Printable View
Any of the Ennfield experts care to offer opinions on my newest child?
Numbers seem to match. No apparent import markings.
Any input on the history, markings, correctness and value would be appreciated.
Seems to be in nice condition with beautiful figuring on the wood. Is this coach wood?
Attachment 30618Attachment 30619Attachment 30620Attachment 30621Attachment 30622Attachment 30623Attachment 30624Attachment 30625Attachment 30626Attachment 30627Attachment 30628Attachment 30629Attachment 30630
I learned to shoot PROPERLY with one of those, courtesy of the Royal Australian Air Force.
Somewhere in a folder, I still have some of the special "miniature" targets we used for grouping practice at 25yards.
Great trainer; proper weight and sight picture, not much recoil. I was mystified about the lack of a working magazine; (the empty mag box caught the fired cases and kept the range tidy). The instructor simply told me that the idea was to learn to shoot properly, not quickly. Point taken! Once you did what he said, some of these beasties would produce ragged, one-hole groups. The ammo was standard velocity lubed lead stuff, if I remember correctly. (It was the early 1970s).
Interesting SMLE.
Looks to me that the receiver was manufactured in 1943 as per the stamping on reciever base.
The 12 44 on the butt indicates that it was assembled into a rifle in 1944.
This is also supported by the E serial number. My No1 Mk III* is E1325 has a 1942 receiver but was assembled in 1943. Assembly was at the Orange Factory (MAO) rather than at Lithgow.
The 9/48 on the butt reflects when the rifle went through FTR and conversion to .22. Which is supported by the stamping of the No2 MkIV.
The HV stamp indicates that it was sighted orinially for high velocity ammunition.
Back in the early 70's my father was the OIC of the RAAF Air Cadets in WA. I remember the boot of his car being loaded with lots of these rifles when he was taking the cadets down to the local sports oval for training.
Funny how things have changed. Back then it was normal to see cadets firing through terracotta pipes at targets on the local oval.
Unfortunately the whitlam Government scapped the whole Cadet program just prior to me being old enough to join. At the time i was so pis__d off. Had to join the Scouts instead!
Hope this helps.
Paul
Thanks for the helpful backstory and biography. I will print this post and add to my file on this weapon. Shot her a few times today. Nice!
Any opinions on the type of wood and the value would be helpful. I do not buy for resale but it is nice to know how you did and establish a baseline for my records.
beautiful example , these are some of my favorite enfeilds and they shoot so cheaply too
An additional question. The magizine to this rifle is coded 22. I am not familiar with the magazine (release ?) lever in the photo. Is this specific to the .22 conversions? Purpose?
Attachment 30692
Another sorry!
---------- Post added at 07:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:40 PM ----------
An additional question. The magizine to this rifle is coded 22. I am not familiar with the magazine (release ?) lever in the photo. Is this specific to the .22 conversions? Purpose?
Attachment 30692
The magazine case appears to be a "No.3" pattern introduced as the first magazine specifically for the Mk7 .303 ball ammo There was originally a number "3" stamped into the back rib. Many of these magazine cases are themselves converted from earlier No1 and No2 cases.
It was superseded by the more familiar "No4" case which did away with the riveted stop clip at the front right and spring lip on the LHS. All of this magazine fiddling was a result of the introduction of the "pointy" Mk7 ammo, which would not feed properly from a magazine set up for the old Mk6 and earlier round-nosed stuff. Another example of the rifle being built / adapted to the ammo, not the other way round.
On a No.2, being a single shot, none of this matters as the (empty) magazine case is just there to catch the fired .22 brass and keep rubbish out of the action.
Like Bruce in Oz, I also learned to shoot properly with one of these in my school Cadet Force and as an Armourer 'on the circuit' I used to see hundreds of them in School and Army Cadet Forces. Great little rifles. They and No7's were still around with RAF Cadets until the late 80's or so but after that they slowly went and were replaced by the standardised No8's and SA80's with .22" sub calibre kits fitted.
Another rifle worthy of any Enfield collection
I understand the mag is a "brass repository" on this rifle but curious about the purpose of the hindged bit in the right of the mag .Just curious.
Just an early method of removing the floorplate and spring, later floorplates were cut away to allow them to slip past the front lips when the rear was depressed.
Knowlege base enhanced.Quote:
Originally Posted by muffett.2008
That is what it looked like to me. Now I know.
Thanks!
---------- Post added at 06:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:58 PM ----------
Can you explain this part further? Orange? MAO?Quote:
Originally Posted by paulseamus
Thanks
Does the six pointed star on the butt or the DPT on the receiver of this rifle look a little unusual to anyone.
Nice 22 trainer, I pick one up at show here last year and paid around $400 but the stock had less dings and scrapes and the metal was cleaner, since it had also been thru an FTR like yours, but had not been used after that.
Any thoughts on the meaning or signicance of the markings?Quote:
Originally Posted by Homer
Thanks
This gun has been discussed on another forum probably before you bought it HOOKED. I think the butt looks very suspect.Quote:
Originally Posted by HOOKED ON HISTORY
Which forum and suspect in what regard?Quote:
Originally Posted by Homer
These early pattern magazine cases seem to have lingered on in Australia much longer than elsewhere, though they're not terribly scarce anywhere.
Orange was one of the towns smallarms component manufacture was dispersed to, once Japanese aircraft began raiding Northern Australia.
The stamping on the butt. The star has only six points and looks to have been humped.Quote:
Originally Posted by HOOKED ON HISTORY
Your rifle has an FTR stamp on the action. With that there should be a date stamped on the left side of the action under the safety. This practice of stamping FTR only commenced in 1950 and the date on the left side of the action should indicate when yours was done. It's not likely that the 48 date on the butt was when it was converted to .22 if the rifle was then FTR'd in the 50's and when they were converted, any previous stamps on the butt would have been removed so they were barely visible.
The other forum was gunboards.
Im a bit new to the Enfield. What would I conclude from these observations? Could this be a parts gun from the company in NY who marketed parts guns some time ago? Can you post a link to the gunboards discussion I would like to see if this is the same rifle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Homer
Thanks
The other forum was gunboards.[/quote]
Yes, that is what it would seem, with the caveat that someone went out of their way to enhance or add to the markings. Most folks seem to think someone took a DP marked rifle and rebuilt it as a trainer. The DPT marking is unknown and does not match any known marking standards. The buttstock is suspect for the reasons noted on the other board. There were a bunch of DP rifles rebuilt by Parker Hale during WWII for the UK. These rifles had the DP mark lined out.
That said I have an Australian No 2 MK IV marked butt that does not have the MA marking nor does it have the star in any format next to the No 2 MK IV marking. The other butt stock marking is a “4/47under R”, which generally indicates a rebuild. The No 2 MK IV marking appears to have been added later, as indicated by the dept of the markings. As it is not attached to any rifle I have no idea about the originality of the buttstock: but suspect it was modified in the field. It was in a junk bin, dirty and cost me 7 dollars at a gun show so I doubt it was a fake, unless it was someone’s discarded fake attempt.
I am still a bit puzzeled. Some are posting in reply to others questioning the authenticity of the markings but I as the owner would like to know what the significance of the altered markings is. Why would the changes have been made? What portion of the rifle would be authentic? Could someone post a link to the subject posted on gunboards?
Thanks
You would have to do a search for the thread on gunboards.
The stamping on the butt looks questionable to me and the DPT stamped on the receiver also. I could be wrong.
Also there is the 48 date on the butt to give the impression the rifle was converted to 22 at that time but then the rifle was went through a factory thorough refurb during the 50's at which time all the furniture would have been replaced. At that time the butt might have been restamped as a No2 MkIV but any previous stamps would have been removed to the point of being barely visible. Is there a date stamped under the safety?
I'll post pictures of butt markings on some of mine for comparison. Take particular note of the star.
Does anyone else have a 50's conversion also stamped FTR on the action?
Not all no2 Mk 4*s were marked with a star. That was just the addition of the empty magazine case for the spent brass. They were supposed mark 22 on the case as well.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
FTR doesn't necessarily mean that the wood is replaced - especially ALL the wood! If the wood ain't broke, they didn't fix it! But it was certainly 'made off' in Armourers language and patched etc etc. But it is a myth that wood was replaced as a matter of course
Peter
Rifles that were FTR'd at Lithgow during the 50's and have the FTR stamp were stripped to the action and rebuilt. Many parts were recycled but not on the rife they came from. It seems that in most cases the forends and handguards were replaced with new and butts were either new or recycled but any stamps applied previously were removed. I would find it highly unlikely that any rifle through the program would retain any of it's original wood.
Well there is another one almost identical to Hooked on Histories rifle on Gunbroker right now. it has the 6 pointed start, same format except it also has a green cadet paint strip and a /49 rebuild date. It also has the DPT marking. The No 2 MK IV stamp looks identical
Perhaps these marking are correct? Or is someone manufacturing them? What say the experts from the land down under?
I have been using Gunbroker as a resource to research the rifle but had not seen this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederick303
Enfield SMLE No 2 Mark IV* IV 22 trainer lithgow : Curios & Relics at GunBroker.com
Very close in condition ,markings etc.. If more/better photos of mine would help I would be glad to take/post them. There are more markings on the fore stock and under the stock on the pistol grip at the trigger guard.
I still do not under stand why someone would fudge the markings. Do some of the markings in question add value to the rifle. I am very interested in deciphering any and all markings on the weapon. I love a mystery but the long and short of it is I paid less than $300 and Love the rifle even if its pedegree remains in question. That being said thank you all for your input and keep it comming.
I have attached a sketch of additional markings I could not get a good photo of. Not sure if this helps solve or deepens the mystery.
Attachment 31074
Please for give my lack of artistic ability. The MA?5 Is on the wrist below the saftey.
I still would like to know what the objective would be to doctor the marks on the rifle.
I am going to try CPR on this thread as I have not gotten a reply to my questions as to why someone would have altered the stock markings as some think may have been the case with this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by HOOKED ON HISTORY
I have been surfing a bit on thr "DPT" issue after looking at the gunbroker post. I found a couple of refrences to the "DPT" mark on no 2 MK IVs. Could the DPT mean Drill Purpose Trainer? It makes sence to me that a DP rifle would be perfectly suitable for use in a .22 conversion. The economics of conversin to trainer vs. DP seems logical to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederick303