The RIFLE .22"RF N9

[Peter Laidler]

Is this the right place for this rifle or should we be looking at the .22" RF site? Anyway......................

Has anyone made a detailed study of the little Naval No9 rifle? I ask, because we have one at work and I wondered why the designation in the paperwork was always:
RIFLE, .22” RF N9 Mk1 then in brackets (conv from Rifles No4 .303”). Further information shows that the rifle was provisionally approved on 7th May 1956 by the Chief Inspector of Naval Ordnance. All existing markings were to be removed by grinding and the rifles re-marked by engraving with the designation, the newly allotted serial number, the contractors name, initials or logo and the year of conversion.

Clearly, by 1956, the No9 (.280” EM) and the No10 (provisionally to the 7.62mm EM rifles) rifles had been allocated the ‘number’ designations so where does this leave the Naval No9 rifle? The fact is that this rifle was never an approved Ministry of Supply item nor was it subject to the usual procurement processes or standards. The management of the rifle was via the Chief Inspector of Naval Ordnance and the acquisition of the rifle and further supplies of spare
HEADS, breech bolt .22”RF,
PIN, firing, Rifle N9, .22”RF and
EXTRACTOR, rifle N9 .22”RF were all via the Naval Armament Depot at Frater in Gosport.

The accepted rifles were all marked with the INO(Po) (Inspector of Naval Ordnance, Portsmouth) mark on the body and barrel. Oh yes, like me, I bet you always wondered why there was an apparent duplication of the RIFLE No9 designation didn’t you? The No9 designation didn’t ever apply to this rifle. Don’t forget, it was RIFLE N9. The N indicated NAVY. Quite what the 9 indicated is left for you owners to research further.

Colin Wren, an old Naval Armourer of the immediate post war era told me, before he died very recently that the N9 rifle was a result of demands for a competitive rifle to replace the old and by now worn out No2 rifles (and some even older according to Colin…..) and reports that it would be many years before the ‘new’ No8 rifle would be available to the Royal Navy. He could offer no opinion as to the ‘9’ except that it was - or seemed to be - a natural progression in the numbering system. Presumably being unaware that the No 9 designation had previously been allotted to the ill fated EM

Can anyone add to this and these enigmatic little rifles

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.

[Alan de Enfield]

RIFLE No.9 Mk I
The last of the .22's, these are No.4 rifles sleeved in a manner similar to the WWI Pattern 1914 Short Rifle No. 1. The work was done by Parker Hale in Birmingham 1956 - 1960. 3,000 rifles made specifically for the Royal Navy.

[Mk VII]

The Navy has their own procurement organisation, which they regarded as perfectly satisfactory and which they'd fought hard (and successfully) to keep out of the hands of the Ministry of Munitions in the Great War, and out of the hands of the Ministry of Supply in the Second War (though they lost the fight against the creation of the MoS in the late '30s).

[limpetmine]

The lack of responses I think shows just how little is known about these gems. How many are out and about? Were any (most?) destroyed at the end of their term? How many (and who) brought the few I've seen to the USA?
To many questions, too few answers.
Thanks for posing the questions, Peter.

[5thBatt]

The lack of responses I think shows just how little is known about these gems. How many are out and about? Were any (most?) destroyed at the end of their term? How many (and who) brought the few I've seen to the USA?
To many questions, too few answers.
Thanks for posing the questions, Peter.

The NZ Defence Force sold off the last they had earlier this year, there was 101 up for auction plus 28 sets of woodwork, so at least 28 were scrapped.

[S-A-M3]

Hey 5thBat they certainly look better with the 5+ coats of black paint removed. Stuart.

[Lance]

No. 9's are on the rare side and for some reason do not command the respect they deserve. I think it is just because they do not come with a transit chest! Over the years I have seen a dozen or so pop up for sale State side with most going for cheap in my opinion.

[Peter Laidler]

Just a quick question 5th Batt..... what's the difference between No4 woodwork sets and N9 woodwork sets? Am I missing something?

They are being faked up as we speak so I understand. If you want the real McCoy, STUDY 5th BATTS PICTURE

[Brian Dick]

I've imported a few originals in the past 16 years. I still have one in my personal collection dated '59.

[NZShoota]

The NZ Defence Force sold off the last they had earlier this year, there was 101 up for auction plus 28 sets of woodwork, so at least 28 were scrapped.

Here's the one I picked up from the NZDF disposal auction. Ex Chatham Sea Cadet Unit (Tauranga) according to the marking disc.