Trials No.4 Rear Sight

[EarlyFours]

According to Skennerton, after Dunkirk the No 1 Mk VI and No 4 Mk 1 rifles used in the
trials during the '30s were removed from storage and sent Enfield for refurbishment. There
were 2 types of rear sights on the No 4s, the first which used a ball and spring detent
mechanism, and the second a plunger and spring detent mechanism. During the refurbishment
was the detent mechanism upgraded to the plunger and spring, or left as it was ??
In particular, were any of the rifles coverted to Snipers left with the ball and spring ??

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Peter Laidler]

I can tell you that 6 No4 trials rifles were returned to their ancestral home, deemed suitable for conversion to L42 specification. 4 were rejected because the backsight configuration, indicating a ball and plunger or just a rounded plunger could not accomodate the standard No4 backsight that was necessary in order to standardise the L42.

Those 4 were rejected and only two former trials rifles were converted to L42 specification. Both the remaining two rifles are known to this forum.

So the answer to your question is that certainly 4 ball and spring or rounded plunger type backsighted trials rifles were converted to T rifle spec. On that basis, then probably many many more were too

[RJW NZ]

My 'favorite' topic, but I see a fair question. My 1930/V1 came without a rear sight so I don't know what the set up was. Are there any features on the receiver that might reveal if its set up for ball or plunger? ie hole diameter/depth. There is something odd about this hole on mine, some plungers fit, others don't. Thanks R

[Thunderbox]

My 'favorite' topic, but I see a fair question. My 1930/V1 came without a rear sight so I don't know what the set up was. Are there any features on the receiver that might reveal if its set up for ball or plunger? ie hole diameter/depth. There is something odd about this hole on mine, some plungers fit, others don't. Thanks R

If you look at the part of the receiver that has the hole for the plunger/ball, the rifles fitted for the spring & ball have about 1/16" more metal. This is why, if you fit a standard Mk1 rearsight and plunger, the sight will not rotate, but simply jams on the plunger.

[Enfieldlock]

The very first off No4s assembled at Faz (1940/41) from components made at RSAF in the mid-30s still used the ball and spring set up. However the Enfield made sight was 6-click to a complete turn as opposed to the original four click job. Serials had an "A" suffix.

[Peter Laidler]

Presumably on these rifles (the one shown in Thunderbox's picture), you just need to remove the plate part of the plunger and round the plunger off - or cut the plunger short and insert a .2" ball to 'cure' the problem.

This wasn't acceptable for the L42 as the MoD required standardisation and not a mix and match

[Surpmil]

So presumably two of those No4(T)s were built on Model C trials No4's, or were more bodies/rifles converted to that spec. than just the 57 referenced in The British Service Lee?

[Peter Laidler]

Is that a statement or a question Rob? If it's a question that relates to the L42's, you'll have to elaborate please.............

[Peter Laidler]

L42 BACKSIGHT ASSEMBLY (shown on right), fresh out of the original Ordnance wrapper dated 1980. Nothing out of the ordinary that your average Joe would notice until it’s compared with the standard .303” No4T backsight on the left. Now notice that the index line on the sliding cursor is lower down the scale. In fact, it’s .070” lower down the scale which ensures that the 7.62mm rifle can use the old .303” yards leaf SCALE if used in conjunction with the 7.62mm calibrated cursor and using METRES instead of the old YARDS.

Good in theory but flawed in practice when after a couple of hundred yards, it equated to, well, nothing really. But if you zero your L42 in at 300 metres – or yards, using the new fangled iron sights, you can be assured a body hit at between 100 and 600 metres….., or is it yards?

Attachment 18595



L42 BACKSIGHT CURSOR.
Because the 7.62mm L42 backsight sliding cursor (on right) differs from the standard .303” rifle part, it is distinctly marked M for METRES/METRIC so that the unwary will easily spot the difference. Many L42’s now in private hands unknowingly have standard No4T backsights fitted.

Attachment 18597


There again, in close up. The distinct difference between the cursor index marks are clearly shown. Don’t think that new cursor slides were made for the L42 programme. No, old stocks of sights were stripped. The old and worn out were replaced and the cursor index line filed clear and re-marked with a lined punch and then re-assembled.

Full standardization was required for the L42 programme and this ensured that any rifle that was unable to conform to the spec, such as those few Mk1/2’s (and maybe 1/3’s) or trials rifles that would not accept the standard L42 backsight were sifted and rejected out of hand.

Attachment 18596

Note: After you click on images to ENLARGE them, you may find they automatically size smaller in your browser's window making them harder to view. The auto sizing is your browser's way of keeping images entirely within the screen size you have set. Move your mouse pointer to the bottom centre of the pic and you will see an options panel appear. There will be a small square box next to the large X, which will have a pointer arrow sticking out of it. If it's illuminated, it means the pic you're viewing can be enlarged, so click on this box and the pic will EXPAND and open to its normal size.

[Surpmil]

Is that a statement or a question Rob? If it's a question that relates to the L42's, you'll have to elaborate please.............

Peter, if I understood correctly, the previous poster mentioned that there were two L42s built on "Trials No4" bodies which did not use the normal "trials" backsight, but rather what became the standard MkI pattern with plunger rather than ball.

From what I've read of your research and Ian Skennerton's, there were only 57 Model C rifles built with that later pattern of backsight & plunger, so I was wondering aloud if those two L42s were built from Model C trials rifles, or built from other bodies/actions/rifles that were on hand at RSAF(E) which had been built or modified to accept the standard MkI backsight & plunger?

Hang on....just rereading "The British Service Lee" now, (I'm out of date!) pps. 153-154, I see that on April 4, 1932 500 No4s were "ordered" with "plunger instead of a ball on the rearsight, along with a new type of spring, a new backsight with 6 clicks instead of 4 per segment of adjustment....These were modelled on the C pattern [trials rifle], and very similar to the eventual No.4 MkI service rifle."

So if those rifles were built, I guess that answers the first question as much as we can from this distance of time.

I'm sure the information on those two rifles came from your research, like so much other that we now bandy about(!); did you encounter any other trials rifle-based No4(T)s or L42s that had the standard pattern backsight?

No mention is made of the light alloy buttplate and sling swivel on the trigger guard that featured on the Model C rifles, so does this mean those features were dropped from that 500 rifles?