Happened upon an interesting No4 last weekend.

[Peter Laidler]

That's a very interesting idea Max.......... Never thought about that until you mentioned it. Looking at the geometry of the second ejector, it looks as though it is in the same (?) relative/linear position as tip of the ejector in the 7.62mm magazine.

Any comments from you wild antipodeans of how successful this modification is?

[Bruce_in_Oz]

If the scope and mounts are un-butchered, they are worth more than the rifle under them.

[Lee Enfield]

I know that title would seem totally against the grain for me, but this rifle has a few endearing (to me at least) qualities that make it worth a bit of discussion. I've been sweating on the pics arriving (wouldn't you know it, my camera done a hamstring on the starting line for the job! My mate had to take the pics, emailing a couple at a time), and the first is here so I will start off with them and add more with descriptions as I receive them

Attachment 50029Attachment 50030

I like the use of the 2 P-14 rear mounts...I guess it makes sense being a (relatively) flat receiver surface.

I guess I'm spoiled having seen the pics when it was offered for auction 2? years ago.

"...let's build a scoped target rifle using a 70year old obsolete scope and these extra 70 year old mounts we have laying around..."

[Son]

Have received and re sized some more pics. Have a look through these. I haven't given any appraisal from me because I do not wish to taint opinions.
Yes, the rifle is a 7.62mm. More pics are being taken as I type.

Attachment 50196Attachment 50195Attachment 50197Attachment 50198Attachment 50199Attachment 50200Attachment 50201Attachment 50202


Here you go, Kev... another pic of my fat belly!

[Son]

I like the use of the 2 P-14 rear mounts...I guess it makes sense being a (relatively) flat receiver surface.

I guess I'm spoiled having seen the pics when it was offered for auction 2? years ago.

"...let's build a scoped target rifle using a 70year old obsolete scope and these extra 70 year old mounts we have laying around..."

Sorry to say, but you may be about to regret not buying it....

[Lee Enfield]

Sorry to say, but you may be about to regret not buying it....

It's true, but I've been sorry sometimes for buying stuff too...


The reworked Pre/WWI SMLE cocking piece (no it's not a Trials nor an early No4)

The mix of hand engraved "No4MkI" and "T" and stamped (everything else) markings is a red flag to me too

Why does the receiver purport to say "Experimental Lithgow" while the marking disk purports to be "Experimental Enfield"?

I'd really like to see the inside of the receiver and the manufacturers marking on the barrel.

Let's just take the markings at face value:

XP L8 L42E
S(mall) A(rms) F(actory) Lithgow
T65 Conv(erted) 1956

First and most obvious is that the L8 and L42 experimental or not did not exist in 1956 (or '55 as it is overstamped). The L8 didn't exist until the mid 1960s and the L42 until 1970.

Second is that the "T65" family of experimental cartridges were no longer experimental nor a current designation in 1955 (or '56 as above) having been adopted in the 7.62x51mm (soon to be NATO) by Canada, the USA and UK (and thereby AUS?) in 1953 - Canada having ordered 2000 7.62mm Ex1 and Ex2 FAL rifles in June 1953 with the provisio that the order be held until the final chamber was adopted - this happened in Nov/Dec 1953 and Ex1 & Ex2 deliveries started in January 1954. Both the USA (T48 & T48E1) and the UK (X8E1 & X8E2) ordered their trials rifles in Nov/Dec '53.

In fact in 1956 Canadian Arsenals Limited was already in series production of the 7.62x51mm "NATO" C1 FAL rifle, and Fazakerly, BSA and Enfield were right on their heels with L1 rifles....(Faz being shut down and it's L1 machinery supposedly sent to Lithgow by '57 or '58 according to some of our "leading lights").

[Son]

That's what we are here for. It didn't come with any explanations of anything. Tapping the knowledge of those better versed in the No4 than me hopefully will give us a better chance of understanding what it is.

Look a little closer at the mounts... the front set is mirror imaged to the rear, so were made for it, not "lying around"
Is the marking disc carrying two sets of marks?

Pics of barrel markings are in the works....

[Lee Enfield]

That's what we are here for. It didn't come with any explanations of anything. Tapping the knowledge of those better versed in the No4 than me hopefully will give us a better chance of understanding what it is.

Look a little closer at the mounts... the front set is mirror imaged to the rear, so were made for it, not "lying around"
Is the marking disc carrying two sets of marks?

Pics of barrel markings are in the works....

Someone put a heck of a lot of work into it.

I would like to see the scope ring "feet" outside of the locks, and it looks like the front ring is a little "cruder" than the rear ring.

How does it cam down? originally you lock the front ring into the front base and cam it down towards the rear.

I have a WWI era German sniper scope where someone did something similar.

Honestly the multiple markings remind me of the Afgan No5Mk1 (which I should have bought) which was manufactured by Savage, BSA and Enfield according the markings. A bit of "gilding the lily" so to speak.

[Son]

Hmmm... interestingly the X8E1 and the X8E2 were accepted into Australia for trials commencing "Late in 1955".. the calibre was stated to be ".30 cal T65. So it would stand to reason that here in 1955/56 7.62 x 51 would still be refered to as T65. That would at least explain that marking....

The front "leg" on the scope is opposite to the rear in every way. The camming groove is toward the front as the rear one is toward the rear, hence the cam levers locking toward the centre. The scope fits very well into the bases and locks positively. It has to be withdrawn and replaced straight up and down.

[Lee Enfield]

Hmmm... interestingly the X8E1 and the X8E2 were accepted into Australia for trials commencing "Late in 1955".. the calibre was stated to be ".30 cal T65. So it would stand to reason that here in 1955/56 7.62 x 51 would still be refered to as T65. That would at least explain that marking....

The front "leg" on the scope is opposite to the rear in every way. The camming groove is toward the front as the rear one is toward the rear, hence the cam levers locking toward the centre. The scope fits very well into the bases and locks positively. It has to be withdrawn and replaced straight up and down.

Interestingly you picked up on something else I was thinking "T65" really means nothing without ".30" in front of it...