Printable View
One of our club members recently passed me an Enfield for perusal.
After a few minutes mulling over it, I deduced it was a .22 Short Rifle MkII. It had been converted from a Lee Metford. Skennerton's first edition has it on page 415. It is a prettry little rifle in A1 condition.
I have never seem another one. It was bought many years ago for pennies. The reserve, if it is put on sale, makes it far too rich for me.
It's really surprising as to how little interest there is in the earlier trainers. There were only a thousand of the Sht .22 II N made in 1912, yet I picked mine up for much less than the going rate for a No2 MkIV. I suppose not many people know the signifigance of them....
I agree they are a very attractive and distinctive design, even though mine is a little rough. It certainly raised some eyebrows at the range, especially when I pulled the trigger and it went "pop" instead of boom! Here's a pic of it with my Patt14 No1- both you will note, with Aussie rack numbers painted on the butts. Is a pic possible of the one there?
Well, mine is prettier than yours;) Bought it a looong time ago when the Great Western gun show was still in L.A.
The guy I bought my .22 Long Lee off had one of those as well - I only had one slot on my ticket, and there was a problem with the barrel (it had somehow been damaged internally).
I was interested to see Alan's recent report at the Scott Arms junction and saw a .22 long lee only went for £550ish - I thought it might have gone for more so possibly Son is right - the less well known or rare something is can sometimes work against it value-wise.
I bought a .22 Short rifle Mk II at the Trafalgar Meeting at Bisley a couple of years ago. It is converted from a Sparkbrook LE Mk I* dated 1901. Mine has no naval or conversion marks on the left butt socket. It is a great little shooter and shoot it often. The next table had a Short Rifle Mk I for sale but I didn't have a slot or the ready cash for two.
Regards
Peter.
From what I've found out / seen / heard it seems that pretty much every model & mark of Enfield has been converted into a .22 trainer at some time - all in relatively small numbers when looked on the world-wide scale of things.
The following is a summary from
Enfield_Smallbore_Trainers
22 SHORT RIFLE MK III
Approved 9th August 1912 (LoC 16291) for Land Service, this rifle was made up from Converted Mk II and Mk II* SMLE rifles (which were themselves either "long" Lee-Metford or "long" Lee-Enfields converted to "short" Lees). About 11,000 conversions were done by BSA, LSA and RSAF Enfield.
.22 RF PATTERN 1914 SHORT RIFLE No. 1
A wartime trainer approved 24th May 1915 (LoC 17320) for Land Service, this rifle was also made up from Converted Mk II and Mk II* SMLE rifles (see above) by boring out the .303 barrel and inserting a .22 caliber liner inside the barrel. Conversions were done by A.G. Parker & Co. Ltd. and Wesley Richards & Co. About 427 conversions reported.
.22 RF PATTERN 1914 SHORT RIFLE No. 2
Approved 28th April 1916 (LoC 17755) for Land Service, this is the first rifle made from up from an original SMLE Mk III. Again, the .303 barrel was bored out and a .22 caliber liner inserted. Conversions were done by A.G. Parker & Co. Ltd. and Wesley Richards & Co. Some 1,743 conversions reported.
.22 RF SHORT RIFLE PATTERN 1918
Approved 10th July 1918 (LoC 21675) for Land Service, this rifle is unique in that it used a dummy .303 cartridge as a holder or conveyor for the .22 rimfire cartridge. The .22 barrel liner was soldered into place after the chamber. About 975 conversions done by W.W. Greener Co.
.22 SHORT RIFLE Mk IV
Approved 19th November 1921 (LoC 24909) for Land Service, this rifle starts out with a used SMLE Mk III or Mk III* (like the 1914 Short Rifle No. 2, above) but uses a solid, not tubed, barrel. Total number of conversions done by RSAF Enfield unknown.
RIFLE No.2 Mk IV*
Same rifle as above; just a change in nomenclature adopted in 1926. This rifle was the principal trainer for the next thirty years and was widely produced by in Britain, Australia and India. Issued in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Ireland and India, a variety of issue and ownership marks can be found on these rifles. At least 30,000 conversions made by the various factories.
