It appears that you are you're enjoying our Military Surplus Collectors Forums, but haven't created an account yet. As an unregistered guest, your are unable to post and are limited to the amount of viewing time you will receive, so why not take a minute to Register for your own free account now? As a member you get free access to our forums and knowledge libraries, plus the ability to post your own messages and communicate directly with other members. So, if you'd like to join our community, please CLICK HERE to Register !
Already a member? Login at the top right corner of this page to stop seeing this message.
Too bad the stock has been "restored", but appears to be an interesting transitional piece from the MkII to MkIII.
Except for the aperture screwed onto the leaf, the sight appears to be a standard MkIII pattern, and does not look hand-made, so that is probably a later addition.
The charger bridge may be a replacement since the wear marks shown under the left hand edge cannot have been made by that bridge. Perhaps a Lyman No.50 sight was originally fitted that later went missing, or a different charger bridge.
The "H5" is probably for "Hughes" as Sir Charles was ever canny in seeking official approval; witness the many presentation rifle he sent to prominent officers and politicians.
The swell of the buttplate at the heel is much more pronounced than a Lee Enfield butt plate, and the tab on the butt-trap cover looks longer, the tang looks quite different too.
Have seen a trigger guard like that on some other rifle, but can't place it now.
“There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.”
The charger bridge may be a replacement since the wear marks shown under the left hand edge cannot have been made by that bridge. Perhaps a Lyman No.50 sight was originally fitted that later went missing, or a different charger bridge.
When looking at the video it would had surprised me myself that someone would try to submit a military rifle where one needs to lift the rear sight to allow a stripper clip to be used. The sheet metal basis for the rear sight could had been extended to the rear to allow clearance, but of course then would had partially covered the rear bolt end. Still better than to limit reloading. Your picture makes it clear the rifle most possibly originally had another rear sight that probably got missing and got replaced with what was thought to be "more correct".
PM
Originally Posted by soonerfan66
