Rare 22

[Son]

The Patt14 No1 I suspect was converted from a Sparkbrook LE1, probably post 1898 manufacture. It became a ConDII in 1905 and then a Westley Richards conversion Patt14No1. It's Aussie markings have "33" next to them, may be the year it got here? It's all original, all matching, as it was in 1915 (plus a few bumps and bruises)

My Short .22 II was converted from an 1899 Sparkbrook LE1* 1. Interesting markings on the butt socket with both the 1* and the 1, neither struck out. Pic below. Also on the recycling side of the discussion, here's the underside of the rear sight. No less than four serial numbers!

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.

[Lance]

The "1" under the "I*" means that it is a First Class Weapon. This is seen a lot on MLE Mk I's.

[Jc5]

I thought I'd throw this one into the mix. (Also posted over at gunboards).

Beyond what Skennerton has written on pp. 303-304 of "The Lee Enfield," has anyone discovered any more info on the No.4 rifles that were converted to trainers in Belgium in 1948?

Any more info on how many were made (Ian estimates less than 1,000)?
What does "AS Arm" mean? Who were the intended users of these rifles? Soldiers, cadets, civilian marksmen? Why was this particular conversion not adopted for later trainers? (I think it was certainly an interesting design).

Here are some pics of mine. The costs of my Lee Speed research are mounting, so I will be selling this No.4 off in the next week or so to help fund that project. I had planned to devote some some serious research time to this Belgian conversion when the Lee Speed work was done, but someone else will have to do it. Too little time.

Does anyone else have one? The only ones I have seen all have serial numbers in the 500 range.

[Jc5]

From Skennerton (p.303): "The bolthead is recessed and a spring-loaded striker utilised, the magazine has been modified with a newly machined steel platform with sprung ejector. The underside of the bolt head is grooved.... The ejector is novel, in being a spring loaded protrusion from the centre of the magazine follower." Skennerton shows photos of A. Abramson's rifle.

Here are some more pics of mine.

Numbers seem to be all matching. The original British serial number and 1943 date are still on the left side. The conversion number (582) is shown in the following places: on the left side of the receiver with the 1948 conversion date, on the front of the receiver next to what appear to be two Belgian proof marks near the gas port, on the wood fore-end below the ejector screw, and on the bolt handle. The last two digits (82) are stamped on the bolt head.

As Skennerton says in his book, there are parts from several manufacturers, fitted either at the time of the conversion to .22, or from previous FTR. For example, the cocking piece has the Long Branch (Ontario) logo, and the rear sight has the BSA factory code (M47). Because there are no FTR stamps, I would assume that the armorers in Belgium selected components from what they had in stock at the time of the conversion, and then numbered all the parts.

[Peter Laidler]

That's strange as it is amateurish JC because the ROF Fazakerley manufactured/converted some No5 rifles to .22 in 1948 along the lines of the No9 rifle. This was in an effort to convince the then War Office that their idea was suitable as the next service .22 rifle. I suppose it was, after a fashion...., if you just wanted a training rifle. But the .22" No8 did more, in that it was a competitive commercial rifle too that acted the same way as the No4 AND 5. Indeed, all (?) the Fazakerley production were based on unused No5lightweight bodies.

I understand that 25 No5's were converted and a similar amount of a similar concept produced by BSA. The nett result was the No8.

It's an interesting story that ought to be researched in more detail. We have some of the examples but no interest............. I have a .22" No5 though.

Quite honestly, the .22" No4 in JC's pictures comes from the same era but the quality is a bit, er...., what's the word I'm looking for..............? Yes, I've got it! It's not exactly Omega watch quality is it?

[John Sukey (Deceased)]

enfieldlock, A Thought just occurred to me, Skennerton's FIRST edition ONLY has 410 pages!

It's on page 329 of the first edition, however it IS on page 415 of the SECOND edition.