Peter: seen this low axis pin on many No4s?

[Surpmil]

Here's a photo of two I had; 1931 on the right side and 1935 on the left. (Not a very good photo as it is a jpg of a 35mm print.)

One can see how the 'shoulder' that extends from the rear sight axis hole 'lug' along the bolt way 'makes sense' in the original design, but as modified from 1935, there is a piece of the shoulder 'left hanging'.

Notice that the area milled out is 'in the white'.

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.

[RJW NZ]

Here's a photo of two I had; 1931 on the right side and 1935 on the left. (Not a very good photo as it is a jpg of a 35mm print.)

One can see how the 'shoulder' that extends from the rear sight axis hole 'lug' along the bolt way 'makes sense' in the original design, but as modified from 1935, there is a piece of the shoulder 'left hanging'.

Notice that the area milled out is 'in the white'.

Thanks Surpmil, thats a great picture worth a thousand words.
I wonder if what we're looking at on the left, 1935, is what you get when an early receiver has that extra metal milled off (.069) to allow fitting of a conventional sight.
That has other implications if thats so. A mk6, rare as hens already, that is in its original low axle form is now going to be even more rare, if some were modified for service by having this milling done to allow fitting of the conventional no4 sights. Rejoice owners of virgin mk6's, your rifles just went up by a grand.

[Surpmil]

The 1935 rifle is one of 56 "Model C" trials rifles. Acc. to Skennerton these were the first rifles to feature what became the standard No4 backsight.

These seem to have been the last complete rifles produced at RSAF(E) until whatever assembly, if any, was done in 1939/40.

The proposed Model D rifles incorporating some other refinements or variations were abandoned as trials for self-loading rifles were underway. It reads as though the No1 MkVI (1,025 made) and No4 MkI trials (approx. 2500 made) were built to keep Enfield ticking along as much as anything else.

Apparently it wasn't thought necessary to re-phosphate the actions after that cut was made for the final pattern of backsight.

Those 56 rifles had some other odd features such as a light aluminum alloy buttplate, sling swivel on the trigger guard (similar to SMLE), 12 inch bladed bayonet etc.

[RJW NZ]

I put the 55 and 1930 side by side and measured the drop from the axle top to the bottom of the bolt channel directly below. I'd theorized the distance would be the same, however the 55 is 1.259 inch and in the same spot the 1930 is 1.271 inch, or 20 thou smaller/lower. I wonder if I should be using a no4mk1 instead of mk2?
btw my 55 came with the scope holes, don't shoot me!

In any case, I'm baffled. I'd love Peter to comment but he seems to be sitting this one out. I'm still stuck with a safe queen with no rear site until I get some more info, I tried reworking no4 sight parts to allow for the lesser distance but ended up with the sight slightly leaning forward and with very soft spring action, not up to a shooting standard.
I'd love to see a pic of the bottom of a ball detent mk6 sight or a mk5 to see the shape of the sight base where the ball detent clicks into, maybe I could get a machine shop to build up some extra metal to copy that set up. So far no luck.

Well done by the way Surpmil, that 1935 trial one of 56, phew, that's rare!!! And not to mention that you have a mk6 right there too, thats really awesome, congrats on a nice collection.
I wish I could claim some great story of finding my 1930 but it was just dumb luck, it was on the table and I'd recently seen a pic of that milled out rear area, so it was a no brainer. What I didn't realize was that everyone didn't have one already, and just how uncommon they really are, that took a long time for that to sink in!

Thanks for getting this thread all fired up, that side by side pic was brilliant, its really interesting how different they are in that area.
cheers and thanks R

[Peter Laidler]

We need to get a few things straight here before we proceed.

Are we talking about Thunderboxes 1944 Mk1/2 Maltby, the initial subject of this thread and subsequent discussion or: A 1930 No1 Mk6? It is, I would hasten to suggest, a quite important feature unless I'm missing something (which isn't difficult I agree.... it's to do with my age!). Because No4 Maltby is a totally different beast to a No1 Mk6.

At the moment I can only comment on No4's because our No1 Mk6's are all at work.

I don't necessarily agree with your view that your Mk6 was sufficient to go to war with a flip-over Mk2 backsight. Believe me, it wouldn't! Can you imagine the training days or days on the range with a fixed 300 (bayonet fixed) or 600 sight. Where would he zero it? No. Like the notion that a Maltby No4 would ever enter into service, let alone later be upgraded to a 1/2 with a bolt that couldn't be removed or a sight that couldn't be raised or lowered is the stuff that fairy tales are made of

[Thunderbox]

No, I never got to the bottom of that particular Enfield mystery.

Obviously photos are no substitute for examining the rifle close up, but I think you can see that the rifle was in generally excellent condition, with no hint of any reworking of the sight ears. The finish was thin and hard - not even any blobby suncorite that might be concealing something.

The only tiny additional clue that might be relevant is that the rifle does not bear Fazakerly FTR marks or an "A" suffix, therefore the Mk1/2 conversion just might have been a BSA or other commercial job. Still does not seem likely that a wartime reject receiver got built up - I'm sure such a reject would have gone for recycling long before it got its date and serial number markings.

[Peter Laidler]

There's nothing stuck in the bottom of the hole, preventing the bottom of the plunger from reaching it's FULL depth is there? I ask because illustrative, it all looks as it should be.

The plunger hole goes all the way through, far deeper than the spring hole. Just check that out. Try pushing a steel rod or drill in from underneath.

I reiterate that there is not even the remotest chance...., not even a snowball in hells chance of that rifle ever, ever getting into service as it is.

[Thunderbox]

No obstructions. You can see that, in any case, the axis pin fouls a bolthead even if the plunger were not fitted. The plunger itself depresses tight against the receiver, but still is too high to allow a Mk1 sight to rotate.

Interestingly, because of the blob of weld in the back of the charger bridge where the adjustment wheel of the Mk1 sight would normally lie, the only type of rearsight that can be made to fit and lie down properly is a Mk2 or Mk4. However, only the hollow base of the stamped Mk2 clears the bolthead, and some of the Mk2s I have are a little rounded off in the foot that acts on the plunger - thus can be made to work.

[Peter Laidler]

No Madcrate. The body is made as a completed unit. Tolerances are varied, especially Fazakerley tolerances as they used cloth dress-makers tape measures there (only joking.....). The backsight axis pin hole was one of the critical measurements and was the point from which the body was 'squared' so it cannot wrongly have got past even the initial inspection bay!

Re the last q. We can't see the Mk1/2 modification but to get to that stage would be like buying a Ford and suddenly, 60 years later finding that it really is a Polski Fiat!

When I get the body drawings out, I'll ask thunderbox for some dimensions. But a bolt that is obstructed by the backsight axis pin and being 'as factory' is ludicrous

[jmoore]

This pic is for RJW NZ and his No1 MkVI w/ the low clearance rear sight: