Peter: seen this low axis pin on many No4s?

The rifle is a 1944 Maltby, FTR'd at some stage to Mk1/2. The receiver is in fine condition with almost unmarked suncorite.

The rifle turned up without a rearsight, and when I tried to fit one I understood why:

The rearsight axis pin holes are about 2mm/ 1/12" lower than on a normal No4. Consequently any rearsight fitted not only cannot be folded flat, but also fouls the bolthead when trying to withdraw the bolt. The axis pin itself will actually foul any bolthead in the gap. The axis pin is so low that the base of the rearsight jams the plunger against the receiver; there is insufficient room to allow the square lip of the rearsight to pass when trying to fold it down - same as when you try to use a standard sight on a Trials No4 receiver.

I've tried about a dozen different rearsights (Mks1-VI), pins and boltheads - all with the same result. To get a rearsight to fold and allow bolthead clearance, I had to grind down the bottom to the point that the axis pin is revealed. Even with this, the bolt can only be extracted by working it through the gap.

The axis pin mounts show no sign of damage or repair - the receiver is very tight and unworn. Very strange that the rifle not only has had some sort of service career, but that it also got through FTR without being cast.

??????

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...61851545-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...61851547-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...61851551-1.jpg

Nope! Never seen anything like it in my life before. But, because of many things that occur in service, it's my guess that this rifle has been damaged and made good by building up with weld. I say that because although we wouldn't rebuild one up if an ear was broken off (we'd just scrap it out of hand) although we would and often did, file/ream a distorted/bent over axis pin hole.

One other point was that we utilised this hole as a known datum for 'squareness' when fitting a new barrel. This was because this hole was never 'used' in the sense that it would ever become worn out because the axis pin cannot rotate. My guess is that it has been repaired by bubba (see how I'm learning all these quaint old wild colonial phrases....). You could use it with a PH5 series sight or mill the ears off and start again.

Intersting!

I've looked under a magnifying glass to see any sign of repair, but there is not a trace - all the radii and lines match other Maltbys I have of the same vintage. In fact you can see the same machining marks that run in all directions over the rest of the receiver. The Maltby markings are all quite sharp, so no particular sign that the receiver has been heavily refinished. I've got a crate full of b*ggered & repaired receivers, but this particular one doesn't have the "look" of a repair job.

Like many Maltbys, this one was a bit rough in the charger bridge socket where the wheel of the Mk1 sight lies - so i assume that the rifle was probably one of the many built with a MkII 300/600 flip as standard. Maybe by 1944 there was a lump of swarf lying in the jig where they did the axis pin boring....

I know what you're saying Thunder but take it from me. If the sight wouldn't go down or you couldn't get the bolt in OR out, it wouldn't have got past the first very basic in or out inspection. And the FTR out inspection programme was even more rigorous than the Base Workshop overhaul standard.

Just ask yourself this. How did the Armourers clean and view the bore if they couldn't get the bolt out. And how did they check fire it if they couldn't get the bolt IN? After all, they need the sights to aim at the zeroing screen!

Thunderbox

I hate to disagree with Mr. Laidler but during the war with the manpower shortages, exceptions were made on who would have been eligible to be an Armourer. :rofl:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif

Radius the pin to clear the bolt head and install a British MkIII stamped folding sight. The MkIII probably (almost certainly) would have been the standard sight fitted to your rifle in 1944.

Good idea LE to get out of a hole, BUT......... If the Mk3 or 4 backsights are fitted, they won't flip down unless you radius the legs!

And mathematically (won't go into the maths/formula here), you will never zero it with the range of foresight blades available because the backsight is now 2mm or so LOWER than the datum norm! And 2mm over the sight radius over XX yards is, well.....................................

I think that there's something deeper amiss here. You COULD fit a PH5 series sight but even that will be 2mm lower if it's an axis pin aligned model!

Yeah - already tried all four Mks of sight: although the stamped sights obviously don't foul the bolthead when folded down, they still have the second problem that the spring & plunger can't operate unless you radius off the block on the right hand side. If you do this, then you can end up with "floppy sight syndrome" because you've reduced the surface area held steady by the plunger....

I've now fitted a Mk1 sight - thanks to the wonderful Mr Dremmel (professional armourers should look away..... LOL....):

- Ground the sight base away to expose the axis pin for the width of the bolthead. Not much metal to remove here, as of course the battle sight sits quite close to the edge of the base;

- reduced the diameter of the corresponding section of the axis pin;

- created a shallow socket for the plunger to descend into; polished down the forward edge of the plunger;

- shaved down the side of the Mk1 sight slide, as this edge now of course fouls the top edge of the receiver. Hardly any metal to remove here, as the side of the slide is only two narrow little bars.

A few thou here, a few thou there, and you have a decent bodge. Even managed to keep the sight movement reasonably crisp and positive.

Perhaps I should now add an "A" suffix to the rifle number.....?

Ah, yes.......... But how will you zero it given that mathematically the range of foresight blades is too HIGH now (remember foresight into the error, backsight out of the error etc). And even the 1952 foresight blocks (marked 1H) are higher............. as is the Sten foresight blade +.090"

Keep us informed TB, it's a great thought provoking project. I wish I'd had this for a student project at Shrivenham. Or certainly read the discussion papers.................

Thunderbox, Does this rifle have a Maltby s/n or is it a Maltby action body with a housecleaning A prefix s/n?

I know always and never shouldn't ever be associated with L-Es, but I just don't see how this action body would've made it not once, but twice out the doors of a ROF.

Brad

I'm going to toss in a wrench to two, as during the restoration of my no1mk6 1930 I discovered that same problem, the rear sight is too low to allow rotation to its rest.

Its part of the reason I've been trying to find out what the original sight maker was for these. I settled for now on a B marked sight and I radiused the front corner where the sight engages the plunger. The problem is that now it folds but isn't as firmly held in the upright or down locations as a stock no4.

Eventually a light came on; these rifles didn't use the stock no4 set up, they used a ball/spring set up, ala no1 mk5, which would remove the plunger. It does make enough room for rotation.

I'm yet to get around to trying out this new set up. Likewise my rifle shows no sign of being messed around with in the pivot area.

Maybe, your rifle has a long story and who knows why used a ball/spring setup.

Any resolution on this little mystery? ( I was looking for something else, but its still interesting.)

Did Thunderbox ever supply a measurement from the top of the ear the the base at the plunger hole? I got to quit coming here, the more I read, the less I know. That is an odd duck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by madcratebuilder

Did Thunderbox ever supply a measurement from the top of the ear the the base at the plunger hole? I got to quit coming here, the more I read, the less I know. That is an odd duck.

---

I'm sticking to my observation on my no1 mk6, that the rear sight pivot is set up lower because the receiver was intended for a different detent system, ie ball and spring ala no1mkv 1922 ish, and that the later system requires a bit more room because of that flat head on top of the plunger.

As for people discovering this on rifles other than the mkV and mkV1, my educated guess is that they are prefix A marked receivers from the early era that were put back into the system.

I keep pointing this out but never hear a comment from anyone in acknowledgment.?

I'll come back to this post with pics and measurements in an hour or so.:thup:

Here's the skinny
My 1955 measures .3795 (ie 5 under .380) from the top of the sight axle to the deck of the receiver beside the plunger hole.
The 1930 measures .310 in the same place.

The difference = .0695

(The thickness of the cap on the plunger is .05, so its not an obvious connection.)

Plungers also do not fit the 1930 unless I dremel the diameter down a bit, that hole where the spring lives is definitely narrower than on later enfields, no plungers I've tried will fit without modifying them first.

Take it from me madcrate, this No4 rifle was NEVER passed for any service as it is. Never, ever in a thousand years. If you couldn't get a bolt in or out or the backsight..., of whatever mark/type, up or down, it will NEVER have passed even the most basic cursory inspection by an Armourer.

That axis pin hole is a datum for several operations during its life.

1955 and 1930 pics showing the height difference and where it was measured.

1955 = .3795 inch, or 5 thou under .380
1930 = .310 inch.

For what its worth I have a nasty feeling my little collection will be for sale soon, including the 1930.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Take it from me madcrate, this No4 rifle was NEVER passed for any service as it is. Never, ever in a thousand years. If you couldn't get a bolt in or out or the backsight..., of whatever mark/type, up or down, it will NEVER have passed even the most basic cursory inspection by an Armourer.

That axis pin hole is a datum for several operations during its life.

---

Hi Peter,
When I found the 1930 it was in well used non original wood, however the bore is very good and the 'bluing or whatever it is' across all the metal work is in much much better condition, almost as though it had not seen much service, I wonder if your comment might be the reason it survived so well. The rifle is stamped no1 mk6, and also stamped with an A prefixed number, so I would have though it served someplace.
Who/what factory do you think put these A serial numbered stamps on the rifle? Was it enfield themselves?
cheers,
2010 and we're already knee deep in minuta, I love it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RJW NZ

For what its worth I have a nasty feeling my little collection will be for sale soon, including the 1930.

---

That sounds very ominous. Hope all is well.

Here's a photo of two I had; 1931 on the right side and 1935 on the left. (Not a very good photo as it is a jpg of a 35mm print.)

One can see how the 'shoulder' that extends from the rear sight axis hole 'lug' along the bolt way 'makes sense' in the original design, but as modified from 1935, there is a piece of the shoulder 'left hanging'.

Notice that the area milled out is 'in the white'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Here's a photo of two I had; 1931 on the right side and 1935 on the left. (Not a very good photo as it is a jpg of a 35mm print.)

One can see how the 'shoulder' that extends from the rear sight axis hole 'lug' along the bolt way 'makes sense' in the original design, but as modified from 1935, there is a piece of the shoulder 'left hanging'.

Notice that the area milled out is 'in the white'.

---

Thanks Surpmil, thats a great picture worth a thousand words.
I wonder if what we're looking at on the left, 1935, is what you get when an early receiver has that extra metal milled off (.069) to allow fitting of a conventional sight.
That has other implications if thats so. A mk6, rare as hens already, that is in its original low axle form is now going to be even more rare, if some were modified for service by having this milling done to allow fitting of the conventional no4 sights. Rejoice owners of virgin mk6's, your rifles just went up by a grand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Take it from me madcrate, this No4 rifle was NEVER passed for any service as it is. Never, ever in a thousand years. If you couldn't get a bolt in or out or the backsight..., of whatever mark/type, up or down, it will NEVER have passed even the most basic cursory inspection by an Armourer.

That axis pin hole is a datum for several operations during its life.

---

And here's the answer to Peters above comments;
Now we've seen Surpmil's picture of the relieved receiver, I'd bet that the axle hole on all of these receivers is in correct position in height above the bore center line, that would explain why they can be relieved, accept a stock no4 sight, pass armorers inspection, and be put back in service.

Still, it does open more the query of what about any no 6's and trials snipers that missed this milling operation and won't accept a rear sight, were they designated not fit for service, and sat the war out?
When my mk6 was found it had a 300/600 battle sight that wouldn't flip, perhaps a battle sight was enough to go to war with?

The 1935 rifle is one of 56 "Model C" trials rifles. Acc. to Skennerton these were the first rifles to feature what became the standard No4 backsight.

These seem to have been the last complete rifles produced at RSAF(E) until whatever assembly, if any, was done in 1939/40.

The proposed Model D rifles incorporating some other refinements or variations were abandoned as trials for self-loading rifles were underway. It reads as though the No1 MkVI (1,025 made) and No4 MkI trials (approx. 2500 made) were built to keep Enfield ticking along as much as anything else.

Apparently it wasn't thought necessary to re-phosphate the actions after that cut was made for the final pattern of backsight.

Those 56 rifles had some other odd features such as a light aluminum alloy buttplate, sling swivel on the trigger guard (similar to SMLE), 12 inch bladed bayonet etc.

I put the 55 and 1930 side by side and measured the drop from the axle top to the bottom of the bolt channel directly below. I'd theorized the distance would be the same, however the 55 is 1.259 inch and in the same spot the 1930 is 1.271 inch, or 20 thou smaller/lower. I wonder if I should be using a no4mk1 instead of mk2?
btw my 55 came with the scope holes, don't shoot me!

In any case, I'm baffled. I'd love Peter to comment but he seems to be sitting this one out. I'm still stuck with a safe queen with no rear site until I get some more info, I tried reworking no4 sight parts to allow for the lesser distance but ended up with the sight slightly leaning forward and with very soft spring action, not up to a shooting standard.
I'd love to see a pic of the bottom of a ball detent mk6 sight or a mk5 to see the shape of the sight base where the ball detent clicks into, maybe I could get a machine shop to build up some extra metal to copy that set up. So far no luck.

Well done by the way Surpmil, that 1935 trial one of 56, phew, that's rare!!! And not to mention that you have a mk6 right there too, thats really awesome, congrats on a nice collection.
I wish I could claim some great story of finding my 1930 but it was just dumb luck, it was on the table and I'd recently seen a pic of that milled out rear area, so it was a no brainer. What I didn't realize was that everyone didn't have one already, and just how uncommon they really are, that took a long time for that to sink in!

Thanks for getting this thread all fired up, that side by side pic was brilliant, its really interesting how different they are in that area.
cheers and thanks R:beerchug:

We need to get a few things straight here before we proceed.

Are we talking about Thunderboxes 1944 Mk1/2 Maltby, the initial subject of this thread and subsequent discussion or: A 1930 No1 Mk6? It is, I would hasten to suggest, a quite important feature unless I'm missing something (which isn't difficult I agree.... it's to do with my age!). Because No4 Maltby is a totally different beast to a No1 Mk6.

At the moment I can only comment on No4's because our No1 Mk6's are all at work.

I don't necessarily agree with your view that your Mk6 was sufficient to go to war with a flip-over Mk2 backsight. Believe me, it wouldn't! Can you imagine the training days or days on the range with a fixed 300 (bayonet fixed) or 600 sight. Where would he zero it? No. Like the notion that a Maltby No4 would ever enter into service, let alone later be upgraded to a 1/2 with a bolt that couldn't be removed or a sight that couldn't be raised or lowered is the stuff that fairy tales are made of

No, I never got to the bottom of that particular Enfield mystery.

Obviously photos are no substitute for examining the rifle close up, but I think you can see that the rifle was in generally excellent condition, with no hint of any reworking of the sight ears. The finish was thin and hard - not even any blobby suncorite that might be concealing something.

The only tiny additional clue that might be relevant is that the rifle does not bear Fazakerly FTR marks or an "A" suffix, therefore the Mk1/2 conversion just might have been a BSA or other commercial job. Still does not seem likely that a wartime reject receiver got built up - I'm sure such a reject would have gone for recycling long before it got its date and serial number markings.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...81591207-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...81591210-1.jpg

There's nothing stuck in the bottom of the hole, preventing the bottom of the plunger from reaching it's FULL depth is there? I ask because illustrative, it all looks as it should be.

The plunger hole goes all the way through, far deeper than the spring hole. Just check that out. Try pushing a steel rod or drill in from underneath.

I reiterate that there is not even the remotest chance...., not even a snowball in hells chance of that rifle ever, ever getting into service as it is.

No obstructions. You can see that, in any case, the axis pin fouls a bolthead even if the plunger were not fitted. The plunger itself depresses tight against the receiver, but still is too high to allow a Mk1 sight to rotate.

Interestingly, because of the blob of weld in the back of the charger bridge where the adjustment wheel of the Mk1 sight would normally lie, the only type of rearsight that can be made to fit and lie down properly is a Mk2 or Mk4. However, only the hollow base of the stamped Mk2 clears the bolthead, and some of the Mk2s I have are a little rounded off in the foot that acts on the plunger - thus can be made to work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Take it from me madcrate, this No4 rifle was NEVER passed for any service as it is. Never, ever in a thousand years. If you couldn't get a bolt in or out or the backsight..., of whatever mark/type, up or down, it will NEVER have passed even the most basic cursory inspection by an Armourer.

