Printable View
I acquired this Trainer and a couple of others a while back. The No4 Rifles are not my strong point and the No4 Based trainers are pretty rare here in Aus, so looking for some experienced help confirming this Rifles pedigree.
Here’s some pics, happy to take other views if needed.
Attachment 106183Attachment 106184Attachment 106185Attachment 106186
G'Day Brad,
Actually, that's most likely a civilian copy of the RN Service No 9 rifle. Still converted by PH in around 1958 or thereabouts (some one will correct me). It's not likely to be one of about 3,000 made by PH specifically for the Royal Navy.
The No 9 Mk 1/2 suggests that the original BSA body was modified to No 4 Mk 1/2 (hung trigger) version post war. Then a little later, that .303 rifle was converted again as a .22LR trainer most likely for civilian ownership for Small Bore target competitions.
My No 9 is built on a Savage No 4 Mk 1* action.
I see from some evidence that they weren't too fussy about which maker of rifle was converted to the Last Lee Enfield (and yes, you're free to bite at that! ;)) But they were fussy about the condition and quality of the body being converted. All seem to be quite good quality.
Not much there, but certainly an impressive piece.
There was some discussion (a few years ago) where Peter Laidler said that the CORRECT nomenclature for the Navy built ones was "N9" (not No9)
There has been a suggestion that the No9 were actually PH built 'civilian' model versions of the N9
Parker Hale were selling the No9 into the civilian market in the '60s.
The 1962 PH catalogue had No9 rifles for £15
Quite a bit more here - keep scrolling down :
https://www.rifleman.org.uk/Enfield_Rifle_No.9.html
Yes, I checked out that article earlier too. I don't know a lot about them so I thought I'd look. From memory all of the rifles I've seen over the years had a letter (usually A?) prefix followed by the number, & I thought the few I'd seen had had the receivers linished (though not perfectly in all cases) of original markings, before the new nomenclature (be it N9 or No9) was applied. The rifle in question here looks a peach & does not look as though it is a recent creation, but I have never seen a No9/N9 with its original markings & original No4 serial number before. Can anybody enlighten us (me)?
I don't think it's a Royal Navy conversion as done by PH. I've had a few and still have one that's on my knees as I sit here. It's marked as follows on the left side of the body. As Roger mentions, the left side butt socket markings are all linished clean. The rear sight should also have 25 YDS engraved on the left side of the slide with the datum marks on both the leaf and slide.
.22 R.F. N.9 MkI
P-H'59 A2391
As described by Brian
Here’s some more pics. Overall from each side, the magazine numbered and then the markings around the receiver ring and barrel Nock’s form.
Thanks all for the input so far,
Alan, I will read the link you posted a little later, had a glance, need to read it all.
Cheers.
Obviously a fake Brad, better bring it to the Range and I will take it off your hands;)
Are you going to be open this weekend mate?Quote:
Originally Posted by muffett.2008
Well, now, you can call me Stan.
Stan Corrected.
Humble Pie, one large serve, with sauce, pelase.
Much like Brian and Lance, my No 9 is, in fact, finished as they say...
Attachment 106213Attachment 106214
So I guess that PH did make some No 9 copies for Civilian ownership and use in the 60's. I need to close out an earlier thread I commenced on a No 9 Savage that made its way to Israel before being converted to a No 9 format, but Out of Service. The research on markings took much longer than I had expected.
You learn something every day...?
;)
You had better get in touch with the people at the link Alan posted above, the highest recorded A prefix serial they know of is A2828... yours is 2849Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance
---------- Post added at 12:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:32 AM ----------
Can any N9 owners post a couple of pics of the Nock's form? Particularly the left side markings?
Mine appears to have A 1097 stamped over another marking there...
My rifle is marked .22 R.F.N. N. 9 Mk1 P-H'60 on the left side of the receiver the serial number is A3015 which seems to raise the ante a bit
Hmm... well, 55recce, maybe not quite. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by 55recce
I'll quote from p 303 of Skennerton's 2007 revised edition Bible:
"It would appear that about 3,000 of these rifles were so converted"
Having had a couple of discussions with Ian, I am confident that he exhausted reasonable effort to verify his facts. Now saying that, there are some salient points to consider regarding The Bible:
1. Not all libraries or document repositories were complete or in possession of the requested detail (understandable).
2. As with all published research, once issued, there will always be the emergence of some pedant with specific knowledge previously unheard of during the search. They will, accurately, discredit the accuracy of the published detail in specific, small detail, but not in essence or overall. This is common and Ian recognises and has, like many authors, had to odd dispute with an anorak over minutia of absolutely bugger all consequence.
3. That PH and MoD didn't have specific detail in their records available during Ian's research is not at all surprising.
None of that reduces the interest and impressive detail of your last of the real No 9's that PH made possibly 1959 or 1960? I really don't know how long they took to make the 3000ish conversions. My guess is that they took quite a bit longer than Fazakerly took in their FTR process or turning No 4 Mk 1s to No 4 Mk 1/2 or No 4 Mk 1/3s...
You've got a real pearler of a specimen by those details, well done!
:thup:
Brad, Response to your #11
Here is the Left, top and right side of Nocks from my No 9.
The serial no on barrel reinforce is matched with body.
On right side bbl marked F55 for a 1955 Fazakerly barrel, so not long in service before being turned into a .22.
On closer inspection, the rifle is a bitzer. The wrist markings being scrubbed gives no clue as to the original maker. The barrel at least is identified. Timber is all Brit, lower band is Long Branch. Magazine body of a Savage.
Attachment 106368Attachment 106369Attachment 106370
Could you have a quick look at the pic in post seven showing the left barrel reinforce. There is a number, prefixed with an A overstamping something else there... Interesting the serial on your barrel is on the same side.
I make that barrel number to be AD 10974. The rubbish alignment is probably what makes it more or less bona-fide.
I'd not be too concerned about the provenance of this rifle. I would think the major difference in it's pedigree is that it wasn't one of the RN purchased No 9's. It was converted by PH.
The lack of finishing and refinishing of the body was most likely only Navy Specification difference. If PH didn't waste all this time and effort the conversion would be more attractive pricing wise for the civilian market. The barrel number suggests it may have been a Maltby made one.
That makes sense. The conversion certainly looks well done, & not recently.