No1 trigger in no1mk3

[pisco]

You are right Alan
muffet calls it the ball and socket referring to the trigger assembly
Of all my Lithgow smle s my 1915 is the best I have pulled it apart and compared it to other triggers and can’t pick anything different
As I said I have the parts on hand and was trying to get a better trigger on one of my smle s

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.

[englishman_ca]

I am missing something here? The question is has anybody tried fitting a No.1's trigger in a No.1 Mk.III rifle???

Yup, it fits!

I think that we might be are we referencing a MLM Mk.I trigger? or a MLE Mk.I??

I had a MLM Mk.1 with a No.4 trigger, No.5 sear. The two stage pull off was superb!

[Alan de Enfield]

I am missing something here? The question is has anybody tried fitting a No.1's trigger in a No.1 Mk.III rifle???

Yup, it fits!

I think that we might be are we referencing a MLM Mk.I trigger? or a MLE Mk.I??

I had a MLM Mk.1 with a No.4 trigger, No.5 sear. The two stage pull off was superb!

I think we have run it down as a "ShtLE 1" (Post #11)

It just goes to show that the use of the correct nomenclature is very important when discussing Enfield's - so many very close numbers / names get even one digit out and you end up with a totally different rifle.

[englishman_ca]

As far as I know, the designers at Enfield were very cognoscente of the advantage of retro compatibility. Whenever a change, slight or small was made to an assembly or component, its effect on universal compatibility was taken into account. For example, the sear/mag release spring is identical on all models from 1888 up until the close of production in the 1950s. The striker, cocking piece and entire trigger group can be taken from a Lee Metford long Tom and fitted to a No.5. and vici verci.

There was a huge design change in the trigger and sear from Lee's original design used in the Mk.I Lee Metford, to Enfield's ball and socket design in the Metford Mk.II. A totally different system of mechanical transmission of movement, yet I can still later use the later ball and socket sear with the early Metford trigger.
All tricks of the trade and handy to know when trying to keep something serviceable and parts are scarce.


As far as I know, a two stage trigger from a Sht.Le Mk.I will function in the Sht.Le Mk.II cond, Mk.III, Mk.IV, Mk.V, Mk.IV and subsequent No.4 and No.5 rifles.
They are all interchangeable and can be fitted. Smart chaps at Enfield!

[pisco]

Without been nasty or smart The Australian members new what I was talking about straight away with out been technical I’m sorry I did not say ball and socket 1st time it may have helped some people
I didn’t think it was a hard question to ask once again thanks muffet

[englishman_ca]

After a little clarification, I now understand your question.

You say that you tried the ball and socket trigger and sear, but you found it to be heavy? No, the sear isn't the part that needs to be reworked, it is the cocking piece.

The bent face on the cocking pieces of the two trigger systems are at different angles.
The ball and socket cocking piece has an angled bent, whereas the two stage trigger with the bumps cocking piece bent is steeper and more perpendicular to the sear.

So, if you install the ball and socket in a Sht.LE and dont change to the matching cocking piece, or rework the angle of the bent, yes, a very heavy trigger.
The two stage has more mechanical advantage.

Going the other way, try a bolt with a long Lee cocking piece in a Sht.LE that has the two stage trigger group, the trigger is super light, too light (but crisp!!).

Noted; Ozzys refer to a MLE type trigger as a No.1. (I'm in Canada eh?)

[muffett.2008]

Funny that we are discussing this combination, I have a 1912 BSA 22 target configuration with this combination.
I had it to the range a week ago, it gave me grief as the trigger was far too light, to the stage where it would override, changing the cocking piece with a later angled one created a very heavy trigger, the balance was somewhere in between the two angles.....or increase the angle of the bent to give a fraction more contact without decreasing the angle of the sear.

Will play with it a bit more this week....this rifle holds the Club Fly record with a group of .203, so I will not be putting in a later trigger and sear.

[Bindi2]

Funny that we are discussing this combination, I have a 1912 BSA 22 target configuration with this combination.
I had it to the range a week ago, it gave me grief as the trigger was far too light, to the stage where it would override, changing the cocking piece with a later angled one created a very heavy trigger, the balance was somewhere in between the two angles.....or increase the angle of the bent to give a fraction more contact without decreasing the angle of the sear.

Will play with it a bit more this week....this rifle holds the Club Fly record with a group of .203, so I will not be putting in a later trigger and sear.

Muff you can shoot that well I am impressed.

[englishman_ca]

Trigger work is something that should not be done trial and error. There will always be safety concerns.

Many of the rifles that I gathered up from hunt camps and cottages have been used as deer rifles for generations. Often the trigger has been 'reworked' to a point where it is no longer safe. Banging a cocked rifle's butt on the floor will set the thing off (damn! Another hole in the roof to fix!).

Most times, if I see that somebody has been dicking with the cocking piece, I don't even try to fix, I will bin it and replace it with one that is still factory profile. There seems to be a commonality to the way that the modifications are done. Seems Bubba thinks that he knows better than the factory.

Changing that angle of the sear bent is the prescribed way to change trigger weight and let off, yes. But way too easy to screw it up. Extra filing will not fix it. Once that bent is moved back a few thou, then other problems will start to mainifest with the half cock catching, so Bubba files a chamfer on the underside of the cocking piece to allow the sear to clear the half bent. Then the safety might be difficult to engage, so Bubba files the locking bolt tip..... it ends up being a mess.

I do tune triggers, but mostly just fine polishing without changing angles to make mating surfaces mirror smooth is all that is needed. It does make a noticeable difference to the feel of the trigger at the finger tip.

At the work bench, if you have the luxury of a bin of spares, switching out the pieces, which might include even the trigger guard, is the way to go until a sweet match is found. I will avoid screwing around modifying and removing material.

I have some early Metford cocking pieces that I bought that were probably found at the bottom of somebodies junk drawer. They all have been ruined just by a few strokes of a file. The only way to restore them back to useful condition is to have the bent built back up with a blob of mig welding and then to re profile them back to factory specs. Only worth the effort because the parts are rare and very difficult to source.

[pisco]

I’m with you Englishman I’m not into filling the trigger sear i only polish things up on a stone or 1000gt wet and dry