-
Legacy Member
Cut out in No4 Mk1 foreend
Attachment 65194
First time I've seen this. What's it for?
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. |
|
-
-
09-06-2015 08:43 AM
# ADS
Friends and Sponsors
-
Deceased January 15th, 2016
Magazine cut-off.
Perhaps the woodwork came from a "Trials Rifle".
-
-
Legacy Member
I didn’t know trials rifles have the magazine cut-off. Thank you.
-
-
Yep, they did and it took a little while before the message got through to the fore-end making contractors too because the early run of work ones came with the gut-out recess too.
As a matter of interest Vince ALL No4 magazine production catered for cut-off rifles. Look at the right side of the magazine and the wall is lower. Guess why? Yep, for the cut-off, even at the undercut rear right retaining lip. Nobody thought to alter the spec or the drawings and as I have said many times before. It's sometimes better AND cheaper to keep making what you're already making than to change the design. Think MGB bonnets............
-
The Following 5 Members Say Thank You to Peter Laidler For This Useful Post:
-
Legacy Member
Thanks Peter. I wondered why the right side of the No4 magazine is lower.
Do the trials rifles use the same magazine cut-off parts as the No1?
-
-
Legacy Member
As a matter of interest Vince ALL No4 magazine production catered for cut-off rifles. Look at the right side of the magazine and the wall is lower. Guess why? Yep, for the cut-off, even at the undercut rear right retaining lip. Nobody thought to alter the spec or the drawings and as I have said many times before. It's sometimes better AND cheaper to keep making what you're already making than to change the design. Think MGB bonnets............
Peter would a raised wall on the right side of the No 4 magazine prevent the magazine from working with the cutoff? If it did, then the magazine wouldn't be interchangeable or work in any older rifle that still had the cutoff installed, would that be correct? If so, might be the easy answer as to why it wasn't re-designed and was left that way. Just a thought. Of course I seem to be short on good thoughts lately, example the scope cap thread earlier, Lol, Ray
Last edited by rayg; 09-09-2015 at 08:16 AM.
-
-
That is the reason they remained the way they were Ray. But it would have been an efficient way of culling the trials rifles. On the other hand, taking my MGB bonnet comparison, learned during my production engineering phase, if the press tools are already churning them out by the zillion, then leave things as they are.
-
Thank You to Peter Laidler For This Useful Post:
-
Contributing Member
The No.1 MK. VI and the early No.4 Mk. I rifles (1931, 1933 and 1941) had the extra lower cut on the right side of the forestock to clear the magazine cut-off even though the 1941 production had no slot and magazine cut-offs were not fitted on them. By 1942 the makers switched to the variation of the No. 4 wood that did not dip down for the non-existent magazine cut-off. The wood continues straight and covers where the cut-off would have been on a Trials No.4.
I have a 1931 Trials No.4 Mk. I made at Enfield and converted to a sniper at Enfield that was Factory Thorough Repaired (FTR). The magazine cut-off was removed at some point and the rifle was fitted with a later forestock in service. The slot in the metal for the magazine cut-off is now hidden. At first I thought of restoring the rifle to its early features (I had a spare No.32 Mk.I scope and bought a Mk. I button cocking piece, magazine cut-off and screw, butt disc, low cut forestock and a hinged upper band) but in the end decided to leave it as is. This rifle had remained in service to at least 1963 (ref. serial numbered army stores stickers in the No.15 chest with it) and was matched with a 1945 No.32 Mk.3 scope in-service. The later style forestock is also serial numbered to the rifle so it has beenproperly fitted in service.
Last edited by Seaforth72; 09-10-2015 at 10:29 AM.
-
The Following 2 Members Say Thank You to Seaforth72 For This Useful Post:
-
Legacy Member
Originally Posted by
Vincent
Thanks Peter. I wondered why the right side of the No4 magazine is lower.
Do the trials rifles use the same magazine cut-off parts as the No1?
The cutoff on my Trials rifle had been removed when I got it and I had ordered a cutoff and screw for it a few years ago but, if I remember right, the screw did not fit in the hole so I put it all on an early no. 1, Mk1 rifle that was also missing the cutoff. Apparently the screw was a slightly larger dia, Ray
Vincent did you check to see if the screw fit your rifle? If it does and you are not going to use it, I'd be happy to buy the cut out and screw from you as my Trials is all original except missing the cutoff, Ray
Last edited by rayg; 09-10-2015 at 04:01 PM.
-
Thank You to rayg For This Useful Post:
-
Legacy Member
That is the reason they remained the way they were Ray. But it would have been an efficient way of culling the trials rifles. On the other hand, taking my MGB bonnet comparison, learned during my production engineering phase, if the press tools are already churning them out by the zillion, then leave things as they are.
All this talk about the MG reminds me of the two English cars I used to have, Parted w/them years ago, the Flying Eight stayed in the family with my Nephew, the Healy went to a friend. Had fun in Parades w/them. Ray
Attachment 65345Attachment 65346
-
Thank You to rayg For This Useful Post: