Enforcer questions...

I have managed to get hold of photos of an Enforcer, serial no. 395. The rifle appears to have been used most recently for target shooting, and someone at some time has slapped on a AJ Parker TZ 4/47, and fixed on a new front sight. I have uploaded pics at:

http://s1016.photobucket.com/albums/...ld%20Enforcer/

(I will sort them out and post them properly later - I am too tired right now). I have noted the following things -

Magazine - stamped on underside with "424" and on side with "CR141A65" followed by the E overlapping D (referred to as E/D from now on) symbol. A broad arrow is stamped on the back of the magazine. The magazine platform is stamped with the E/D symbol and "CR1256 1965". From looking at comments found on his forum, it appears that the magazine is correct, but is for the wrong rifle.

Barrel - stamped on top of knox with "CR 1470 E/D 73 6", inspection marks and broad arrow. On the underside of the barrel is stamped "FB358". The patent applied stamp at the muzzle end matches other examples I've seen. Front sight changed (?) as mentioned above.

Action body - appears to be a correct No.4 Mk.2 body, and has the correct, shortened safety. The body is stamped with "395". Parker Hale BA20 front base is attached, but BA21 rear base and PH5E/4 sight is missing. The scalloping on the hand guard and the front base indicate that this rifle was scoped at some point, whether originally or at a later date.

Bolt - stamped with "395" and "T19" in the right places. Bolt head is also stamped "T19" and is a size 2.

Hand guard - NOT marked on inside with pencil, but does have a large "57" in black marker.

Fore-end - NOT marked on inside with pencil, but does have a large "57" in black marker, so matching the marking on the hand guard. There is a very faint "395" stamped on the foreward end under the fore-end, but it looks like it has either been worn down or sanded slightly. Someone will burn in hell for that lol.

Scope - the scope that purportedly originally came with the Enforcer is a Pecar variable 4-10, serial number 52077, and has minimal wear with bright, clear optics.

Now, after all that come the questions.

1. Anyone have Enforcer #424 and want the magazine?

2. Where is Enforcer #424 now, and where was it originally issued (if it was issued)?

3. How much would you pay for this rifle in the US? (A difficult question, but worth asking).

If more photos are needed, then let me know.

Possible lead on the magazine...I feel like Sherlock Holmes lol...

Enforcers 395 and 424 were both sent to the Derbyshire police force. Now if only I could find Enforcer #424 and see what number is stamped on its magazine...

13 away from mine, (on the magazine). Is that close enough? ;)

An Enforcer that's number matched as yours with scope and correct 5E sight is a great find. There were a limited number produced.....some say 666 others 767 however it's a low volume production number. Perhaps Simon can tell us what is in the records. You see 73 and 80 Patten #'s. Parts like safety and stock sets are unique to the rifle. IMO, the rifle complete and correct with provenance is worth between $4500.00 and 5000.00. Enjoy! Ron

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rgg_7

An Enforcer that's number matched as yours with scope and correct 5E sight is a great find. There were a limited number produced.....some say 500 others 600 however it's a low volume production number. Parts like safety and stock sets are unique to the rifle. IMO the rifle complete and correct with provence is worth between $4500.00 and 5000.00. Enjoy! Ron

---

US$3000 + shipping etc and you can have one of mine.

I might have a lead on a 'correct' safety. I'll know in a couple of days.

A lead on Enforcer #424 would also be appreciated lol.

Add $1000.00 to import plus Uk purchase puts us right in the ball park. I know of one that recently sold in North America in the 4500 - 5000 range delivered. I believe they're a great investment.

Isn't it unusual (I'm talking about the pics spinecracker linked to) for the receiver 'oval' engraving to be done on a number that high? (I thought it was on the first 200 ish)

I noted that too, and that is why I posted the photos. I believe that this Enforcer is genuine, but I do not mind being told that it is a fake.

Well people more learned than me will be able to tell you for sure! Also ones I've seen have one oval around all the words - not two - is that what's on your early one (the number 183 springs to mind) Alan?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PrinzEugen

Well people more learned than me will be able to tell you for sure! Also ones I've seen have one oval around all the words - not two - is that what's on your early one (the number 183 springs to mind) Alan?

---

I'm not sure anyone knows the 'cut off' date for the changes in engraving, but it is generally thought that up to 200 used the "All text in one oval" (see pic 1)
200 - 400 used two lines of text in "Two ovals" (see pic 2)
400 upwards used text engraved / stamped directly onto the action with NO oval (see pic 3)

I have 134 and 483 and they fit into the correct sequence - as does 'Spinecrackers' (possibly one of the last "Two Oval" versions.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...rAction3-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...rAxtion2-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...rAction4-1.jpg

I will try and get access to Enforcer #391 and see what that has. That rifle happens to be an 8 hour drive from me, and I am trying to get photos out of the owner, but I might have to do a road trip, dang it! Still, I could do a detour to Yosemite - it is beautiful this time of year :). The owner of #391 and #395 apparently has some Enforcer spares that he has not catalogued yet. When I know what he has, I will let you know.

The more data we can get to Alan regarding the Enforcers still out there, the better.

I have 208 and it is in the oval

208 - Highest yet in the 'oval'

Any advance ?

Got to shoot #395 today, using the AJ Parker TZ 4/47 sight that it came with. Boy, I am blind using that thing lol. Still managed to get a 1/4" grouping at 100 yards, but the groups opened up to 1" at 200 yards, partly because the (in)famous Washoe Valley wind was beginning to blow (gotta love those sudden 25mph side winds lol) and my lack of familiarity using the sight. As some people know, the original buyer (who I was helping) backed out of buying the Enforcer, but it was offered to me for a very, VERY good price. I will do a proper range report when I get the rings and can get the scope mounted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinecracker

Possible lead on the magazine...I feel like Sherlock Holmes lol...

Enforcers 395 and 424 were both sent to the Derbyshire police force. Now if only I could find Enforcer #424 and see what number is stamped on its magazine...

---

424 was actually a Cumberland Police rifle (not a Derbyshire one)

I have details of the current owner of 424 (he is in the UK), hows your research going Sherlock ?

My pardon, Alan. I was going by Simon's response to Karlos' query under the L42A1, Envoy and Enforcer sticky on page 15 or 16(?) ("Rifle No 424 was sent to Derbyshire Police on the 14th August 1974"). If I misread anything, then I apologize. I am awaiting the current owner to let me know if his enforcer magazine is stamped with "395". If it is, I will be happy. if not, then I'm going to have to do some more detectoring lol (and some crying :P ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinecracker

My pardon, Alan. I was going by Simon's response to Karlos' query under the L42A1, Envoy and Enforcer sticky on page 15 or 16(?) ("Rifle No 424 was sent to Derbyshire Police on the 14th August 1974"). If I misread anything, then I apologize. I am awaiting the current owner to let me know if his enforcer magazine is stamped with "395". If it is, I will be happy. if not, then I'm going to have to do some more detectoring lol (and some crying :P ).

---

Strange - according to my records 424 was part of a batch of 29 Enforcers that were shipped to Cumberland Police on 8th July 1974.

The mystery of history ???

Mystery? No

Pain in the bottom? Yes :)

I wonder if there are other discrepancies in the records, or did somone just read the wrong line?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinecracker

Mystery? No

Pain in the bottom? Yes :)

I wonder if there are other discrepancies in the records, or did somone just read the wrong line?

---

It is strange - I've dug out all my paperwork and in fact have two lots of information for 424.

Cumberland Police shipped 8th July 1974 & Derby Police shipped 14th August 1974. maybe some 'cock-up' at Parker Hale or Enfield, or a cancelled order and re-sold to Derby Police. Guess we'll never know.

To add further 'fuel to the fire' my second Enforcer (483) which I have listed as going to both Northern Ireland Police AND Sussex Police was 'sold on' to The City Of London Police* and was then sold by them to a Firearms Dealer in Hastings called 'Finch Feeds', who in turn sold them onto local Rifle clubs (in the South East of England)

* Maybe 483 was at the famous Iranian Embassy Siege.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...Enforcer-1.jpg

In the early days of Enforcer manufacture the Sussex Police could not get enough Enforcers so they purchased some Envoys and the Police Armourer converted the Envoys into 'Sniper Rifles'.
When the armourer retired from the Police he joined a firearms manufacturing company who supplied the Police with A1s and he took the remaining Enforcers and converted Envoys in part exchange.

The deeper I dig into these wonderful rifles and the more I learn, the more I realise how little I know.
The history of these will soon be totally lost as we continue to lose such notables as Chris Barber (Ex Police Armourer and Enfield addict)

Alan, any idea who is the present owner of Enforcer #392? I think I found his/her magazine - attached to Enforcer #391, of all things!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinecracker

Alan, any idea who is the present owner of Enforcer #392? I think I found his/her magazine - attached to Enforcer #391, of all things!

---

Sorry no information

I'm not sure that the "two ovals" type is actually genuine Enforcer type. I've seen two here in UK, and they were definitely someone's recent creation - though possibly using salvaged wood and other parts from scrapped rifles.

My 332 is of the later smooth-sided type, standardised across the other types of 7.62mm Enfield being produced then. Seems strange that they'd revert to a different style later in the number range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunderbox

I'm not sure that the "two ovals" type is actually genuine Enforcer type. I've seen two here in UK, and they were definitely someone's recent creation - though possibly using salvaged wood and other parts from scrapped rifles.

My 332 is of the later smooth-sided type, standardised across the other types of 7.62mm Enfield being produced then. Seems strange that they'd revert to a different style later in the number range.

---

Certainly seems 'odd' that 332 is engraved without the 'ovals', then 395 has the two 'ovals' then as we get into the 400s we revert to no 'ovals'.

There seems to be no rhyme or reason in the serial numbers and the shipping dates - example - 450 was shipped on 10th December 1974 whislt 451 was shipped 26th October 1981. (7 years difference)

Just guesswork but maybe they machined batches of actions and put them on the shelf and just pulled from stock the nearest one at the time ?

Ok, so that is at least 1 vote for #395 being a mishmash (this is why I asked lol). Any other votes?

I did manage to get the buttstock off, and it is stamped with "395" on the forward face of the bit that goes into the butt socket and stamped "SILE" on the rear, under where the butt pad goes. This may point more towards this as being a genuine enforcer, especially as the records show that enforcer #395 was issued to a police force (but what the heck do I know???). I will try and get the seller to let me know where he got the Enforcer from (I believe he imported it from England as it has his importer mark on the underside of the barrel). I have 2 1/2 weeks to ascertain whether or not this rifle is genuine. If it is, I will keep it. If not, it is going back to the seller.

IMO, Enforcer 395 is genuine. The rear butt is beech; manufactured by "Sile" from Italy who did stock work for the special order rifles and sporting conversions. The serial number is in the correct position on the butt sockett. Have not seen magic marker inside the handguard/ forend however it could be a control number placed by an Armourer. The forend is stamped with the serial number...all lending credence to authenticity. The sights are incorrect and the rifle has be set up for fullbore shooting. Front sight can be replaced and scope mounts added. Having the Pecar scope is a plus. If it shoots as well as described and is genuine, it's a great find. You don't see them as complete and in the condition shown. The few I've seen lately require restoration and folks are doing this to have such a rare piece in their collection. You've got a great find. shoot and enjoy it! Ron

Thanks, Ron. Yes, the foresight will be restored to original configuration, the scope mount/rings are on the way (BIG thanks to Ron for his assistance) and the magazine will be restored to the correct Enforcer. I have a source for a replacement magazine, but I may have found the original magazine (will know in a couple of days).

I am considering setting up a matchmaker service for Enforcers and wayward magazines, because I have come across several (ok, 3 or 4) instances of mismatched Enforcer magazines just in the last 4 days.

By the way, what is the typical finish on Enfield Enforcer metalwork? Were there variations?

I have started my own list of known Enforcer "survivors" by going through Simon's sticky thread (and other sources), and I have counted 23 Enforcers out of the how ever many that are left. I wonder where the rest are???

On the issue of enforcers see that PH5e4 on ebay the other day - no eyepiece and went for a cool £275? I bet you'll see a few of them on the site soon as invariably people bung them on when one goes for a bundle - and chances are, they'll go for a good deal less.

Edit - just noticed it's not even finished yet!

I have been following that, too. Compared with that price, I think I got a very good deal on the one I bought!

By the way, I have found the owner of Enforcer #180, and he has the magazine for #380, that was apparently for sale at Bisley last year. Any leads on the whereabouts of #380, or anyone know who may have ben selling it? Wild stab in the dark, but that is how I found the owner of #424 lol.

All these mismatched Enforcer magazines - what the heck is going on??? Were the police just sloppy keeping their kit together?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinecracker

All these mismatched Enforcer magazines - what the heck is going on??? Were the police just sloppy keeping their kit together?

---

Lots of magazines and wood turned up on the market after the original rifles were scrapped. Caveat Emptor - genuine wood does not make a genuine Enforcer.....

That, Thunderbox, is why I am digging for answers. We do need to get a consensus of opinion regarding any normal variations that may be found on genuine Enforcers versus cobbled together fakes. If we don't do it soon, we may never get the opportunity again. For example, if it can be shown conclusively that genuine Enforcers never had the engraving in 2 ovals (e.g. this only turns up on fakes), then that would be a huge step in correct identification of some fake Enforcers. Until that time, however, we are peeing in the dark.

Another bloomin' question - this is what happens when I have spare time...

Are Enforcer barrels supposed to be stamped with the serial number? Anyone else have a stamping similar to "FB358" on the underside of the barrel?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinecracker

I have been following that, too. Compared with that price, I think I got a very good deal on the one I bought!

By the way, I have found the owner of Enforcer #180, and he has the magazine for #380, that was apparently for sale at Bisley last year. Any leads on the whereabouts of #380, or anyone know who may have ben selling it? Wild stab in the dark, but that is how I found the owner of #424 lol.

