Enforcer - "Happy Days"

[Thunderbox]

it seems that so far its 2:1 to Parker Hale fitting the woodwork.

Enforsore and his Home Office document = Parker Hale
Peter Laidler & major XXX = Parker Hale (or some contractor but not Enfield)

Thunderbox = Enfield.
Thunderbox - do you have any documentory evidence or first hand knowledge to support your proposition ?

Alan,

You're leaping ahead a bit, and blurring the distinction between component manufacturing and component fitting.

You also cannot take a GSR as any sort of proof of proccess. I've been involved in many MoD procurements: GSR's, specifications and official requirements often bear little relation to what actually happens later in procurement and/or production.

As Peter confirms, the forends and handguards were mostly contracted out for production - but that is nothing to do with fitting and assembly.

Parker Hale appears never to have made "L39" spec forend conversions - their own 7.62mm target rifles used a variety of one-off cut No4 forends that usually extend for at least 1" in front of the mid band. Parker Hale also never made its own Monte Carlo butts; these - and most of their sporting rifle woodwork - were made by SILE in Italy, and were bog standard commercial items available from other sources by mail order.

The only newish evidence we have is that Enfieldlock's colleague asserts that the scopes were fitted at Enfield. That is a significant point.

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]

Alan,

You're leaping ahead a bit, and blurring the distinction between component manufacturing and component fitting.

You also cannot take a GSR as any sort of proof of proccess. I've been involved in many MoD procurements: GSR's, specifications and official requirements often bear little relation to what actually happens later in procurement and/or production.

As Peter confirms, the forends and handguards were mostly contracted out for production - but that is nothing to do with fitting and assembly.


The only newish evidence we have is that Enfieldlock's colleague asserts that the scopes were fitted at Enfield. That is a significant point.

When I had a 'real' job I worked for a company supplying parts to the MOD, the Company was DEF approved, but the components still had to be individually submitted and approved. Contracts for supply were closely monitored with random visits / inspections, no-way would we have considered changing / resourcing a part from that initially approved, neither would we have sub-contracted something for which we were supposed to manufacture. I'm sure skullduggery did happen but to have a specification saying PH were to fit the woodwork and then do it themselves - Hmmm ?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Laidler made mention about the screw holes for the scope mounts
"That's how they were delivered. A rifle similar to the L39. They had a telescopic sight facility. Whether this was simply the BLOCKS or just tapped holes is not known. What we do know is that there were many occasions where the tele sight block holes above the receiver/breeching-up were subsequently deepened, into the barrel, almost into the chamber. Indeed some eventually bulged fired cases INTO the weakened hole. Enfield got the blame of course but in all seriousness, Enfield have been in the game tooooo long to pull a stunt like that."

Who drilled the holes in the first place and then who 'subsequently deepened' them ?

Enfieldlock (who with his background is probably the closest to the people who know) says 100% that RSAF fitted the scopes.

Question - why would RSAF ship barreled actions (maybe / maybe not with the woodwork fitted) for PH (or an other contractor) to drill the holes / fit the scope mounts, for it to be then shipped back to RSAF to have the scopes mounted ?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Who manufactured / fitted the special 'small' safety catch ?
Who manufactured / fitted the front and rear iron sights ?
Who manufactured the forend / handguard - Colin Moon ? Who then fitted it ?
Assuming SILE manufactured the Butt, who purchased / imported it ?, we are led to believe that C Moon modified the butts to suit the No4, who then fitted it to the action ?

Documentary evidence says Parker Hale -

For some reason Thunderbox thinks otherwise.

I'll ask again - do you have any docmentary evidence or even 1st or 2nd hand 'word of mouth' to support your proposition that the work was not carried out in accordance with :

a) The Home Office Specification (The nominated weapon is based on the Service L39A1 Target Rifle, produced by the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield and modified by Parker-Hale Limited of Birmingham - who fit a suitable telescope sight target sights and alternative butt.) &

b) The Home Office Circular 176/72 (Firearms for Police use in Peacetime)
dated 29th September 1972 (It will be manufactured by the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield and sent to Messrs Parker Hale Ltd. in Birmingham for a suitable stock to be attached, for the telescope and mounts to be fitted, and for other minor modifications).


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thunderbox - you asked for pictures of the bolt ;
Sorry for the pood pictures my son has the 'good' camera. This one is hopeless with the flash.

Rear of Bolt handle showing rifle number 134 in the same font, colour and size as the rest of the rifle markings.



On the top of the bolt handle - crossed pennants and 19T with other very small indeciperable stampings



On the Bolt head - crossed pennants & 19T, on the other side of the bolt head is a very small 'crown' with what looks like a stylised G beneath it.

[Alan de Enfield]

Well - managed to get a hour at the range today, after a bit of 'playing' with the No4 and the No7 thought it was time to give the New Girl a try-out.

Fiddled about a bit with the scope to get on the 12" targets and warm the barrel up and then tried the smaller targets.

1st shot low and slightly right, moved left (too far) then up, shots 4, 5, and 6 not a bad group just need to move right a couple of clicks.

I'll get it better next time when the eyes are not tired. - I should have started with the Enforcer first I guess.

Considering the 'pass' requirements for the Enforcer :
"On test each rifle must make a satisfactory group of 10 rounds within an area 2.6" x 2.6" at 100 yards, or proportionately at other distances".
I'm not unhappy.