Pachett v. Sterling Engineering Co.

[Lee Enfield]

My words were carefully selected for me.
Is there any reason for asking about the use of damaged or otherwise casings? I ask because at a certain point in production the collection of parts that make the casing become 'the master component' and are fully accountable and recorded. So after that point, then it is highly unlikely that a gun would change from something to something else. Add to this that throughout the production of gins at Sterling, their wastage of casings was negligible

The reason for inquiring is that a Mk7 and Mk5 share the same barrel retaining system and mid casing barrel bushing.

It seems to "stand to reason" that if one had a Mk5 casing (perhaps damaged when installing the front or rear surpressor bearing surfaces) it would be simply a matter of removing the (damaged) front casing section and "viola" a Mk7 has appeared (assuming the stock trunnion isn't installed yet).

This is based around incomplete casings rather than returned from service or to the factory completed guns.