All these mismatched Enforcer magazines - what the heck is going on??? Were the police just sloppy keeping their kit together?

---

Spinecracker,

Better a mis-matched mag than...??? Don't know if it was the police, or those handling them after dispersal, but I certainly have a bone to pick with the person that put bolt number 358 in my otherwise, all-matching, serial number 068. It originally went to the Somerset Police, but, rifle 358 went to another police department. (A department in Scotland, if I remember correctly. Can't get to my records while I wait for the carpet to dry.)

It still shoots well, as I discovered last week. Something else I discovered was the inherent weakness of the Parker Hale rings. The front clamping screw loosened up after only 50 rounds, and, in tightening it back up, you guessed it, I over-amped and broke the clamping screw. Although the screw looks pretty beefy from the left side, that is only the un-slotted head of the screw you are looking at, not a stud. Where the screw goes into the tightening knob, it is only a spindly, little, 1/8th of an inch in diameter.

Obviously I used too much force on it, but, it didn't feel like it was that tight before it let go, so be gentler than I was in doing them up after they shoot loose. These commercial rings and mounts can't begin to hold a candle to their tough counterparts on the 4 (T)s and L42s.

After checking around the inter-net and discovering how hard to find the high-mount Parker Hale rings are, I did what I should have done in the first place, and contacted Brian, at BDL LTD Rifles and Accessories . Brian informed me that the clamping screws on the low-mount rings are identical, and those he had in stock. At $45 a set, it is a bit more than I would like to pay for a simple clamping screw, but, it is really a bargain to get the Enforcer back in trim. A bit of careful work with the Dremel tool, plus a few tentative taps with a light hammer to get the broken ends of the screw out of the knob and ring, without damaging either part and now I await the arrival of the low-mount rings.

This set of rings will actually give me a spare clamping screw, which should be all the insurance I need to never do such a stupid thing again. Better yet, I think I'll shoot the L42A1 instead...It was designed for a bit rougher treatment than that dished out by a copper, (or an overly zealous civilian!).

Terry

Mismatched bolts, too? Add into that Thunderbox's comments, and I'm not sure if I can trust ANY Enforcer as being genuine, except for #001 in the Leeds Armoury lol (then again, you can't trsut those museum curators...).

Glad you had a good result in removing the screw. I will be using a spare set of rings and a different scope for shooting, just so I do not bugger up the very nice Pecar scope and a clean set of rings. I will also be using a loctite product (forgot the name) on the threads to prevent easy shifting. I will also be limiting my shooting to 30 rounds maximum per range visit - I am a cheap bugger! lol.

Was the front base not soldered onto the barrel ring on the Enforcers?

The recoil forces are supposed to be taken up by the lug on the bottom of the rear ring I thought.

Rather a Mickey Mouse set up IMO. Good enough perhaps for the occasional shot from a hunting rifle, but for a sniping rifle something like David Lloyd's mounts would have been far better. How's this for beefy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Was the front base not soldered onto the barrel ring on the Enforcers?

The recoil forces are supposed to be taken up by the lug on the bottom of the rear ring I thought.

Rather a Mickey Mouse set up IMO. Good enough perhaps for the occasional shot from a hunting rifle, but for a sniping rifle something like David Lloyd's mounts would have been far better. How's this for beefy:

---

Police are only supposed to take the occasional shot, so a more robust method of fixing the scope was not deemed necessary. And they had to be cheap buggers as they had budgetary restrictions (hence Enforcers being bought without scopes, bipods, etc)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Was the front base not soldered onto the barrel ring on the Enforcers?

The recoil forces are supposed to be taken up by the lug on the bottom of the rear ring I thought.

Rather a Mickey Mouse set up IMO. Good enough perhaps for the occasional shot from a hunting rifle, but for a sniping rifle something like David Lloyd's mounts would have been far better. How's this for beefy:

---

Surpmil,

No, at least on mine, the front sight base doesn't appear to be soldered to the barrel ring, just simply attached with the two screws that the barrel ring was drilled and tapped for. It wasn't the base that came loose though, instead, it was the little aluminum mount on the ring that clamps to the base. This allowed the ring to slide forward on the mount, as the front ring has no locating lug. Each ring is held on to the base with one relatively small clamping screw. These are called "tip-off" mounts here in the US and "roll-off" mounts in the UK, but are more commonly used here for mounting scopes to .22's.

You are absolutely right, it is a rather Mickey Mouse set up, and I have to agree with Brian's opinion, that these Parker-Hale mounts are crap mounts. Good enough for something that has a very small chance of ever being fired in anger, but otherwise...

Reminds me a bit of Peter's wonderful description of the British military's commitment to pistol training with the allocation of, "...six rounds, per man, per year, perhaps." In other words, if you don't really plan on shooting it much, it is probably good enough.

Terry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinecracker

Police are only supposed to take the occasional shot, so a more robust method of fixing the scope was not deemed necessary. And they had to be cheap buggers as they had budgetary restrictions (hence Enforcers being bought without scopes, bipods, etc)

---

Yes, I was thinking of that as I wrote, wondering if I was being unfair, but I suspect it was probably just as much a case of nobody really caring very much, apart from those who had to use the rifles, who of course had no say in what was chosen.

The scope was chosen because it was the type Parker-Hale had the agency for, and presumably the mounts were the best PH could supply from their stock.

I assume the rear base particularly was the steel variety, not the really 'orrible pot-metal/alloy one they also made?

I've got three sets here on the desk, two RALS3, and one RAHS3 and while the rings are themselves are robust enough, being very thick aluminum, the dovetail is too small to really hold up except in steel, IMO.

Pity, the rifle and barrel deserved better.

Should I keep the Enforcer, I might protect the Parker Hale fittings and Pecar scope by removing them (still keeping them for the classic Enforcer look, of course) and use an S&K mount with a different scope. I already have the mount and scope lol.

I have emailed the seller to find out who and where he got Enforcer #395 (and #391 for that matter) from in England. I have also emailed Brian Dick to ask him his opinion - I believe he has seen more Enforcers than many of us put together, and he is a very good judge of a rifle. Lastly, I have contacted the RSAF Enfield Apprentices Association to see what I can find out about the Enforcer program. As you see, my obsessive-compulsive streak is jumping on board with my anal retentiveness to make me dig for answers - not a pleasant sight lol.

The scope mount set up on the Enforcer is the same as the No4 Sporters. It's very sold if properly installed. Consists of second generation 19mm width bases. Front base #A20 is aluminum whereas the rear base BA21 is die cast alloy. These are intended to be used with steel tubed scopes like Pecar. Rings are aluminum and if fitted, hold very well.

First generation bases were 17mm. The front is steel #20 and the rear #BB21 is PM (powdered metal) and very hard. Rings are aluminum as well however not as "beefy" as the 2nd generation.

For those have difficulty with bases and rings check for damage on the base or ring. I've seen rings tightened to a point where they've been crushed or bent the cross screw or sheared the off the thumb screw. Don't have to overtighten these as they will grip tightly if properly torqued. One last tning....Don't use locktite...you'll definitely damage a component on removal.

Just my 2 cent rant,

Ron

Had a closer look at the bolt this morning. The markings on the top of the bolt handle - "the crossed flags and the "19T" are stamped so that bare metal is showing through. The serial number stamped on the back of the bolt handle does not look tampered with, but has the black metal finish over it (the finish also does not look tampered with in any way - i.e. being touched up after the fact). In other words, the serial number looks as though it was stamped on the bolt handle, then the finish applied, then the crossed flags and 19T stamps added later when the rifle was proofed. I have no idea if that means anything lol. I did compare the patent marking on the top of the barrel near the muzzle with a photo of Alan's #134, and it identical but, again, that could mean nothing if the rifle was cobbled together from parts that had already been stamped. When would the patent marking have been put on the barrel? Before assembly with the receiver? When the rifle was completed? Is the same patent stamp found on other Enfield variations (i.e. Envoy, L39A1?)

I did look closely at the serial number on the bolt handle with a magnifying glass, and it actually looks like "395.". I have no idea why a full stop would be at the end of the serial number, or what impact that may have on the authenticity of the rifle. (Edit - looked at ad old post by Thunderbox, that says the full stop is correct, so the bolt actually looks to be genuine - grrrrr - this not being able to confirm or deny the authenticity of this rifle is bugging me! lol). When they destroyed the receivers, were the bolts destroyed too, or were they sold off, along with the woodwork and other bits of metalwork?

Brian kindly replied to my email, stating that he had never seen Enforcer receiver markings in the ovals. To me, this is not good news,but not totally damning (I wish it were, just to end the suspense lol). Lucky, all I would be losing out on would be the shipping costs :).

As you can see, all I have are questions, but at least this thread may help others who want to buy an Enforcer in the future.

Full stops are authentic for enforcers after the serial nos (on bolt, receiver and magazine).

Right, another question. I did note the >s< (sold out of service stamp?) mark on the Knox form of the barrel. Should this be expected on an Enforcer barrel, or maybe one taken from, say, an L39A1? It is clearly seen on the photo below:

http://s1016.photobucket.com/albums/...nforcer011.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinecracker

Right, another question. I did note the >s< (sold out of service stamp?) mark on the Knox form of the barrel. Should this be expected on an Enforcer barrel, or maybe one taken from, say, an L39A1? It is clearly seen on the photo below:

http://s1016.photobucket.com/albums/...nforcer011.jpg

---

I can only comment from my experience / observations :

1) I have never noticed this marking on any of the Enforcers I've owned or viewed.
2) The Police were not classed as 'in service' so the mark has not come from them selling it.
3) As far as I'm aware Enforcers were built using 'new' barrels.
4) A 'sold out of service' mark would indicate a 'second hand barrel'

The plot thickens.

If I get chance, I'll try to get a look on the couple of Enforcers I currently have to see if there is a >S< mark.

Ah hah! Now we are getting somewhere. Anyone else with an Enforcer want to take a quick peek at the knox form for the >S< mark? If #395 is the only one with it, then I think that this pretty much confirms fakery on someone's part, and may be a future indicator for future buyers (I'm all ready to pack mine up and ship it back). I have emailed some other Enforcer owners for their input regarding the >s< symbol.

Alan, it is getting curiouser and curiouser. I have been informed by an Enforcer owner (his is totally kosher, and is apparently an early issue, going by the records) that his rifle has the >s< mark on the knox form. I do not know whether to laugh or cry. I have really been trying to find something that would point to #395 as being a fake (I really have been trying), but to no avail at this time. Hopefully I will have some queries answered by the weekend.

It all boils down to 1 point, as everything else (and I mean EVERYTHING) appears to be correct. Is having the receiver engravings in 2 ovals, instead of on a flattened area or in 1 oval, correct, or is it ONLY seen on fakes. Remember that forgers usually use an original to make their copies, and doing 1 oval would have been way easier than 2 ovals (in my humble opinion - I have not used a milling machine in over 20 years).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinecracker

Ah hah! Now we are getting somewhere. Anyone else with an Enforcer want to take a quick peek at the knox form for the >S< mark? If #395 is the only one with it, then I think that this pretty much confirms fakery on someone's part, and may be a future indicator for future buyers (I'm all ready to pack mine up and ship it back). I have emailed some other Enforcer owners for their input regarding the >s< symbol.

---

Now you've done it !!!!!

I had to look didn't I !!!!

No483 also has the >S< mark so now what ?

Just as a 'side issue' I have information from Fultons that the early (up to No 200) Enforcers had the 'oval' ground into the action side because Enfield didnt have any 'blank' actions when they got the first orders for Enforcers.

Enfield took "Envoy" marked actions and ground out the Envoy information, leaving a recessed 'oval' in which they then stamped the Enforcer information.

Its beginning to look as if Enforcers were a (last ditch) effort to get some business, and to keep cost down, used whatever was at hand.
Examples have been found of Mk1/2 & Mk2 actions, Lithgow, Faz and Savage actions and who knows what else.

Its difficult to call 'fake' when there appears to be no standard to refer to.
Is it a 'real' Enforcer if it was built by RSAF Enfield / Parker Hale - irrespective of what parts were used ?
Is it a 'fake' if 100% correct Enforcer parts are used but assembled by 'Fred down the road' ?

Comments ?

Oh, my, Alan, you had to, didn't you....

Well, what appears to be the case, confirmed by your statement, is that Enfield was throwing Enforcers together from all kinds of bits, so without any coherent standardization (the "throw me the next bit on the rack" method of engineering). It maybe up to us to state what an Enfield Enforcer SHOULD be - i.e. built by RSAF Enfield / Parker Hale, irrespective of what parts were used - as this can be considered a major part of their value (especially as one put together by Fred down the road may be considered by purists as having less value as not being manufactured at RSAF Enfield).

I know Alan and I (and others) have both called for this, in various forms, but getting a good census regarding the Enforcers out there (stampings, engravings, marks, etc) would help go a long way to help identify the fakes that are out there. Thunderbox has stated that he has seen obvious fakes, so maybe getting information regarding the features that identify fakes is needed too. Sorry if this post is incoherent or rambling - am in the middle of gastroenteritis - yuck (on the bright side, the hallucinations due to dehydration were fun last night lol).

I think i said a long time ago no 2 Enforcers are the same, its what ever bits came to hand when they were being made!

neal, that is why this bloody rifle is giving me an ulcer!!! The seller has said I can visit and look at another Enforcer he has, so I will get as many details of this firearm as possible, and post them here. The seller said that he bought his Enforcer (not #395) from Fulton's, but is that really any indication it is not a fake? (I am not intending any insult to Fulton's, but I just don't know).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinecracker

neal, that is why this bloody rifle is giving me an ulcer!!! The seller has said I can visit and look at another Enforcer he has, so I will get as many details of this firearm as possible, and post them here. The seller said that he bought his Enforcer (not #395) from Fulton's, but is that really any indication it is not a fake? (I am not intending any insult to Fulton's, but I just don't know).

