N° 8 Mk I trainer fitted with an A. J. Parker 8/53 sight attachment

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...Is13D2Th-1.jpg

Hello to all,

Here is a .22 LR Lee-Enfield trainer I bought last week.

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

If my interpretation of its markings is correct, this rifle was built at ROF Fazakerley in 1951 and FTR'ed in Enfield Lock in 1966.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...gyXIhdnh-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...qRp2d7Fh-1.jpg

The rear sight leaf was fitted with an A. J. Parker 8/53 sight attachment and its battle aperture ground off.

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

I would have a couple of questions for you about this rifle:

- was it common for .22 LR Enfield trainers to undergo FTRs?
- does the fact that the ejector screw is absent from this n° 4 receiver show that it was never actually used on a Lee-Enfield service rifle during WW2?

Thank you in advance for your replies!

Didier

- does the fact that the ejector screw is absent from this n° 4 receiver show that it was never actually used on a Lee-Enfield service rifle during WW2?


Redundant query! WW2 was long over in 1951, when the receiver was made. The No.8s were built using No.4 MK1 action bodies in the 1950s. See "the Lee Enfield Story" P.442. But I imagine the Mk1 bodies were probably - at least partially! - new but surplus factory stock, as the No4 Mk2 was generally in production.

- was it common for .22 LR Enfield trainers to undergo FTRs?

Most definitely not. I have collected auction sales adverts of (almost) all No.8s offered here in Germany for several years. I have never seen one marked with FTR before. The FTR UE 66 refers to a factory thorough repair at Enfield in the 1960s. See "the Lee Enfield Story" P.442.

BTW. thanks to the FTR, that looks like a "very low mileage" No.8. You were lucky!

Patrick

Some have got the ejector screw (because it fastens on the PH5C sight) some have not, it has no other function. Some are built on No.5 bodies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick

- does the fact that the ejector screw is absent from this n° 4 receiver show that it was never actually used on a Lee-Enfield service rifle during WW2?

Redundant query! WW2 was long over in 1951, when the receiver was made. The No.8s were built using No.4 MK1 action bodies in the 1950s. See "the Lee Enfield Story" P.442. But I imagine the Mk1 bodies were probably - at least partially! - new but surplus factory stock, as the No4 Mk2 was generally in production.

- was it common for .22 LR Enfield trainers to undergo FTRs?

Most definitely not. I have collected auction sales adverts of (almost) all No.8s offered here in Germany for several years. I have never seen one marked with FTR before. The FTR UE 66 refers to a factory thorough repair at Enfield in the 1960s. See "the Lee Enfield Story" P.442.

BTW. thanks to the FTR, that looks like a "very low mileage" No.8. You were lucky!

Patrick

---

Thank you for your answer, Patrick. I do not own the book and had always thought n° 4 Mk I rifles were wartime production, hence my question, but the use of brand new receivers does make sense.
Yes, indeed, I was very lucky to chance on that rifle, all the more so as the price it was sold for was quite decent according to French standards.
One should also note that the markings are not electropencilled, but it looks like engraving them was common practice at Enfield in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

---------- Post added at 11:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mk VII

Some have got the ejector screw (because it fastens on the PH5C sight) some have not, it has no other function. Some are built on No.5 bodies.

---

I had the feeling that those with the ejector screw - the older rifles - had been built using parts salvaged from scrapped n° 4 and 5 rifles. Is this assumption correct?

I think they were all unused actions. The 5's were probably left over from No.5 production, maybe partially finished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mk VII

I think they were all unused actions. The 5's were probably left over from No.5 production, maybe partially finished.

---

I must say I had tried to find out about that for quite a long time but the question had apparently never been raised or, at least, had never seemed to attract the attention of Lee-Enfield enthusiasts.

I under stand the number 8 used the PH D receiver sight that used a much higher drilled and taped hole on the left side of the receiver to attach it .

I wanted to thank everybody on here for their messages - I now have a clearer idea of how these rifles were made and where their constitutive elements came from.
I would be curious to know how many No.8 MkI trainers underwent FTR at Enfield in the late 60s - Ian Skennerton states that "Quite a few of the No. 8 rifles also bear Enfield receiver markings 'UE' followed by the year and the FTR mark." (The Lee-Enfield, A Century of Lee-Metford & Lee-Enfield Rifles & Carbines (page 508) but that does not tell us how many were actually FTR'ed at that time.

This one is actually my second Lee-Enfield trainer, the first one being an ex-1916 BSA Mk III* SMLE converted to a No.2 Mk IV* rifle. I am also into WW2 British uniform collecting, which is rather consistent with the taste I am developing for Lee-Enfield rifles, I think :D

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...GZ38O5Th-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ISmFcpIh-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tr63

I under stand the number 8 used the PH D receiver sight that used a much higher drilled and taped hole on the left side of the receiver to attach it .

---

I had not really noticed the screw on the left side, next to the safety lever, or, at least, had thought it served some practical purpose on the rifle as it is, but upon closer scrutiny I was able to see that it is not present on all No. 8 rifles - do you think it would be possible to ascertain which of the numerous PH sights had once been attached to this rifle?

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...zNtTJV2h-1.jpg

PH No 5D was used for the No8 it did not use the threaded hole as used for the ejector on the No4 .It had a higher mounting arm than the PH 5 and used threaded holes on the left side of the receiver. One that was much higher then found on the .303 cal. No4 and the hole just in front of the safety . that is not found on the No4 .