Joe Salter does it again, 'just how 'experamental is this enfield/'

[bigduke6]

Thanks XL39E1, My mistake on the engraving in my previous post was looking on my mini laptop, hard to see anything and couldnt enlarge the thumbnail.

[Brian Dick]

Navy Arms, Co. imported quite a few of the XL39E1 rifles back in the early 1990's. I was buying them as original less sights and 7.62 magazines for $229.00. I was installing the AJP 4/47, 4/80 or P-H 5C sights, AJP "Matchmaker" globe front sight and original Enfield 7.62 magazines in new condition and selling them for $500 at the time! I still have one, (A158), here in my own personal collection.

[PrinzEugen]

I'm curious as to what people think of the wonky engraving on the original rifle (there is a bit of a wonk on the other two XL39E1 mentions - but in the other direction!) - after all it has been suggested that Enforcers with similar tilted engravings are not the real mccoy. Personally I wonder if the widespread nature of the wonky engraving suggests it is genuine - whether on XL39s or Enforcers. (To be more exact I mean it doesn't automatically mean it isn't genuine - there are obviously many other signs to look for).

[Brian Dick]

It's just typical Enfield engraving from that time period.

[DEAC]

Hello All, thank you for all your comments. Especially the person who mentioned some history on the rifle. We don't generally involve ourselves with forums (I spend enough time on the computer as it is). But when I listed this item I thought "this should get the forums buzzing". Sure enough a few days later a quick search and "Joe Salter does it again". Nice title by the way!!

I guess you can tell we don't have a ton of knowledge on this weapon. The one thing I do know about it is how much we paid for the rifle. I would like for someone to buy it at $5995 ; ) But the truth is we had allot of trouble finding one that sold anywhere . So the price came from the combination of what we paid and the fact that we didn't really know what it was worth. If we paid to much?..... well that is the nature of the business... we have a rack for those and this one would be great on the range.

If anyone has any info on the weapon we would appreciate if you would contact us.

Best Regards,
Joe

P.S. I believe the Buttstock may be replaced with an Envoy stock. It is not a perfect fit and it has the cutout for the case that holds the front sight inserts. Not correct for this rifle.

Joe Salter Jr., DEAC Inc.
Phone-(603)732-4000
Fax-(603)732-4200
JoeSalter.com

BUY SELL & TRADE
COLLECTOR GUNS & MILITARIA
30 DAY - FULL MONEY BACK GUARANTEE
10% Down-90 Day Layaway
NEW ARRIVALS-5 DAYS A WEEK[COLOR="black"]

[Amatikulu]

Welcome to the forum Joe. I think you will find that this is the best lee enfield collectors forum on the web

[RJW NZ]

I'm as far away from your store as almost possible here in NZ but a peruse of the listings is one of my regular pleasures, you always seem to have the most unique and interesting rifles. regards rjw nz

[Peter Laidler]

I'm not sure that someone might have been a bit hasty in suggesting that the butts bored for the P-H sight blades elements box in the knuckle of the butts was wrong for the L39. We had these butts on standard L39's in service and even had them coming through as replacements. I'm not sure if there was a special supplementary part number for them as a modified (albeit slightly) part. However, I remember wood patching the recess to use them on needy L42's and No4's

[newcastle]

The L39 I had had a cutout for the sight inserts right enough.

[Peter Laidler]

Thanks for that Newcastle. Had it confirmed later this afternoon too after looking at the EMER which states that the L39 WILL have this recessed butt. However, this recessed, to house the foresight element will not apply where No8 butts are fitted under special rules blah blah blah and on it goes........

So, if you've got an L39 then it should have the recessed butt as shown in the photos.