Two Sterling converted rifles

[Promo]

Any opinion on the two attached rifles would be appreciated. I'm not very familiar with the Sterling conversions, especially as one of the two appears to be a converted No. 5.

Thanks,

Georg

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.

[villiers]

Where on earth did they come from?

[rgg_7]

The first rifle (pic 1 to 4 ) is a No4 MK2 converted to 7.62 with a Sterling kit....complete and very correct. The second a No5, has a Sterling magand is in 7.62.....miising Sterling ejector and stripper guide.

[Maxwell Smart]

I think that the "No 5" might actually be built on a No 4 action - from the photos, I can't see any lightening cuts under the rear sight, in behind the safety lever.

[Thunderbox]

The No5 is a Charnwood, knocked together out of a No4 receiver and a Sterling No5 kit.

No4 is also someone's project gun made from a Sterling kit - judging by the fit and finish of the parts....

[Promo]

They came from the collection of someone who also published a book on Enfields. I have no doubt on the No. 4, but didn't know about the No. 5. As the price was fair so I had to take it.

The No. 5 was built on a No. 4 action as the bolt head has no lightning cut. And I had to make three edits now because I wrote that on my mobile.

[SpikeDD]

The "19T" proof marks on both the receiver and bolt handle on the No.4 look more like a arsenal proofing mark rather than a export proofing mark, as typically seen on .303 rifles with the 18 Ton. proofs. Would a cobbled together rifle bear these marks ?

[HOOKED ON HISTORY]

The knock off No5 might make a fun shooter! How is the Barrel.

[villiers]

I asked as I have a No. 5 Charnwood 7.62 conversion on a No. 4 action that I further converted to a Mk 2 trigger. My (very private) opinion is that the choice of a No. 4 action is a sensible decision. Yours looks like it´s been quite nicely done.

Attachment 32259

[Promo]

Removed the handguard of the No. 5, found this proofing: