Peter: seen this low axis pin on many No4s?

[RJW NZ]

I'm going to toss in a wrench to two, as during the restoration of my no1mk6 1930 I discovered that same problem, the rear sight is too low to allow rotation to its rest.

Its part of the reason I've been trying to find out what the original sight maker was for these. I settled for now on a B marked sight and I radiused the front corner where the sight engages the plunger. The problem is that now it folds but isn't as firmly held in the upright or down locations as a stock no4.

Eventually a light came on; these rifles didn't use the stock no4 set up, they used a ball/spring set up, ala no1 mk5, which would remove the plunger. It does make enough room for rotation.

I'm yet to get around to trying out this new set up. Likewise my rifle shows no sign of being messed around with in the pivot area.

Maybe, your rifle has a long story and who knows why used a ball/spring setup.

[jmoore]

Any resolution on this little mystery? ( I was looking for something else, but its still interesting.)

[madcratebuilder]

Did Thunderbox ever supply a measurement from the top of the ear the the base at the plunger hole? I got to quit coming here, the more I read, the less I know. That is an odd duck.

[RJW NZ]

Did Thunderbox ever supply a measurement from the top of the ear the the base at the plunger hole? I got to quit coming here, the more I read, the less I know. That is an odd duck.

I'm sticking to my observation on my no1 mk6, that the rear sight pivot is set up lower because the receiver was intended for a different detent system, ie ball and spring ala no1mkv 1922 ish, and that the later system requires a bit more room because of that flat head on top of the plunger.

As for people discovering this on rifles other than the mkV and mkV1, my educated guess is that they are prefix A marked receivers from the early era that were put back into the system.

I keep pointing this out but never hear a comment from anyone in acknowledgment.?

I'll come back to this post with pics and measurements in an hour or so.

Here's the skinny
My 1955 measures .3795 (ie 5 under .380) from the top of the sight axle to the deck of the receiver beside the plunger hole.
The 1930 measures .310 in the same place.

The difference = .0695

(The thickness of the cap on the plunger is .05, so its not an obvious connection.)

Plungers also do not fit the 1930 unless I dremel the diameter down a bit, that hole where the spring lives is definitely narrower than on later enfields, no plungers I've tried will fit without modifying them first.

[Peter Laidler]

Take it from me madcrate, this No4 rifle was NEVER passed for any service as it is. Never, ever in a thousand years. If you couldn't get a bolt in or out or the backsight..., of whatever mark/type, up or down, it will NEVER have passed even the most basic cursory inspection by an Armourer.

That axis pin hole is a datum for several operations during its life.

[RJW NZ]

1955 and 1930 pics showing the height difference and where it was measured.

1955 = .3795 inch, or 5 thou under .380
1930 = .310 inch.

For what its worth I have a nasty feeling my little collection will be for sale soon, including the 1930.

[RJW NZ]

Take it from me madcrate, this No4 rifle was NEVER passed for any service as it is. Never, ever in a thousand years. If you couldn't get a bolt in or out or the backsight..., of whatever mark/type, up or down, it will NEVER have passed even the most basic cursory inspection by an Armourer.

That axis pin hole is a datum for several operations during its life.

Hi Peter,
When I found the 1930 it was in well used non original wood, however the bore is very good and the 'bluing or whatever it is' across all the metal work is in much much better condition, almost as though it had not seen much service, I wonder if your comment might be the reason it survived so well. The rifle is stamped no1 mk6, and also stamped with an A prefixed number, so I would have though it served someplace.
Who/what factory do you think put these A serial numbered stamps on the rifle? Was it enfield themselves?
cheers,
2010 and we're already knee deep in minuta, I love it.

[No4Mk1(T)]

For what its worth I have a nasty feeling my little collection will be for sale soon, including the 1930.

That sounds very ominous. Hope all is well.

[Surpmil]

Here's a photo of two I had; 1931 on the right side and 1935 on the left. (Not a very good photo as it is a jpg of a 35mm print.)

One can see how the 'shoulder' that extends from the rear sight axis hole 'lug' along the bolt way 'makes sense' in the original design, but as modified from 1935, there is a piece of the shoulder 'left hanging'.

Notice that the area milled out is 'in the white'.

[RJW NZ]

Here's a photo of two I had; 1931 on the right side and 1935 on the left. (Not a very good photo as it is a jpg of a 35mm print.)

One can see how the 'shoulder' that extends from the rear sight axis hole 'lug' along the bolt way 'makes sense' in the original design, but as modified from 1935, there is a piece of the shoulder 'left hanging'.

Notice that the area milled out is 'in the white'.

Thanks Surpmil, thats a great picture worth a thousand words.
I wonder if what we're looking at on the left, 1935, is what you get when an early receiver has that extra metal milled off (.069) to allow fitting of a conventional sight.
That has other implications if thats so. A mk6, rare as hens already, that is in its original low axle form is now going to be even more rare, if some were modified for service by having this milling done to allow fitting of the conventional no4 sights. Rejoice owners of virgin mk6's, your rifles just went up by a grand.