1931 No4Mk1 T

[stencollector]

Would that rifle have had the magazine cutoff actually fitted?

One of these trials T rifles walked in to the Brandon gunshow about 8 years back. Once I located the dealer who bought it, I bought it from him. As I walked around the show with it, I had one seller tell me "thats a real mixmaster you have there". Between the waisted front sight, the mag cutoff, and the round cocking knob, and the hinged barrel bands, he thought it had been assembled from a mix of no1, no3 and no4 parts.

The mag cutoff was standard on the trials rifles. One of the more obvious non-standard parts on the rifle was that there was a spring and ball bearing instead of the plunger and spring to detent the rear sight.

Funny thing about my rifle; a no4mk1 cruciform bayonet wouldn't fit onto it.

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.

[Cantom]

One of these trials T rifles walked in to the Brandon gunshow about 8 years back. Once I located the dealer who bought it, I bought it from him. As I walked around the show with it, I had one seller tell me "thats a real mixmaster you have there". Between the waisted front sight, the mag cutoff, and the round cocking knob, and the hinged barrel bands, he thought it had been assembled from a mix of no1, no3 and no4 parts.

The mag cutoff was standard on the trials rifles. One of the more obvious non-standard parts on the rifle was that there was a spring and ball bearing instead of the plunger and spring to detent the rear sight.

Funny thing about my rifle; a no4mk1 cruciform bayonet wouldn't fit onto it.

Did you keep it??? Love to see some pics...
I have to admit the non standard parts thing would scare me a bit, as where would you source the bits? I love being able to use any Enfield part on any Enfield...thus finding a complete one would be the best score. Still, I sure wouldn't have left the poster's rifle begging, it's a great acquisition.