---

It doesnt add one-iota to the answer, but, my 134 came from Fultons 4 years ago.

I have one (see alan's photo, 684 its mine) i also now have another one which came from up north some where, the numbers are 200 apart, the engraving is different BUT all the tiny stamps and marks are the same on both actions.

Neal, that might be the perfect start for a knowledge library article on the Enforcer - a discussion of distinguishing marks and stamps that indicate a genuine Enforcer. Anything to help someone avoid buying a fake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

Now you've done it !!!!!

I had to look didn't I !!!!

No483 also has the >S< mark so now what ?

Just as a 'side issue' I have information from Fultons that the early (up to No 200) Enforcers had the 'oval' ground into the action side because Enfield didnt have any 'blank' actions when they got the first orders for Enforcers.

Enfield took "Envoy" marked actions and ground out the Envoy information, leaving a recessed 'oval' in which they then stamped the Enforcer information.

Its beginning to look as if Enforcers were a (last ditch) effort to get some business, and to keep cost down, used whatever was at hand.
Examples have been found of Mk1/2 & Mk2 actions, Lithgow, Faz and Savage actions and who knows what else.

Its difficult to call 'fake' when there appears to be no standard to refer to.
Is it a 'real' Enforcer if it was built by RSAF Enfield / Parker Hale - irrespective of what parts were used ?
Is it a 'fake' if 100% correct Enforcer parts are used but assembled by 'Fred down the road' ?

Comments ?

---

Alan (and any others who may know), on the later Enforcers (e.g. above 200), is there any evidence of material being removed in the area of the receiver engraving, or would these have been 'blank' actions that did not have any markings that needed to be removed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinecracker

Alan (and any others who may know), on the later Enforcers (e.g. above 200), is there any evidence of material being removed in the area of the receiver engraving, or would these have been 'blank' actions that did not have any markings that needed to be removed?

---

483 is engraved directly on the side of the action and there does not appear to be any material removed from the 'original'

Thanks, Alan. I wonder where they got blank actions later on when they apparently didn't have them to hand at the beginning, especially as No.4 Mk.2 actions stopped being made in the 50's (or did they?). This is beginning to sound like something out of "Alice in Wonderland".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinecracker

Thanks, Alan. I wonder where they got blank actions later on when they apparently didn't have them to hand at the beginning, especially as No.4 Mk.2 actions stopped being made in the 50's (or did they?). This is beginning to sound like something out of "Alice in Wonderland".

---

I know of a Longbranch actioned Enforcer and below is a Savage actioned one, so it looks like they were 'hoovering up' any actions they could get hold of.

I'll ask again : "what is/are the criteria for an Enforcer to be 'original' ?"
My guess-for-today is that if it has the reduced size safety its original.
As far as I know there was no other rifle that used this safety, whilst the other parts could have come from anywhere.

It's almost beginning to look like each was was 'hand built' using whatever parts came out of the bin that day.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...rcer_767-1.jpg

Or, helping the humper get better at his trade....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinecracker

...a discussion of distinguishing marks and stamps that indicate a genuine Enforcer. Anything to help someone avoid buying a fake.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

In the early days of Enforcer manufacture the Sussex Police could not get enough Enforcers so they purchased some Envoys and the Police Armourer converted the Envoys into 'Sniper Rifles'.

---

Interesting. I did a similar conversion on my Envoy if you remember. So although incorrect as not done by him I guess my grandkids will peddle it as original when I meet our maker. :move eek:

Dimitri

Then we need some form of registry of known, genuine Enforcers. If it ain't on the list, then it ain't kosher :). If the value of these rifles continues to go up the way it has recently, then it may be prudent for Enforcer owners to do something to protect their investment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinecracker

Alan (and any others who may know), on the later Enforcers (e.g. above 200), is there any evidence of material being removed in the area of the receiver engraving, or would these have been 'blank' actions that did not have any markings that needed to be removed?

---

What are the odds of design, specification or production control documentation surviving today that could shed some light on the situation?
Thoughts?

I don't know much, but from what I've read around here and elsewhere is that the authorities have been pretty tight at releasing much or any information on these.
I wonder what the possibility of getting this information from the importers; a stretch, I know, but at least with this information you'd know when the piece came in.
One thought of mine, is why would Enfield have 2 or 3 or more styles of roundels at the engraving, for such a short run of rifles. Just one of those things that make you go hummmmm......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cold_Zero

What are the odds of design, specification or production control documentation surviving today that could shed some light on the situation?
Thoughts?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

No483 also has the >S< mark so now what ?

Just as a 'side issue' I have information from Fultons that the early (up to No 200) Enforcers had the 'oval' ground into the action side because Enfield didnt have any 'blank' actions when they got the first orders for Enforcers.

Enfield took "Envoy" marked actions and ground out the Envoy information, leaving a recessed 'oval' in which they then stamped the Enforcer information.

Its beginning to look as if Enforcers were a (last ditch) effort to get some business, and to keep cost down, used whatever was at hand.
Examples have been found of Mk1/2 & Mk2 actions, Lithgow, Faz and Savage actions and who knows what else.

Its difficult to call 'fake' when there appears to be no standard to refer to.
Is it a 'real' Enforcer if it was built by RSAF Enfield / Parker Hale - irrespective of what parts were used ?
Is it a 'fake' if 100% correct Enforcer parts are used but assembled by 'Fred down the road' ?

Comments ?

---

My comments, for what they are worth:

I think we are in danger of "manufacturing" a history for the Enforcer without any real evidential basis.

1. The Fultons story about milling Envoys to make Enforcers sounds plausible, but unfortunately it doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny: on a standard Envoy the "E" of Envoy and "D" of the date are too far to the left to be contained within the ovoid milled section of an early Enforcer.

Instead, the "ovoid" simply seems to be an early method of dealing with the "step" in the wall of a standard No4 action because the "Enforcer" name is so long that it makes the engraving run over the step. (Envoys, L39s keep most of the engraving within the No4 "step"; L42s move the engraving further to the right).

Later Enforcers - AND L39s - simply have the whole receiver sidewall linished flat. This process appears to have been started on some early Envoys (another survey?!) so probably they had by that stage settled on a "standard" receiver jig process for 7.62mm conversions (not forgetting the milling that goes on underneath as well).

2. Enforcers were built to an advertised specification (basically a tarted up L39A1), as listed on AM Stevens' site. The specification (as for the L39) lists only No4 Mk1 or Mk1/2 actions - and not Mk1* or Mk1/3 actions. I think it would be unlikely for a paying customer to accept a 1* or 1/3 action that might have a short service life due to bolt rail damage.

Yes, I know a Mk1 1/3 "Enforcer" appears to exist. Would I pay an Enforcer price for that rifle... ?

