.22 Enfield's Part 5

[Peter Laidler]

Many of the UK Military No8's weren't made with the ejector screw hole either drilled or drilled but not tapped (was it 3 BA?). This was a C class/non immediate but do it if you see it or it needs doing sort of importance-modification or a Miscellaneous Instruction. Does anyone still have an undrilled/tapped one

[5thBatt]

Many of the UK Military No8's weren't made with the ejector screw hole either drilled or drilled but not tapped (was it 3 BA?). This was a C class/non immediate but do it if you see it or it needs doing sort of importance-modification or a Miscellaneous Instruction. Does anyone still have an undrilled/tapped one

Both of mine are undrilled.
Interestingly the BSA contract is stated as being for 2000 No8s, the No8s at the auction were from s/n DA101 though to DA1126, in every lot of 100 s/n eg 100-199 there were 20 to 30 rifles in that s/n range except DA1126 which was on its own & there was none with a higher serial number, this would leave about 1000 No8s unaccounted for??

[Peter Laidler]

What contract do you mean? The BSA/NZ Government contract? or the UK Ministry of Supply/BSA contract?

BSA sold to some of the small bore shooting clubs, commercially available No8 rifles within the DA range. After all, they were actually designed and formulated for the very purpose of acting like the No4 rifles but being as accurate as a commercial target rifle of the era. Even going to the length of having the rifling in the barrel tapering towards the muzzle.

Don't forget, BSA was a private company who made the No8 on contract t the Min of Supply and it was this commercial activity that brought the MoS attention to BSA! The MoS's main aim was to keep their OWN government factories employed so they stopped any further commercial sales by BSA and directed further orders to Fazakerley. Only Fazakerley, bless 'em couldn't come up with the goods so nobody got any more....., certainly commercially. That's not strictly correct because the MoS did supply South Africa (?) and certainly Rhodesia, Kenya and probably a few of the other armies down there. Can any of the expats from those places confirm this. Rhodesia certainly had them.

Where were we? Oh yes, where are the missing 1,000? The NZ order or the TOTAL BSA order?

[Terry Hawker]

Peter,

Thanks for clearing up something I have wondered about since March of1994, when I obtained my No.8.

It is a B.S.A., made in 1954, serial number A22859, built on a No. 5 action and wasn't drilled for the usual ejector screw. It was one of 75 imported from South Africa, through John Appleton in Virginia, for Victoria Trading Company, (prepare for incoming!), in early 1994. This was when V.T.C. was importing a large portion of the South African spares that went on the world market then. Of the 20-odd rifles I examined, only a few had South African property stamps on the receiver ring. Not surprisingly, those so marked had been used the most, so the relatively unissued example I selected does not have S.A. property marks, but, as all 75 that V.T.C. imported sold, I'm sure someone with one of the few S.A. marked examples can post a photo.

When I bought this rifle with the odd, (for a B.S.A.), serial number prefix, "The Lee-Enfield Story", was of no help, as this serial number range by B.S.A. was unmentioned. The later version, "The Lee-Enfield", also omits this information, but, oddly enough, in one of the books many typos, on page 559, where the serial number prefixes for Enfield and B.S.A. production No. 8's are transposed, this rifle actually makes the B.S.A. info partially correct, as it does have the "A" prefix.

Previously, on another forum, I asked about this particular B.S.A. contract and got no response. No one even hinted that there was the possibility of another B.S.A. contract, other than the one for New Zealand. Now we know differently, so thanks again, Peter, for another pearl of wisdom.

Regards,

Terry

[Brian Dick]

I had an identical BSA No.8Mk.1, also a South African owned rifle, sn. A22772. It was imported by myself from Canada along with 15 more BSA manufacture No.8's back in December 1996. It's since been sold along with the rest except for one other New Zealand owned BSA I kept for myself that's in need of some TLC. Incidentally, (I'm sure I'm repeating myself), when I applied for the import permit from BATFE Imports Branch, I was turned down flat as the No.8 wasn't included on the U.S. Curio and Relics list. I had it added with the usual petition process and used the advert from Victoria Trading, Co. to prove they'd been imported before. I guess John Appleton used some creative paperwork to get the previous batch in. We'll never know as he's now deceased.

[Mk VII]

I can't imagine many clubs would have brought the darned things. They did nothing that a Martini International couldn't do and I'll guess they were more expensive. Pretty much like the Champ/Land Rover choice ...

[Peter Laidler]

You're NEARLY right Mk7! When BSA was selling them, they WERE competitive. After all, BSA, as a private company knew how the market was. But when the Ministry decided that it was THEIR job to sell them, they didn't have to take into account market forces so they priced then to NOT sell. After all, they don't NEED to be competitive. As they say in Government financial circles '........other peoples money is no object'

I'm just telling it how it was and related to me and ...................

[5thBatt]

Peter, my understanding was, 2000 No8s by BSA for NZ all with the DA prefix s/n.
So does the 2000 apply to the contract size or the number of DA prefixed No8s?
I am now wondering if those A prefixed rifles at the auction were Faz made or not

[Peter Laidler]

5ht Batt asked about the missing 1000 or so DA numbered No8's. I would just assume that in the passage of time a largish quantity were worn out and scrapped. But these DA No8's were sold by BSA 'out of the back door' as a commercial deal between them and the NZ Government, without the knowledge of the property rights owner, the Ministry of Supply. They used the existing and now redundant No5 rifle bodies that were left over.

You'll probably notice that BSA never made No4 rifles for commercial sale as they did with No1 rifles. This was because the MoS contracts tied them down. They did of course FTR hundreds of thousands in the 50's for other nations

[Terrylee]

For your interest. Herewith a copy of page 35 of a South African military stocklist dated April, 1975 on which the No.8 appears.