments and all that. I wonder just how substantial the front mounting pad grip on the body can possibly be, being retained in place with 4 or 6BA screws threaded into a base of 4mm or so.

The recoil forces and rearwards rotating forces on the telescope must be substantial. (In fact, I could work them out mathematically if I had the weight of the telescope...) I remember that even with the old No32 on the No4 and L42 could and would rotate under torque and shear off the locating spigot on the front rifle pad. In fact we had a repair policy formulated for them.

These are my views. Any comments asto the mechanical sustainability of these front pads.

As for their strength when used in the sniping role, being battered and bruised during a long stalk across Salisbury Plain..............

---

Whilst I hav'nt fired off thousands of rounds thru' a rifle with the PH mounts used on the Enforcer I have fired in excess of 100 in one day and several 100s over a few weeks.
This was with the Enforcer clone I built.

I cannot argue with the theory / mathematics / metalurgy but in practice they have NOT shifted or screws loosened 'one-iota' (an 'iota' is a non-armourers term meaning an immeasurably small amount)

I'm not stalking across Salisbury Plain which may help.

Brian - they were used at the Iranian Embassy siege in London but I dont know if they were actually fired. If only we knew the serial numbers of those ones, what a story.
(NB - the Metropolitan Police had 45 Enforcers, the highest number held by any force, closely followed by Glasgow with 44)

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

It's true of course Al, that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It's just the not even 4mm (it's 3.75mm / .147") depth of thread that's worried me slightly. Hope that I haven't upset anyone...............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Hope that I haven't upset anyone...............

---

Not me !

They were used during the Balcombe Street siege as well.

Sorry to get wound up a bit, but I've also given the local USMC M40 (not so much the M40a1) fans a bit of a hard time too, can't help myself sometimes.

BTW- Amongst other things I've watched my first M40a1 clone fall onto a linoleum faced concrete floor directly onto the Unertl's top turret w/ no loss of zero. Also had my real M85 ruin its modded P-H one piece mount (also w/ a Unertl 10x government issue- but not US...) when the quick release sling swivel failed after a day long hunt.The sling was packed away until it got dark; now slings are just for emergencies. Rugged is a major requirement for me!

Anyone know where to find the P-H one piece ring set? 1" would be best.

Hopefully, an Enforcer will follow me home one day- Maybe I can be a little gentler to it. Gotta keep the Samsonite gorilla caged sometimes.

What few Enforcers I've seen did not have a scope still on them. Did they get removed when sold from service?

The PH 5C's use the same or a very similar mounting bracket and seem to shoot happily for decades without any hassles on rifle ranges.

Have I missed something in the thread T-bone? I thought the PH5C. was bolted to the side of the rifle body. While there will be rotational forces, with the 5C set-up, you'd be trying to shear the bolts as opposed to pulling out a tenuous thread

Surely the recoil forces on the PH scope blocks are forward and down: e.g. during recoil the scope slides forward and down, whilst the rifle body moves backwards and upwards.

The scope therefore pulls forward on the rear BA21 mount (to which it is locked by a stud), which in turn pulls on the No4 rearsight cross pin, but pushes the front block down and forward. Thus the two little BA screws are mostly experiencing a shear force and some compression, for which they are presumably more than adequate.

I think we also forget that, in the era these things were designed, 'scopes tended to be small and light, compared to the heavy monsters used today. The PH system seems to be sufficiently robust with a lightweight scope such as a Simmons Whitetail or the Enforcer's Pecar.

Mine is fine !!!

Threaded fasteners are not designed to operate under shearing loads except in the unthreaded portion. Generally, for tension loads there needs to be at least three theads in FULL engagement which usually means at least five threads entering the hole.

Whilst the clamping forces exerted on most commercial bases holds things together fairly well (kind thoughts help, I reckon), I've seen plenty of U/S mounting screws on rifles that no longer hold zero. Plus, one of my L42a1's had its front pad screws severly joggled after an apparent solder failure. The initial firing session displayed rather poor shooting capabilities;the problem wasn't detectable until the screws were loosened-they were all so offset that it was difficult to remove from the pad. (Very rectified now!-Unfortunately a friend has it back after a convoluted trade.)

That's enough ranting from me... Back to Enfields!

We often had these stepped screws on the front pad after the soft solder had failed but the pad appeared to be tight giving the unit Armourers reason to send the rifle to us for 'fails to maintain zero' ...., which is the second to last thing a sniper needs.

This leads me back to Thunderbox's thread. That during recoil, the rifle AND the tele must rotate about an axis

Some interesting thoughts here. Two good-looking rifles as well!

Alan, you mentioned you made up an Enforcer clone. I am doing something similar based on a No 4 Mk1/2; what would you recommend for the buttstock? Is it just a question of looking round for a Parker Hale sporter stock, or is there a better alternative?

To make an Enforcer clone, you probably ought to use the list of Enforcer parts. Change anything, and you'll end up with a clone of something else....

L39A1 forend & handguard
Parker Hale monte carlo butt by Sile of Italy - "de luxe" version with decorative pistol grip cap and rubber butt plate ("supreme" version also has chequering).
Enfield chordal barrel with stepped profile
Parker Hale Matchmaker front sight tube
Parker Hale BA21 rear sight base (cut off the battle sight)
Parker Hale BA20 front sight base
Enfield 7.62mm Magazine
Parker Hale RAHS3 or RAHS4 rings, depending upon the tube size of the Pecar V2S (some were 1", some 26mm)
Parker Hale PH5E4 1/4min target rearsight with No4 adaptor plate
Enfield special extended safety lever.

The Parker Hale MC butt is a good choice for any scoped Enfield: not only do they have a good raised cheekpiece, but they are/were available in "XL" and "XXL" lengths in addition to S, M & L sizes which were an approximation of the military butt lengths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunderbox

To make an Enforcer clone, you probably ought to use the list of Enforcer parts. Change anything, and you'll end up with a clone of something else....

L39A1 forend & handguard
Parker Hale monte carlo butt by Sile of Italy - "de luxe" version with decorative pistol grip cap and rubber butt plate ("supreme" version also has chequering).
Enfield chordal barrel with stepped profile
Parker Hale Matchmaker front sight tube
Parker Hale BA21 rear sight base (cut off the battle sight)
Parker Hale BA20 front sight base
Enfield 7.62mm Magazine
Parker Hale RAHS3 or RAHS4 rings, depending upon the tube size of the Pecar V2S (some were 1", some 26mm)
Parker Hale PH5E4 1/4min target rearsight with No4 adaptor plate
Enfield special extended safety lever.

The Parker Hale MC butt is a good choice for any scoped Enfield: not only do they have a good raised cheekpiece, but they are/were available in "XL" and "XXL" lengths in addition to S, M & L sizes which were an approximation of the military butt lengths.

---

Absolutely 'spot-on' - they are the parts I used - although the butt wasn't 100% correct
The hardest (and now possibly impossible part) to find was the special Enforcer shortened safety lever. (You could make one by cutting down a No4 safety). To start with I hadn't realised it was a special / modified safety, that is until it was all assembled and I couldn't apply the safety as it fouled on the PH5E/4 rear sight.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...SCF00294-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...rloStock-1.jpg

Thanks Alan and Thunderbox; should give me something to think about in the New Year!