The next grouping consists of trainers from the Rifle No.4 family of rifles:
RIFLE C No.7 Mk I
The first Enfield built from the ground up as a .22 trainer and not as a conversion or retro-fitting of an earlier rifle - albeit built on a No.4 body and intended to mirror the Rifle No.4 as closely as possible. About 20,000 made at Longbranch, Ontario 1944 - 1950's. Unknown number of wooden transit chests also produced.
RIFLE No.7 Mk I
Although a No.7 Mk I, the British version is very different from it's Canadian counterpart (above). This rifle was a conversion of an existing No.4 and is interesting in that a BSA five-round commercial .22 magazine was welded into a SMLE Mk III* magazine to produce the only Enfield .22 repeater. These rifles were a special contract and produced exclusively for the Royal Air Force (RAF) in 1948. Total production 2,500.
RIFLE No.8 Mk I
An interesting hybrid, a .22 caliber trainer intended to be also be used in smallbore rifle competitions, this rifle was introduced in the late 1940's. About 15,000 produced at Fazakerley. Another 2,000 were produced by BSA Shirley in the 1950's specifically for New Zealand.
RIFLE No.9 Mk I
The last of the .22's, these are No.4 rifles sleeved in a manner similar to the WWI Pattern 1914 Short Rifle No. 1 (above). The work was done by Parker Hale in Birmingham 1956 - 1960. 3,000 rifles made specifically for the Royal Navy.
Maybe we should have a 'sub-section' on the Enfield forum for 'trainers' - what thinks you lot ?
Would be interesting to see what variants CSP Forummers have so to start it off I am the custodian of :
No2 Mk4* (Ishapore)
No7 Mk1 (BSA)
Not a bad start info- wise. There were three more Short Rifle .22s before those and a few Long Rifles as well. To get the full list you need to go to the rifle description section of one of Skennerton's big books. "The Lee Enfield Story", or "Lee Enfield".
I only have the two, but one is one of a thousand and the other one of 427, both almost 100 years old, and both aquired for less than half the price of a No2 MkIV Trainer.
I have evidence of several Patt14No1 trainers being scrapped to provide parts for restoring .303 Short LE MkI rifles here. Talk about false economy!
My little assortment of Enfield smallbore trainers ranges from a .22 SHORT RIFLE Mk II converted from an 1897, L.E. I made by B.S.A. & M. Co., to a B.S.A. NO. 8, but I think my favorite, historically speaking, is a .22 PATT. 14 NO. 1.
This rifle started out as a 1900 Enfield L.E. I*, converted to a Sht L.E. COND. II in 1905, then later converted again by A. G. Parker in Birmingham to a .22 RF PATT. 14 No. 1, then given to Australia with a bunch of old trainers in the early fifties where it was re-parked, fitted with new Coachwood furniture and property-stamped in 1955, but never used again, so 112 years later it looks like a freshly made Lithgow. Four different configurations and two governments later, it looks like the bean counters really got their money's worth out of this old trooper!
Those guys could teach our present administration a bit about economics, couldn't they?
A friend told me that every US soldier going to Iraq or Afghanistan gets a new rifle, which doesn't seem in the spirit of the recycling highlighted by Terry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry Hawker
For me there is just such a huge array of completely boring and characterless .22 rifles out there, that to have something as interesting and fun to shoot as a Lee Enfield trainer is a joy. I just can't believe so many people at my club are delighted to shoot their modern .22s which look so synthetic.
Mine is the commercial version of: Rifle, Long, .22-inch, RF, Mark I manufactured by BSA.
I suppose part of the fun is the ability to shoot all day without breaking the bank or your shoulder. I get a lot of pleasure from my small bore Enfields:
Pattern 1914 Short Rifle, cond from a LSA Mark I. (Clearance item from a local gun shop, complete with '07 bayonet).
No2 Mark IV, comes with a Hiscock-Parker magazine.
No7 Mark I, with two numbered magazines. Absolutely mint.
No8 Mark I, if you miss, it's your fault. Great little rifle. Spotless and pristine.
