Any ideas?
Attachment 118303Attachment 118304Attachment 118305Attachment 118306Attachment 118307
Printable View
First one of these I have seen, a very interesting Indian variation. No gas vent/range adjuster so I would assume it would be fitted on an armored vehicle for smoke duties.
Doesn't look like a pukka military variation.
Grenade launcher brazed onto a No4 bayonet ..........................
The recoil loads would be all wrong as the mounting would not be central onto, and attached to the muzzle, the recoil load would be all offset down onto the bayonet lug.
Notes from Peter Laidler (31st August 2019)
If my memory serves me correctly, the internally threaded 'nozzle' should be backed up using the stock bolt bit until it is clear. Then the cup should be fitted to the rifle and closed down in the usual way. Then the nozzle, which is machined to form a slight concave to match that of the rifle muzzle, should be tightened/screwed down hard against the muzzle. This way, while the cup discharger is attached to the nose cap and ultimately the fore-end, the actual shock of discharge/recoil is directly down and through the barrel and body into the butt. And NOT the fore-end which will soon split!
Not a lot of people know that The reason that they don't know it is because the nozzle part of the cup discharger is missing OR is jambed (or is it jammed?) solid by the fine thread being absolutely gummed up with carbon. There is no known thread, it is just a thread over a diameter so far as I recall when I made several many years ago. When the cups were returned to Ordnance the instructions stated that the nozzle was to be removed, wrapped in oilcloth and retained inside the cup. But being Ordnance blanket stackers they probably lost thousands of them...........
There....., another totally useless bit of Enfield history knowledge
I'll bet fantasy piece to make them attractive to the collector community?
Jim,
Old ground but wasn't that image on the right the tunnel lads option in WW1???:lol: