-
Legacy Member
N° 8 Mk I trainer fitted with an A. J. Parker 8/53 sight attachment
-
-
09-06-2021 03:52 PM
# ADS
Friends and Sponsors
-
Advisory Panel
- does the fact that the ejector screw is absent from this n° 4 receiver show that it was never actually used on a Lee-Enfield service rifle during WW2?
Redundant query! WW2 was long over in 1951, when the receiver was made. The No.8s were built using No.4 MK1 action bodies in the 1950s. See "the Lee Enfield Story" P.442. But I imagine the Mk1 bodies were probably - at least partially! - new but surplus factory stock, as the No4 Mk2 was generally in production.
- was it common for .22 LR Enfield trainers to undergo FTRs?
Most definitely not. I have collected auction sales adverts of (almost) all No.8s offered here in Germany for several years. I have never seen one marked with FTR before. The FTR UE 66 refers to a factory thorough repair at Enfield in the 1960s. See "the Lee Enfield Story" P.442.
BTW. thanks to the FTR, that looks like a "very low mileage" No.8. You were lucky!
Patrick
Last edited by Patrick Chadwick; 09-06-2021 at 05:07 PM.
-
-
-
Legacy Member
Some have got the ejector screw (because it fastens on the PH5C sight) some have not, it has no other function. Some are built on No.5 bodies.
-
-
Legacy Member
Originally Posted by
Patrick Chadwick
- does the fact that the ejector screw is absent from this n° 4 receiver show that it was never actually used on a Lee-Enfield service rifle during WW2?
Redundant query! WW2 was long over in 1951, when the receiver was made. The No.8s were built using No.4 MK1 action bodies in the 1950s. See "the Lee Enfield Story" P.442. But I imagine the Mk1 bodies were
probably - at least partially! - new but surplus factory stock, as the No4 Mk2 was generally in production.
- was it common for .22 LR Enfield trainers to undergo FTRs?
Most definitely not. I have collected auction sales adverts of (almost) all No.8s offered here in
Germany for several years. I have never seen one marked with FTR before. The FTR UE 66 refers to a factory thorough repair at Enfield in the 1960s. See "the Lee Enfield Story" P.442.
BTW. thanks to the FTR, that looks like a "very low mileage" No.8. You were lucky!
Patrick
Thank you for your answer, Patrick. I do not own the book and had always thought n° 4 Mk I rifles were wartime production, hence my question, but the use of brand new receivers does make sense.
Yes, indeed, I was very lucky to chance on that rifle, all the more so as the price it was sold for was quite decent according to French standards.
One should also note that the markings are not electropencilled, but it looks like engraving them was common practice at Enfield in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
---------- Post added at 11:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 PM ----------
Originally Posted by
Mk VII
Some have got the ejector screw (because it fastens on the PH5C sight) some have not, it has no other function. Some are built on No.5 bodies.
I had the feeling that those with the ejector screw - the older rifles - had been built using parts salvaged from scrapped n° 4 and 5 rifles. Is this assumption correct?
-
-
Legacy Member
I think they were all unused actions. The 5's were probably left over from No.5 production, maybe partially finished.
-
-
Legacy Member
Originally Posted by
Mk VII
I think they were all unused actions. The 5's were probably left over from No.5 production, maybe partially finished.
I must say I had tried to find out about that for quite a long time but the question had apparently never been raised or, at least, had never seemed to attract the attention of Lee-Enfield enthusiasts.
-
-
Legacy Member
I under stand the number 8 used the PH D receiver sight that used a much higher drilled and taped hole on the left side of the receiver to attach it .
-
-
Legacy Member
-
The Following 3 Members Say Thank You to Didier For This Useful Post:
-
Legacy Member
Originally Posted by
tr63
I under stand the number 8 used the PH D receiver sight that used a much higher drilled and taped hole on the left side of the receiver to attach it .
I had not really noticed the screw on the left side, next to the safety lever, or, at least, had thought it served some practical purpose on the rifle as it is, but upon closer scrutiny I was able to see that it is not present on all No. 8 rifles - do you think it would be possible to ascertain which of the numerous PH sights had once been attached to this rifle?
-
-
Legacy Member
PH No 5D was used for the No8 it did not use the threaded hole as used for the ejector on the No4 .It had a higher mounting arm than the PH 5 and used threaded holes on the left side of the receiver. One that was much higher then found on the .303 cal. No4 and the hole just in front of the safety . that is not found on the No4 .
Last edited by tr63; 09-08-2021 at 11:10 AM.
-