The Patt14 No1 I suspect was converted from a Sparkbrook LE1, probably post 1898 manufacture. It became a ConDII in 1905 and then a Westley Richards conversion Patt14No1. It's Aussie markings have "33" next to them, may be the year it got here? It's all original, all matching, as it was in 1915 (plus a few bumps and bruises)
My Short .22 II was converted from an 1899 Sparkbrook LE1* 1. Interesting markings on the butt socket with both the 1* and the 1, neither struck out. Pic below. Also on the recycling side of the discussion, here's the underside of the rear sight. No less than four serial numbers!
Oops! Just noticed my faulty math...It's the .22 SHORT RIFLE MK II that's 112 years old. The .22 RF PATT 14 is actually only 109. Sorry folks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry Hawker
If I was that old then I wouldnt be bothered about the odd 3 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry Hawker
Maybe John Sukey would care to comment as allegedly he pre-dates all Enfield variants.
The "1" under the "I*" means that it is a First Class Weapon. This is seen a lot on MLE Mk I's.
I thought I'd throw this one into the mix. (Also posted over at gunboards).
Beyond what Skennerton has written on pp. 303-304 of "The Lee Enfield," has anyone discovered any more info on the No.4 rifles that were converted to trainers in Belgium in 1948?
Any more info on how many were made (Ian estimates less than 1,000)?
What does "AS Arm" mean? Who were the intended users of these rifles? Soldiers, cadets, civilian marksmen? Why was this particular conversion not adopted for later trainers? (I think it was certainly an interesting design).
Here are some pics of mine. The costs of my Lee Speed research are mounting, so I will be selling this No.4 off in the next week or so to help fund that project. I had planned to devote some some serious research time to this Belgian conversion when the Lee Speed work was done, but someone else will have to do it. Too little time.
Does anyone else have one? The only ones I have seen all have serial numbers in the 500 range.
From Skennerton (p.303): "The bolthead is recessed and a spring-loaded striker utilised, the magazine has been modified with a newly machined steel platform with sprung ejector. The underside of the bolt head is grooved.... The ejector is novel, in being a spring loaded protrusion from the centre of the magazine follower." Skennerton shows photos of A. Abramson's rifle.
Here are some more pics of mine.
Numbers seem to be all matching. The original British serial number and 1943 date are still on the left side. The conversion number (582) is shown in the following places: on the left side of the receiver with the 1948 conversion date, on the front of the receiver next to what appear to be two Belgian proof marks near the gas port, on the wood fore-end below the ejector screw, and on the bolt handle. The last two digits (82) are stamped on the bolt head.
As Skennerton says in his book, there are parts from several manufacturers, fitted either at the time of the conversion to .22, or from previous FTR. For example, the cocking piece has the Long Branch (Ontario) logo, and the rear sight has the BSA factory code (M47). Because there are no FTR stamps, I would assume that the armorers in Belgium selected components from what they had in stock at the time of the conversion, and then numbered all the parts.
That's strange as it is amateurish JC because the ROF Fazakerley manufactured/converted some No5 rifles to .22 in 1948 along the lines of the No9 rifle. This was in an effort to convince the then War Office that their idea was suitable as the next service .22 rifle. I suppose it was, after a fashion...., if you just wanted a training rifle. But the .22" No8 did more, in that it was a competitive commercial rifle too that acted the same way as the No4 AND 5. Indeed, all (?) the Fazakerley production were based on unused No5lightweight bodies.
I understand that 25 No5's were converted and a similar amount of a similar concept produced by BSA. The nett result was the No8.
It's an interesting story that ought to be researched in more detail. We have some of the examples but no interest............. I have a .22" No5 though.
Quite honestly, the .22" No4 in JC's pictures comes from the same era but the quality is a bit, er...., what's the word I'm looking for..............? Yes, I've got it! It's not exactly Omega watch quality is it?
enfieldlock, A Thought just occurred to me, Skennerton's FIRST edition ONLY has 410 pages! :eek:
It's on page 329 of the first edition, however it IS on page 415 of the SECOND edition.:D