Enfield No5 Trials

[capt14k]

Very nice. I was wondering exactly what Skennerton meant by the hung trigger.

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.

[Promo]

Very nice. I was wondering exactly what Skennerton meant by the hung trigger.

This - trigger is not attached to trigger guard but to the body of the rifle. Particular rifle shown is btw serial "E6" (void of any other markings) and also from the Faris collection and according to Skennerton the Predecessor to the D5E 171/X/8 project. Bob Faris also owned BB 1427 rifle from the D5E 171/X/8 project.

[capt14k]

This - trigger is not attached to trigger guard but to the body of the rifle. Particular rifle shown is btw serial "E6" (void of any other markings) and also from the Faris collection and according to Skennerton the Predecessor to the D5E 171/X/8 project. Bob Faris also owned BB 1427 rifle from the D5E 171/X/8 project.

Thank you for the info. I saw the picture of the attached trigger in the book, but always good to have additional info.

[Surpmil]

This - trigger is not attached to trigger guard but to the body of the rifle. Particular rifle shown is btw serial "E6" (void of any other markings) and also from the Faris collection and according to Skennerton the Predecessor to the D5E 171/X/8 project. Bob Faris also owned BB 1427 rifle from the D5E 171/X/8 project.

It would make sense that this was the earlier version as the concave radius left around the edge of the "gusset" would add more weight than the 90° corner on the later example shown on the previous page.
Considering how weight was carved off the No.5 I can't help wondering why the central hole was not larger - or were they trying to stiffen the action as well?
And if not, why not use something much smaller like the subsequent Mk.2 trigger mounting block?
If the zero ever did wander, that "gusset" would probably have cured the problem!

[Thunderbox]

It would make sense that this was the earlier version as the concave radius left around the edge of the "gusset" would add more weight than the 90° corner on the later example shown on the previous page.
Considering how weight was carved off the No.5 I can't help wondering why the central hole was not larger - or were they trying to stiffen the action as well?
And if not, why not use something much smaller like the subsequent Mk.2 trigger mounting block?
If the zero ever did wander, that "gusset" would probably have cured the problem!

If these rifles were indeed intended to be trialled for some sort of grenade launching, then the very large gusset would make sense in that it would reduce the bending motion between action body and the butt socket - given that the butt is not in line with the bore. Not that the Enfield receiver ever had any such structural issue - I'm not aware of any reports of butt sockets fracturing or similar.


I wonder about the grenade launching, though, as you'd think that such a test bed rifle would have other features intended to provide a base for this type of weapons system. E.g. perhaps an enlarged front band to support the grenade sight (as on Indian rifles), or an receiver flat for the same purpose, or perhaps a plain barrel extension ahead of the foresight suitable for whichever grenade launcher they had in mind.


The impression I get when handling my own rifle is that it is merely a test of the MkII system, and an attempt to make the whole No5 rear forend a lot more robust and stable. Given that standard No5s have very little bearing surface with which to achieve the free-floating barrel, that gusset gives a big flat bearing surface for the forend faces to be clamped to. I'd wonder if these rifles were possibly a concept for the once-mooted general issue of the No5 to replace the No4.