Center Sling Swivel

[bigstick61]

Where these compatible with multiple Lee-Enfield types or are they specifically for one model (such as a No.1 or No.4)? I don't mean in terms of historical accuracy, but rather in terms of being capable of installallation and being used without modification. I've been using an Uncle Mike's swivel on the trigger guard loop for the moment so I could use my Ching sling on my No. 5 but I'd like to get a proper swivel.

I ask because I saw this on ebay, but the buyer was not sure, saying he had bought it for his No.1 but that's all:

SMLE Lee Enfield Parker Hale Sniper/Target sling swivel - eBay (item 260640586246 end time Aug-03-10 20:40:46 PDT)

He also has another swivel made by Lithgow on ebay.

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.

[Badger]

There's an excellent discussion about sling swivels under most Knowledge Library entries for various No.4(T)'s ...

As an example, check the "Collectors Comments and Feedback" for:

Milsurp Knowledge Library - 1944 Enfield No.4 Mk1(T) Sniper Rifle

Regards,
Badger

[Peter Laidler]

If you want a front trigger guard swivel for your No5, then look no further than the standard No4T or No8 rifle trigger guard sling loop. Not original but it a) fits and b) has the correct thread and c) is a straightforward fit too. And easy to remove when you want to sell it in its original configuration. Or you could use the slightly longer commercial alternative. But you can't use a trigger guard sling swivel from a No1 rifle because the threads are incompatible. If I've spelt 'incompatible' rong, then reed it as 'not the same..........'

[Mk VII]

List No.215J has the right 1/4 BSF thread for No.4 and No.5 rifles. Use no other for the thread will not be right.

[RJW NZ]

Just in case this answers some aspect of the question; the front trigger guard screw on a no1 mk3, and the same on a no4 mk1 etc have different threads. The no 1 is a finer thread. They are very not interchangable without severely damaging something important, the threads in the receiver.
All screws on no1 mk3's have a slight dome to them, and all screws on no4 enfields are distinctly flat across their top, so at a glance you can sort them out from each other.

[bigstick61]

If you want a front trigger guard swivel for your No5, then look no further than the standard No4T or No8 rifle trigger guard sling loop. Not original but it a) fits and b) has the correct thread and c) is a straightforward fit too. And easy to remove when you want to sell it in its original configuration. Or you could use the slightly longer commercial alternative. But you can't use a trigger guard sling swivel from a No1 rifle because the threads are incompatible. If I've spelt 'incompatible' rong, then reed it as 'not the same..........'

Good to know. So besides a flat end of the screw are there any other distingusihing characteristics that one can see from decent pictures on the Internet? Would it be safe to assume that the POI would not be impacted by the use of the shooting sling given that that seems to be the intended purpose for the swivel? When I eventually glass-bed my rifle, will use of the swivel have to be taken itno account in some fashion?

And while we're on the topic of my No. 5, would an armorer replacing the stock on a Lee-Enfield replace it with one that had been marked by the user of the rifle the replacement wood came from? I ask because my rifle seems to have five notches cut parellel to each other on top of the wrist of the stock with the cuts looking like they came from a knife and I was curious as to whether the user of my rifle or the rifle the wood was original to would have cut those in. My stock is force-matched. My rifle also came from Malaysia I assume, since it is marked "FMP."

[finloq]

All screws on no1 mk3's have a slight dome to them, and all screws on no4 enfields are distinctly flat across their top, so at a glance you can sort them out from each other.

That is a very basic and usefull tip.

[Peter Laidler]

I don't quite understand the question regarding Armourers replacing the wood Big Stick. But if you mean after stripping it down to do a repair or something such like, then they'd ALWAYS replace it with the same wood. That is part of its accuracy (or lack of it in the case of a hot No5.....!). But if it was to be replaced because it was loose or battered and bruised, then we didn't care who made it. We'd just fit it properly, re-number it to suit and send it out. But generally speaking, those No5's that had seen a lot of service could have very loose fore-ends longitudinally. We'd refit a replacement that might possibly be a used one from another rifle, patched up, deep linseed treated and sent out again. The heat, stifling humidity and rain plus the salt water silt were very unforgiving to No4 and 5 woodwork and it's suprising that some lasted more than a few years.

Anyway, when we got a batch of re-useable fore-ends we'd have a bit of a run and patch them up with new draws etc dry them out, bath them in linseed and leave them on the shelf for the next batch of needy rifles. Another thing that would make a fore-end scrap was the top sling band because while the leading scouts used shotguns, those following had machettes and had the rifle slung so it was always pulling against the sling band that would chomp its way into the contracting and expanding wood. And if salt water got under the fore-end cap, then forget it. It would start to rust within about 10 minutes so off they came. The holes would be glued and plugged and the fore-end made off to shape.
Anyway, does that sort of answer the question, even if I didn't quite fully understand it?

[bigstick61]

I don't quite understand the question regarding Armourers replacing the wood Big Stick. But if you mean after stripping it down to do a repair or something such like, then they'd ALWAYS replace it with the same wood. That is part of its accuracy (or lack of it in the case of a hot No5.....!). But if it was to be replaced because it was loose or battered and bruised, then we didn't care who made it. We'd just fit it properly, re-number it to suit and send it out. But generally speaking, those No5's that had seen a lot of service could have very loose fore-ends longitudinally. We'd refit a replacement that might possibly be a used one from another rifle, patched up, deep linseed treated and sent out again. The heat, stifling humidity and rain plus the salt water silt were very unforgiving to No4 and 5 woodwork and it's suprising that some lasted more than a few years.

Anyway, when we got a batch of re-useable fore-ends we'd have a bit of a run and patch them up with new draws etc dry them out, bath them in linseed and leave them on the shelf for the next batch of needy rifles. Another thing that would make a fore-end scrap was the top sling band because while the leading scouts used shotguns, those following had machettes and had the rifle slung so it was always pulling against the sling band that would chomp its way into the contracting and expanding wood. And if salt water got under the fore-end cap, then forget it. It would start to rust within about 10 minutes so off they came. The holes would be glued and plugged and the fore-end made off to shape.
Anyway, does that sort of answer the question, even if I didn't quite fully understand it?

Very interesting information, thank you. My stock has the problem you mention regarding the wood around the band. The wood forward of the band had been gouged out pretty bad allowing a lot of play. Not having any experience with woodwork and having a low budget I filled it in with wood dough and that seems to have held up pretty well (although by no means does it ook pretty). The fore end was also pretty warped, but a bit of sanding prevented contact with the barrel.

A couple of things I'm wondering is if an armorer, when replacing all of the wood from a No. 5, would use wood that had been defaced in any way (such as carvings with a knife) by the user of the rifle the replacement wood is coming from, or was that simply not a concern? I am also wondering if the use of the center sling swivel will affect point of impact when used with a shooting sling (I am assuming no since that appears to me to be how it was meant to be used) and if it needs to be taken into consideration when bedding the stock, as I intend to do this sometime in the near future?

[Peter Laidler]

As Armourers, we wouldn't fit wood that was battered about or gouged as you say. Big offenders for that were the New Zealand Maouris who would carve the handguards of their L1A1 rifles. But if they came in to us like that, they'd be replaced. I had a beautiful set from an L1A1, all carved with a Kiwi bird surfing on a surfboard wielding a machette or some sort of a knife, maybe a 'gollock' that we were issued with. Carved underneath were the words 'death and torture to all VC'. VC being the Viet Cong. But no, we'd replace butched woodwork.