That axis pin hole is a datum for several operations during its life.

---

Is it safe to assume the the backsight axis pin hole is located after the barrel is installed to the receiver and located off the center of the rifling? I assuming here that the rifling as not always centered to the barrel.
What was acceptable tolerance during the manufacturing process? .001? .0001?

Is it possible this reject receiver was built up after being sold out of service?

No Madcrate. The body is made as a completed unit. Tolerances are varied, especially Fazakerley tolerances as they used cloth dress-makers tape measures there (only joking.....). The backsight axis pin hole was one of the critical measurements and was the point from which the body was 'squared' so it cannot wrongly have got past even the initial inspection bay!

Re the last q. We can't see the Mk1/2 modification but to get to that stage would be like buying a Ford and suddenly, 60 years later finding that it really is a Polski Fiat!

When I get the body drawings out, I'll ask thunderbox for some dimensions. But a bolt that is obstructed by the backsight axis pin and being 'as factory' is ludicrous

This pic is for RJW NZ and his No1 MkVI w/ the low clearance rear sight:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif

Hi Thunderbox, Just looking at your pic of the sight pivot pin in place, at the risk of sounding like a twit, it seems to have a larger diameter than usual, and if so would that close the gap enough to cause the problem? My pin dia is .1425`, and the very small clearance under the pin to bolthead (on the 6 just cos it was handy and fits the 55 too) is .026.?

No, not the enfield itus, but the cause of one of the itches has been cured.
Well, at least and at last, my sight on the 6 problem has been solved, jmoore sent a pic of the base of his sight and I was able to duplicate it in about an hour, hooray! Took at least three years, no one can accuse me of being too swift...!
I found a short little bolt that would fit inside the stock no4 sight spring, rounded the head to the shape of a ball bearing, then slightly rounded the corner of the sight where it folds over, a bit of a shallow pit with a drill bit for the upright detent and voila, it works, bloomin marvellous!

Now all I've got to worry about is Peters comment that the sight will be calibrated incorrectly, phew, always something.

So, thanks for getting this thread up and attem, it saved my day.

I'm TOTALLY lost and bamboozled now lads ...............! All of my comments so far have been directed at a No4 Mk1/2 with a backsight axis pin that fouls the bolt head!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RJW NZ

Hi Thunderbox, Just looking at your pic of the sight pivot pin in place, at the risk of sounding like a twit, it seems to have a larger diameter than usual, and if so would that close the gap enough to cause the problem? My pin dia is .1425`, and the very small clearance under the pin to bolthead (on the 6 just cos it was handy and fits the 55 too) is .026.?

---

Hi RJW,

No - the pins & holes are completely standard. I tried about twenty pins and sights combinations, in case there was some manufacturing variation. I tried the same with bolt heads, because some have slightly flatter extractor housings. At any one time I have about thirty other complete No4s and about 50 loose bolts, so I have a good number of parts to test-swap in cases like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

I'm TOTALLY lost and bamboozled now lads ...............! All of my comments so far have been directed at a No4 Mk1/2 with a backsight axis pin that fouls the bolt head!

---

Sorry about that. RJW's rear sight drama centered around a No1 MkVI if I'm remembering correctly and the issue sort of resurfaced here. Now, back to Thunderbox's program...

I'm out of it........ I've lost the plot, even with the body drawings!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

I'm TOTALLY lost and bamboozled now lads ...............! All of my comments so far have been directed at a No4 Mk1/2 with a backsight axis pin that fouls the bolt head!

---

The bamboozler exposed;
My fault I'm afraid, it got started when I saw the thread from someone with the same problem I was having, ie a rifle with a low sight pin, the difference being it turns out that early rifles having a low sight pin was a known situation here, it just took me a long time to find that out, and then to come up with a way to get a workable sight on the rifle. The difference of course turns out to be that an A serial receiver is not the cause of Thunderbox's the problem, although it was a reasonable thort to raise at the time.