Charger Bridge Question

[D-BOMB]

Hey all,

Just picked up a No.5 Mk1 in pretty good shape except for one thing, Bubba got a gold of it prior to me.

Everything is original except the charger bridge has been extended a bit to allow for a scope to be mounted and now it cannot accept stripper/charger clips. It seems like it would be very easy to simply file it back a little to accept stripper clips once again, but my question is the charger bridge "load bearing" at all? as in would doing this compromise the integrity of this lovely little carbine?

thanks in advance!

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.

[Bruce_in_Oz]

Unlike the SMLE series, the bridge on the No4 and No5 receivers is mostly integral with the metal of the receiver (body).

Grab a copy of Ian Skennerton's Small Arms Identification Series, preferably No4, which is, oddly enough, about the No5 rifle

This will give you a good idea of what the bridge SHOULD look like on a real No5.

As for "load-bearing": There are some who have theorized that the bridge helps to "transfer" recoil stress evenly around the receiver, but, given the spindly construction of the insert piece and its method of attachment, I doubt it.

[D-BOMB]

Oh it is a real No.5 and I have my No.4 to compare it to, its the exact same except the welded extension.

Either way I filled it down today and it looks as it should again and accepts stripper clips.

[Peter Laidler]

I don't think it is 'load bearing' as in the true mechanical definition because it's simply a bridge retained by two pins or in some cases taper lock screws - and when it comes loose, as they often did, were drilled in the sides and welded.

However, on the No5, the bodies were prone to open up during periods of intense shooting and this could be evidenced by the pin retaining pin axis backsight at the rear shearing frequently. Whether the lack of a bridge bridge would accellerate this pro9cess is a matter of conjecture. But as the old Armourers used to say, it's all to do with lack of steel.

The bridge was never available as a spare part and a well used or worn rifle that didn't show any clear or distinct signs that it was ready for the scrap heap but deserved to be 'put down' could be (and frequently was.........) sent on its way by simply punching out the bridge from below. Result, rifle ZF

[D-BOMB]

I don't really think it's past it's service life, it's got a very nice bore and a size 0 bolt head...just bubba'd haha