3. The >s< mark on Envoy or Enforcer barrels simply indicates that they were purchased from military (Enfield, L39 & L42) production for use in commercial (Envoy, Enforcer) rifles. Most likely they gave up trying to mark and/or track military barrels later on, given the complete intermixing of use.

4. Whilst its common - and reasonable - for issued L39s to be kept down to a cost by using whatever wood was in the bins (e.g. be it Savage marked, or patched), I would think it would be extremely unlikely that anything obviously non-standard would end up on a commercial rifle - private buyers have expectations, and government organisations have acceptance standards.

(If Enfield had ever run out or appropriate actions, they could have gone to the Trade, where thousands of mint Mk2 rifles/actions were available; lets not forget that the Enforcer commercial "production partner" - Parker Hale - itself had huge stocks of rifles suitable for conversion.)


Lets see what comes up with more observation and research. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, but to date out of all the fairly large number of Enforcers I personally have owned or examined, I have only seen three types: (large) ovoid, flat-side, and - obvious fakes.

This is why we are having this conversation - to try and drag some sense out of the rumours, supposition and hearsay - the truth is out there! I had noted that the receiver markings on an Envoy were too far to the left, so that appears to shoot that story in the foot. Bugger. Looks like it may be time for this conversation to be shifted to a more private area, so that anyone potentially wanting to fake an Enforcer doesn't have the ultimate guide to what a proper one should look like - perhaps a yahoo or facebook group for Enforcer owners? I can think of a couple of good moderators (Mark Stevens, Alan de Enfield and Thunderbox spring to mind as candidates).

If "Enforcer" #395 is a fake, I wonder what markings were being removed, if any, to allow the engraving to be done. I cannot tell if any markings have been removed from the butt socket. I have been in contact with Mark Stevens, and he did state he was aware of genuine Enforcers with 2 ovals, but I do not know what weight that may carry in this current conversation.

Update - I have been in contact with the seller, his UK agent, and others in England, and they have managed to trace the history of #395 with some success. Without giving too much away (to protect the innocent and, well, not so innocent), Enforcer #395 is genuine.

Clarification of my update is needed, for those who may want to know. When Enforcer #395 became surplus to police requirements, it was sold, not destroyed. This has been confirmed by a reliable source who would prefer to remain anonymous. The rifle was later exported to the US by the seller.

As the Enforcer #395 I have has the correctly serialled wood and bolt, and has the correct model of Pecar scope, I do not believe there is any reason to assume that someone replaced the receiver for whatever reason. I can only conclude, based on this information, that #395 is a genuine Enforcer.

Follow up time - does anyone currently know the whereabouts of Enforcer #392? I know exactly where his/her magazine is.

281 is in the oval type and 290 is engraved on the flat wall, both dated 1973, so that seems about the changeover numbers. I have a few pictures of Enforcer actions and all before 281 are Engraved in the single oval and 290 and after are all Engraved on the flat sided actions. Just waiting to fill in the gap!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XL39E1

281 is in the oval type and 290 is engraved on the flat wall, both dated 1973, so that seems about the changeover numbers. I have a few pictures of Enforcer actions and all before 281 are Engraved in the single oval and 290 and after are all Engraved on the flat sided actions. Just waiting to fill in the gap!

---

There seems to be three types of engraving for the Enforcer :
Type 1 = Single Ovoid
Type 2 = Engraving on the flat of the action
Type 3 = Twin Ovoids

It also seems that there is quite an overlap between the types with Serial numbers of (for example) Type 3 both before and after serial numbers of type 2.

This pic is a "high 300s serial number" type 3 engraving - whilst I have pics of a "low 400s" and a "low 300s" with type 2 engraving

Pic courtesy of Spinecracker :

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...tation13-1.jpg

mine was - before i had to sell it :crying::crying: number 481 or 411 if I recall and was on the flat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by newcastle

mine was - before i had to sell it :crying::crying: number 481 or 411 if I recall and was on the flat.

---

There is a little bit of history known about Number 411 :

It was issued to the Scottish Police 10th December 1974 It was subsequently returned to Enfield for a refurbishment (FTR ?) and re-issued out to Derbyshire Police on 19th Jan 1981

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

There seems to be three types of engraving for the Enforcer :
Type 1 = Single Ovoid
Type 2 = Engraving on the flat of the action
Type 3 = Twin Ovoids

It also seems that there is quite an overlap between the types with Serial numbers of (for example) Type 3 both before and after serial numbers of type 2.

This pic is a "high 300s serial number" type 3 engraving - whilst I have pics of a "low 400s" and a "low 300s" with type 2 engraving

---

How many examples of type 3 have been seen? I ask because a lot of people who have had a lot of enforcers through their hands seem to think this third type isn't correct.

I don't know anything about Enforcers except what Major George S told me. He was on the Home Office advisory team when they were looking at the standardisation programme.

But I do know a bit about the engineering acceptance standards at Enfield. And I would be most suspect about the bodgy pantiograph milling of the oval slots in AdeE's picture. Allowing the milling cutter to wander all over the place causing shallow and deeper cutting and going off track as amply illustrated at the rear of the cutter stroke shows that the body has moved in the jig. Would that have been acceptable? I doubt it. After all, if they'd been milling out slots before this, they'd have got it right by then. I can almost hear the words of the Enfield floor inspectors (and I know a few of them........) asking '.......what the xxxxxxg hell do you call this? If you think that I'm accepting this, you're xxxxxxg wrong. Now go back and do it properly'
Having wielded a few Taylor Hobson pantograph engraving machines in my time, this is LOOKS like the work of an amateur to me. I could be wong.................. but that's my view looking in

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PrinzEugen

How many examples of type 3 have been seen? I ask because a lot of people who have had a lot of enforcers through their hands seem to think this third type isn't correct.

---

I have only seen two (well pictures of two) Numbers 380 and 395.
Coincidently both of these were sold to Derbyshire Police on the same day (14th August 1974) and on the same Advice Note number

On the same date three others were shipped to Derbyshire Plice (numbers 388, 391 & 392) It would be interesting to see if they also had the 'twin ovoids'.

In March 2010 Number 391 was in the USA (Spinecracker I think it was one of the ones you 'found' ?)

Whilst I will defer to those who have handled many more Enforcers that I have, or have much more 'milling' experience, I do wonder why anyone would go the the trouble of milling two ovoids rather than one (or just using the flat side of the action). If they were wanting to make a 'passable' fake surely they would copy as closely as possible the original ?

On the other hand - I cannot understand why Enfield would go from the type 1, to type 2 then introduce type 3 and then go back to type 2.

Its only 40 years ago (only he says !!!!) so one would think there should be some Enfield folks left who remember Enforcer production but it seems not.

'engraving' a large oval would require a milling machine whereas milling a narrow oval could be done on a small belt operated engraving machine due to the relatively small amount of 'lead' on the cutter. Additionally a small cutter would fit into the chuck of a taylor hobson engraver. That is my take on the two ovals instead of one theory

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

I have only seen two (well pictures of two) Numbers 380 and 395.
Coincidently both of these were sold to Derbyshire Police on the same day (14th August 1974) and on the same Advice Note number

On the same date three others were shipped to Derbyshire Plice (numbers 388, 391 & 392) It would be interesting to see if they also had the 'twin ovoids'.

