No 1 Mk VI Converted to No 4 Mk I Sporter

[Surpmil]

What a pity those early rifles were "sought out and destroyed" when they could so easily have been sold off as so much was at the time.

[RJW NZ]

Hi Brian, here's a couple of pics of the mk6 receiver at top and a no4 T under, always interesting to look at the subtle differences.

How on earth did they put a rear scope pad on T trials snipers where that rear indentation is?

[limpetmine]

A No. 1 Mk VI and a Trials No. 4 Mk 1 are different critters, which is why there are no (T) No. 1 MkVI's, not enough receiver meat to hang the pads on. The No. 4 Trials program started in 1933 and paralleled the No. 1 MkVI for a short time, as it was the logical follow on of that program. They made around 2500 of the Trials No. 4's, and THOSE were the ones that the 1,000 or so (T)'s were made at Enfield in 1941. It's a neat history, and one that can drive you nuts. Corrections welcome if any (I'm sure there are).
ATB

Hi Brian, here's a couple of pics of the mk6 receiver at top and a no4 T under, always interesting to look at the subtle differences.

How on earth did they put a rear scope pad on T trials snipers where that rear indentation is?

[Brian B]

Hi Brian, here's a couple of pics of the mk6 receiver at top and a no4 T under, always interesting to look at the subtle differences.

How on earth did they put a rear scope pad on T trials snipers where that rear indentation is?

Roger,

Great pictures of the No 1 Mk VI receiver body. Looks just like the one I picked up. Looking forward to restoring it to No 4 Mk I configuration.

Brian

[jmoore]

Enfieldlock's chart indicates that No.4 Mk.I(T) rifles were made from No.1 Mk.VI rifles. but it doesn't match up in other respects as well. I think that's where the question of converting the No.1 Mk.VIs came from...

Actually, Brian B, your No.1 Mk.VI/ersatz No.4 Mk.1 looks possibly just a little different in sutble details from RJW NZ's. I will have opporunity to view in higher detail in about 12 hrs. or so, but yours is the first Fazackerly built one I've seen.

"Ve-we intallestinck!"

[Surpmil]

....Actually, Brian B, your No.1 Mk.VI/ersatz No.4 Mk.1 looks possibly just a little different in sutble details from RJW NZ's. I will have opporunity to view in higher detail in about 12 hrs. or so, but yours is the first Fazackerly built one I've seen.

It occurs to me that BrianB's receiver may have been a reject or an experimental piece in so far as that odd cutter mark on the left side of the receiver. Not the kind of thing that was done by mistake I wouldn't think. No doubt when clearing out No1 MkVI and No4 MkI parts in 1940/41 everything that would make a serviceable rifle was 'dug out' and sent along.

[jmoore]

Ah, you noticed that also. No doubt there was extreme effort to get weapons readied PDQ then, sort of "First Ditch" versus "Last Ditch".
(But they didn't know WHAT "ditch" they were in at the time!)


ETA Actually, two differences on the LH side stand out- the additional cut at the charger bridge area, and the region just behind the receiver ring seems sculpted a bit differently, but that could be a trick of the lighting. Nothing quite like it in Skennerton's book.