Enfield enforcer #189

[Thunderbox]

I originally thought it was "mid 200's" but 395 has the milled oval, whilst 414 doesnt so it looks as if the change was nearer 400.

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t...ntation1-1.jpg

I have 332 - and have a couple of others +/- a few numbers in the low 300s - and they were all standard "flat side" rifles.

I know that there is a justification for the "double ovoid" rifles, but I personally would not touch one with a barge pole... still find it hard to accept that Enfield would make such a crude lash-up in milling out "old Envoy marks".

E.g. Here is some food for thought: the rifle immediately before your 395:

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.

[Alan de Enfield]

E.g. Here is some food for thought: the rifle immediately before your 395:

http://pic100.picturetrail.com/VOL60.../395210867.jpg

Thanks Thunderbox - Its not my rifle, its just one of the pictures and part of the information I have accrued towards (hopefully one day) the booklet I hope to produce.
This is why I've been doing the FOI requests, tracking down the named people who received them etc etc.
One of the Enforcers was sent to ERDE (Explosives Research & Development Establishment) in Waltham Abbey - later renamed Royal Armamant Research & Developement Establishment (RARDE) I have been fortunate to find the now very elderly gentleman who it was issued to to undertake experiments.

Inspector T Bxxxxxxx was the officer receiving the Enforcers in the Devon & Cornwall Police.

I know the name of the Assembly shop foreman at Enfield (Mr J. Kxxxxxx) but cannot trace him - he was responsible for scrapping 9 (nine) Enforcers which failed testing.

Its a frustrating project with many twists and turns but one I feel should be done before we lose all / any of the knowledge we still retain.
How can there be so much mystery around a rifle where so few were produced, and realatively, so recently

[PrinzEugen]

I have 332 - and have a couple of others +/- a few numbers in the low 300s - and they were all standard "flat side" rifles.

I know that there is a justification for the "double ovoid" rifles, but I personally would not touch one with a barge pole... still find it hard to accept that Enfield would make such a crude lash-up in milling out "old Envoy marks".

E.g. Here is some food for thought: the rifle immediately before your 395:

My very early 300 series is flat sided no oval.