---

It would be interesting to find out whether the Derbyshire rifles were stripped and then scrapped as with other forces' Enforcers, thus providing someone with a convenient set of numbered parts sans receiver....

I've got 332 and 394 (both identical standard flatside), so the bracket for a mysterious "third type" is quite narrow and - so far - suspiciously limited to a single-owner batch.

If you've ever looked at an Enforcer with a bewildered feeling, it might be worth reading on, always remembering at the back of your mind '...the midlands connection'

This thread reminds me of a little event that took place at Warminster about 6 or 7 years ago during a visit by two US visitors. One, a lady, turned out to be a bit of an expert on a particular US wartime rifle so looked at the small collection and noticed that one of them was serial number 11. I then mentioned that we also had serial number 13 on display too! These were two of the 22 or so prototypes, both sent to the UK for trial and evaluation. Already, they were truly rare birds of a rifle highly collectable in the US.

Once back in the US, she discovered that serial number 11 was already in a collection there – meaning that there were TWO. The one in the US collection and the other in the UK, where its provenance was in no doubt due to the fact that the shipping notes and some other documentation relating to the two rifles was available.

What transpired was that as these little rifles became highly collectable during the 60’s and 70’s, the records showed that two of the prototypes had indeed gone to England and had gone to ground. Correspondence with the various agencies at Enfield and the IWM (the Imperial War Museum) that they weren’t there so it looked as though the rifles had been scrapped or otherwise disposed of. Alas, this was not the case and so another, ‘…….to represent one of the missing (and now highly valuable) prototypes’ was discreetly cloned and found its way into a prized collection.

When this was pointed out during some correspondence…………… Well, enough said - but it would appear that a ‘mistake’ had been made during which it was assumed that the original had been scrapped or destroyed and another had emerged in its place. Can you see where this is going? Does it seem familiar to anyone?

I haven’t mentioned the rifle type or names for obvious reasons but these ‘accidents’ do happen, especially where there is a midlands connection. Know wo' I mean 'arry..............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunderbox

It would be interesting to find out whether the Derbyshire rifles were stripped and then scrapped as with other forces' Enforcers, thus providing someone with a convenient set of numbered parts sans receiver....

I've got 332 and 394 (both identical standard flatside), so the bracket for a mysterious "third type" is quite narrow and - so far - suspiciously limited to a single-owner batch.

---

I have asked the relevant questions (how many did they have, what happened to them etc. etc.) of several Police forces (Durham, Glasgow, Manchester, Sussex, Devon & Cornwall, The Met and Suffolk) with surprising results :
For example Sussex Police say they didnt have any but the Enfield sales ledger says they purchased 8
Devon & Cornwall Police say they were all guillotined but we know of 5 that are still in existence.

I will do a Freedom Of Information request to Derbyshire Police but I'm not hopeful that any reply will be meaningful

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

There is a little bit of history known about Number 411 :

It was issued to the Scottish Police 10th December 1974 It was subsequently returned to Enfield for a refurbishment (FTR ?) and re-issued out to Derbyshire Police on 19th Jan 1981

---

It was South Lanarkshire police to be exact. I tried to track it's prior owner / user down for any range books / information / history he may have had, But three police forces were merged in the 1990's and the records were either lost or they were just happy to tell me they were lost and couldn't help me. Thank you officer! I had to sell it when I lost my job a couple of years back. very depressing but it was either that one or several other rifles so I opted to keep the many.

Are there any real close up photos of 380 or 395 action sides to get a good look at the engraving?

Engineering specials they're called Peter. Handmade and fitted rifles. It was 1999, 12 years ago. Jeez! I'd forgotten about the fake down in Florida!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

I don't know anything about Enforcers except what Major George S told me. He was on the Home Office advisory team when they were looking at the standardisation programme.

But I do know a bit about the engineering acceptance standards at Enfield. And I would be most suspect about the bodgy pantiograph milling of the oval slots in AdeE's picture. Allowing the milling cutter to wander all over the place causing shallow and deeper cutting and going off track as amply illustrated at the rear of the cutter stroke shows that the body has moved in the jig. Would that have been acceptable? I doubt it. After all, if they'd been milling out slots before this, they'd have got it right by then. I can almost hear the words of the Enfield floor inspectors (and I know a few of them........) asking '.......what the xxxxxxg hell do you call this? If you think that I'm accepting this, you're xxxxxxg wrong. Now go back and do it properly'
Having wielded a few Taylor Hobson pantograph engraving machines in my time, this is LOOKS like the work of an amateur to me. I could be wong.................. but that's my view looking in

---

Regrding Peters comments, I doug this up from an old thread which I posted regarding my thoughts and it involved the same photo IIRC.

On a Engineering point of view, if I was to go to the trouble of using an end mill to remove previous marks etc I would choose the correct one so to remove the marks with one pass, the photo shows it has had two passes with a cutter due to the incorrect size of mill being used.
That tells me that only one size of mill was available at the time, and I very much doubt Enfield had only one end mill ? I would of thought they would of removed the previous marks with one straight pass, with an end mill or a horizontal miller, or grinder.

Big Duke has said it all..................

---------- Post added at 04:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:05 PM ----------

Big duke has said it all. Enforcers have all the hallmarks of penny-black stamps

Following my Freedom Of Infomation (FOI) request to Derbyshire Police re the number of Enforcers purchased, the serial numbers of those purchased, and the means of disposal I have today received the following reply :

Derbyshire Police purchased 12 Enforcer rifles in the late 70's and early 80's. (The Enfield sales ledger shows they actually purchased qty 8 - not qty 12)

The records have been destroyed but we do know that serial numbers 391, 392, 395 and 414 were purchased.

All of the Derbyshire Police Enforcers were destroyed in 1997 (I had the same statement from Devon & Cornwall Police but we know of at least 5 of theirs that survive)

This probably does not help in clearing up the question of the 'twin ovoids' of which most (if not all) seem to be Derbyshire Police serial numbers, but it maybe does support (somewhat) the theory that they are not completely 'kosher'.

Still more question than answers !!!!

Gents, I recently acquired Enforcer #058, on stripping this down I noticed that the collar on the forward trigger screw is absent. Does the Enforcer have this feature or does the D shaped plate negate the requirement?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gloworm

Gents, I recently acquired Enforcer #058, on stripping this down I noticed that the collar on the forward trigger screw is absent. Does the Enforcer have this feature or does the D shaped plate negate the requirement?

---

This rifle was shipped to Somerset Police on 4th march 1974. Advice Note Number 444151/11
Somerset Police purchased 10 Enforcers
When the Avon Police and the Somerset Police merger they purchased a further 2 Enforcers 10th Feb 1982

Photo link had died prematurely(?)

I am viewing from my phone, there is no ‘go advanced’ button shown,
I am afraid to say that I am a Luddite and don’t own a computer

Hi there, for starters I'm the owner of Enforcer 767. So that is the last known numbered enforcer as confirmed as Brian Dick was the importer. Second it's a savage 1/3 action. Its the only one known to exist. Third the bolt has thr 19T proof but no serial on the bolt. Magazine is also non numbered. The forend has 767 in black marker in the channel or it's on the handguards cant remember.

From my own research 134 were not completed, but were in barrled action form when Charnwood bought most of Enfields left over stocks. I know my rifle was the personal rifle of Charnwoods owner until listed for auction in the 90s where it did not sell. Brian Dick then imported it and sold it to a gentleman in Florida who then sold it to me 2 years ago.

It's a genuine enforcer as confirmed by Brian. The scope and rings were added by the previous owner but are original as would've been issued during the program. I haven't pulled the buttstock to see if there's any numbers on the stock. The barrel has the patent pending and number on top behind the front sight. It's a heavy tapered barrel in a dark grey parkarizing. Action is in typical enfield black suncordite I believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Btl1994

Hi there, for starters I'm the owner of Enforcer 767. So that is the last known numbered enforcer as confirmed as Brian Dick was the importer. Second it's a savage 1/3 action. Its the only one known to exist. Third the bolt has thr 19T proof but no serial on the bolt. Magazine is also non numbered. The forend has 767 in black marker in the channel or it's on the handguards cant remember.

From my own research 134 were not completed, but were in barrled action form when Charnwood bought most of Enfields left over stocks. I know my rifle was the personal rifle of Charnwoods owner until listed for auction in the 90s where it did not sell. Brian Dick then imported it and sold it to a gentleman in Florida who then sold it to me 2 years ago.

It's a genuine enforcer as confirmed by Brian. The scope and rings were added by the previous owner but are original as would've been issued during the program. I haven't pulled the buttstock to see if there's any numbers on the stock. The barrel has the patent pending and number on top behind the front sight. It's a heavy tapered barrel in a dark grey parkarizing. Action is in typical enfield black suncordite I believe.

---

According to my Records it was sold by Brian in 2009, it then went to Florida and in 2018 was sold to you.

Towards the end of the contract Parker Hale were unable to source any more barrelled actions from RoF Enfield and had to source 'pre-used' action on the open market and build them up as Enforcers.

Depending on what they could get hold off depended on what was used as the 'base' for the Enforcer.
Not only Savage were used, but some Long Branch as well.

At the end of the day the Police did not order the agreed amount and the remaining stock went off to auction where it was split into several 'lots' of which Charnwood bought a high percentage.

I was talking with a RFD (Registered Firearm Dealer) and he had bought a new 'Gun Shop' in the NE of England, on starting to clear up and take stock of what he has he found a 'back room' that was 'full' of several dozen Enforcer barrelled actions and complete sets of furniture, sights etc. The previous shop owner had bought them at the Parker Hale clearance auction.

Add those to the other known 'unbuilt' Enforcers and you wonder what the actual numbers of Enforcers there are.

Long Branch Enforcer & Savage (767) Enforcer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

According to my Records it was sold by Brian in 2009, it then went to Florida and in 2018 was sold to you.

Towards the end of the contract Parker Hale were unable to source any more barrelled actions from RoF Enfield and had to source 'pre-used' action on the open market and build them up as Enforcers.

Depending on what they could get hold off depended on what was used as the 'base' for the Enforcer.
Not only Savage were used, but some Long Branch as well.

At the end of the day the Police did not order the agreed amount and the remaining stock went off to auction where it was split into several 'lots' of which Charnwood bought a high percentage.

I was talking with a RFD (Registered Firearm Dealer) and he had bought a new 'Gun Shop' in the NE of England, on starting to clear up and take stock of what he has he found a 'back room' that was 'full' of several dozen Enforcer barrelled actions and complete sets of furniture, sights etc. The previous shop owner had bought them at the Parker Hale clearance auction.

Add those to the other known 'unbuilt' Enforcers and you wonder what the actual numbers of Enforcers there are.

Long Branch Enforcer & Savage (767) Enforcer.

---

This is the same info that I have gathered as well. It's also interesting to note that mine and the long branch pictured were never scrubbed of original issued markings. The general consensus is that 134 were unfinished and they were in varying stages of completion, but almost all were barreled action form. The long branch pictured being the only exception I've come across.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Btl1994

This is the same info that I have gathered as well. It's also interesting to note that mine and the long branch pictured were never scrubbed of original issued markings. The general consensus is that 134 were unfinished and they were in varying stages of completion, but almost all were barreled action form. The long branch pictured being the only exception I've come across.

---

The Long Branch action was one of a dozen 'actions only' that the RFD found in his 'back-room'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

The Long Branch action was one of a dozen 'actions only' that the RFD found in his 'back-room'.

---

Where there only actions found or where there various parts? I wonder how many were able to be assembled from just that small lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Btl1994

Where there only actions found or where there various parts? I wonder how many were able to be assembled from just that small lot.

---

He found no 'complete' rifles but more than enough components to assemble about 20 full rifles.

There were 'extras' that were 'original' Enforcer parts but had other parts (such as furniture) missing so could not be fully assembled.

I have copies of the Parker Hale / Enfield Sales Ledgers that show that 125 rifles were never assembled or sold.

Several of these 'unknowns' have been assembled and I know of the location of probably 15-18 of them.
Several examples have been assembled as .22rf rifles.
Six examples are shown as 'scrapped during production' these were authorised by Mr J Skillern (Foreman of the Assembly Shop)


He estimated that after 'assembling' the 20-25 rifles there were the dozen (or so) actions, and probably another 20 barrelled actions.
Boxes of 'bits and pieces' (screws etc)

Alan de Enfield. Any pictures or specifications on the 22RF - that would be a neat part of history? Has this RFD any parts such as barrels or receivers still in his possession?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Btl1994

Hi there, for starters I'm the owner of Enforcer 767. So that is the last known numbered enforcer as confirmed as Brian Dick was the importer. Second it's a savage 1/3 action. Its the only one known to exist.

---

Enforcer No 699 is also a Savage Action

---------- Post added at 10:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rgg_7

Alan de Enfield. Any pictures or specifications on the 22RF - that would be a neat part of history? Has this RFD any parts such as barrels or receivers still in his possession?

---

I don't have any further details on these except, a couple of examples are No 703 & No 727 (both of the original 'not-assembled' rifles) that was originally in the 'surplus auction' from the description it appears to be a 'full specification' Enforcer, including the Pecar Scope, the PH5E4 sights and the bipod. Only change is the calibre (barrel change ????)

I have seen reports on several forums of several owners commenting on these .22 Enforcers

All the ones I've seen mentioned are in the UK, it looks like a dealer bought up the stock and converted a batch

All great info guys! And thanks for the info as I did not know of any other savage actioner enforcers. Shame there arent pictures to go with a lot of these rifles. Hopefully a detailed history can be made for future reference.