Now what was it called again?

[Alan de Enfield]

The Specification to govern Manufacture and Inspection 1909 calls it the body as a breakdown of parts on page 1 and 4, but by page 6 para.16, "the barrel will be submitted with the action attached for proof" (….so now we have a component with other parts attached) but by para 18 reverts to body again(but no moving parts attached) para 20 and 21 deals with the gauging of the body complete with fixed parts, no bolt or sears. Para 47 calls it the body for checking markings, but by para 47. a. it calls it the action and refers to smooth operation of the bolt.

India Inspections list it as the body, but Lithgow calls it the body, but then the action when assembled and tested.

Instructions to the Lithgow Inspectorate call it the body, action when assembled as per the Brit. Precis, but a memo dated 1922 with F.E. Harts name, referring to changes in Inspections, para 5. calls it Receiver, as does para 6(field Armourers).


Now I'd give Hart the benefit of the doubt here, my understanding was that he was either at Enfield Lock or in transit, so it's possible this memo may have been produced by Ratcliffe the Manager, he was a yank. But it just goes to show that if you are referring to the recent forging, block would be correct, the body then would be the bare assembly, action would include bolt and moving parts.....receiver, well that's with magazine and feeding rounds I guess.

By 1945 it appears to be the "Body Assembly" which consists of the "Body" and all it additional components.

The No4 had a "Body Mk1" which was for the No4 Mk1 rifle, and a "Body Mk2" which was for the No4 Mk1* rifle.

There was also Mk1, Mk2 and Mk3 barrels (5-groove, 2-groove and 'fabricated')

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.

[22SqnRAE]

Picking up on Alan and Muffet's seemingly different approaches, I'd suggest to those sitting on the sidelines, that this relevant and interesting discussion about exact inaccuracies demonstrates the essential requirement for all Enfielditis sufferers to eject two words from their vocabulary, permanently:

1. Always, and
2. Never

These two words can not be uttered with any confidence, relevance or accuracy when describing any aspect of the long and often confusing history of matters Lee Enfield.

And for the purists, let's be clear that this does include Rifles No 4, 5, 7 8 and 9 and the "L' series of 8, 39, 42 and Indian 2A.