Peter a question on No.2 MkIV* .22s with No.4 Mk1 rifle sight with pictures

[breakeyp]

Peter I have a question regarding these No.2 MkIV* .22 caliber training rifles. They have been fitted with an adaptor allowing the use of the No.4 rifle rear sight. Both sights are Savage production. One has the M192 (Parker Hale Company Birhmingham) code dated 1948 marked on the receiver ring. The other rifle does not have this code but the barrel knox form has had DP lined out an PH stamped in front of the cancelled mark. Both barrels are sold, not parker rifled.

From the 1948 marking I assume these were run up during the post war clean up and realignment of equipment such that they wanted all trainers to have the same sighting system as the No.4.

Have you encountered these? Any idea of how many were made and for whom? These aqre the only two I have ever seen. One was pictured in Skennerton's book. Many thanks.

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.

[husk]

Just jumping in to share my example...PH conversion of a 1928 BSA No. MkIII. Rear sight is a Long Branch. Know of another one here in Colorado...

Husk

[bearhunter]

Lucky you. I've been looking for one of those for 40 years. The only one I ever saw was at ED Karrer's Gunatorium in Millhaven. I couldn't afford it at the time. Very nice, thanks for sharing

[smlemk111]

I also Have one just like the ones pictured. It started life as a Enfield built No1 Mk111 in 1915 and there are no marks as to who converted it. The barrel is solid not lined the barrel receiver and nose cap match but the bolt has been renumbered to match. I have taken the sight off the rifle but there are no marks to say who built the sight mount. The sight is a large apatured Longbranch. I have only seen one other one in my looking for rifles and that one had bubbed wood on it. I bought mine about 10 years ago. Alan Abramson

[Peter Laidler]

I've only ever seen a picture of these monstrosities. To be honest, they're not military or military contract as we'd still see reference to them in the old literature. If you want my opinion, then I'd say that they were a cheap (?) method of upgrading the old No1 sighting system to No8 spec. I'd be thinking of Territorial and Cadet Force use in the same way as the carrying handles used to replicate Brens.

I expect that in an old PH catalogue, these things will be advertised somewhere. But definately not Military issue but maybe what we call LPO that stands for Local Purchase something or other using Corps or Unit funds

[Claven2]

LPO = Local Purchase Order. MoD and DND here in Canada still use them, albeit infrequently in the digital age

[breakeyp]

I've only ever seen a picture of these monstrosities. To be honest, they're not military or military contract as we'd still see reference to them in the old literature. If you want my opinion, then I'd say that they were a cheap (?) method of upgrading the old No1 sighting system to No8 spec. I'd be thinking of Territorial and Cadet Force use in the same way as the carrying handles used to replicate Brens.

I expect that in an old PH catalogue, these things will be advertised somewhere. But definately not Military issue but maybe what we call LPO that stands for Local Purchase something or other using Corps or Unit funds

Thank you Peter. That is why I asked the question. No markings and rather blocky construction compared to the very nice military ones produced in Canada for the No.2 using the Ross rear sight. I have a good sample of Parker Hale catalogs but have yet to find a catalog with this sight or the Bren handles.

[Peter Laidler]

I wrote to PHG about the Bren handles when I uncovered a full and virtually 'as new' set. The main man there explained that they knew about them and had a set in their small archives but they didn't appear in a catalugue because when they were due, the war came and........... welkl, the rest is history. Production ceased and never resumed. That's why there are very few sets and remain quite rare. The set I had were in better condition than the archive set so I let them swop them out and I then sold off their set on that auction site. I think they went to Canada but the price wasn't anything to write home about.

The reason I saay that the modified No2 rifles were done for Cadets or Territorials is that the rules probably allowed 'military open or iron sights' but not commercial MoA type sights. A No2 couldn't compete with a No8 so this was a way around the rules.

A similar thing happened with the Services small bore shoots using the No7, 8 and N9 rifles. The rules stated 'ordnance issue' small bore rifles which immediately barred the UPF/PRI/LPO purchased rifles because they weren't 'ordnance issue' whereas the others were. I used to use my own No7 rifle in these inter unit small bore shoots. Not quite Ordnance issue but it was identical in every way so was accepted. But I did have to replace the PH sight with the standard backsight each time

[breakeyp]

Okay Peter, another question.... Have you encountered M1917 Enfield and Pattern 1914 rifles converted to single shot .22 LR? I assume Parker Hale did them but they are unmarked as to maker/converter. One is British proofed, as expected after having been altered and the other has no proofs at all. Best, p.

[Peter Laidler]

Never seen one in my service and as above, have never seen reference to one in service