No4 Based Trainer Help

[Son]

I acquired this Trainer and a couple of others a while back. The No4 Rifles are not my strong point and the No4 Based trainers are pretty rare here in Aus, so looking for some experienced help confirming this Rifles pedigree.
Here’s some pics, happy to take other views if needed.


Attachment 106183Attachment 106184Attachment 106185Attachment 106186

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.

[22SqnRAE]

G'Day Brad,

Actually, that's most likely a civilian copy of the RN Service No 9 rifle. Still converted by PH in around 1958 or thereabouts (some one will correct me). It's not likely to be one of about 3,000 made by PH specifically for the Royal Navy.

The No 9 Mk 1/2 suggests that the original BSA body was modified to No 4 Mk 1/2 (hung trigger) version post war. Then a little later, that .303 rifle was converted again as a .22LR trainer most likely for civilian ownership for Small Bore target competitions.

My No 9 is built on a Savage No 4 Mk 1* action.

I see from some evidence that they weren't too fussy about which maker of rifle was converted to the Last Lee Enfield (and yes, you're free to bite at that! ) But they were fussy about the condition and quality of the body being converted. All seem to be quite good quality.

Not much there, but certainly an impressive piece.

[Alan de Enfield]

There was some discussion (a few years ago) where Peter Laidler said that the CORRECT nomenclature for the Navy built ones was "N9" (not No9)

There has been a suggestion that the No9 were actually PH built 'civilian' model versions of the N9

Parker Hale were selling the No9 into the civilian market in the '60s.
The 1962 PH catalogue had No9 rifles for £15


Quite a bit more here - keep scrolling down :

https://www.rifleman.org.uk/Enfield_Rifle_No.9.html

[Roger Payne]

Yes, I checked out that article earlier too. I don't know a lot about them so I thought I'd look. From memory all of the rifles I've seen over the years had a letter (usually A?) prefix followed by the number, & I thought the few I'd seen had had the receivers linished (though not perfectly in all cases) of original markings, before the new nomenclature (be it N9 or No9) was applied. The rifle in question here looks a peach & does not look as though it is a recent creation, but I have never seen a No9/N9 with its original markings & original No4 serial number before. Can anybody enlighten us (me)?

[Brian Dick]

I don't think it's a Royal Navy conversion as done by PH. I've had a few and still have one that's on my knees as I sit here. It's marked as follows on the left side of the body. As Roger mentions, the left side butt socket markings are all linished clean. The rear sight should also have 25 YDS engraved on the left side of the slide with the datum marks on both the leaf and slide.

.22 R.F. N.9 MkI
P-H'59 A2391

[Lance]

As described by Brian

[Son]

Here’s some more pics. Overall from each side, the magazine numbered and then the markings around the receiver ring and barrel Nock’s form.
Thanks all for the input so far,
Alan, I will read the link you posted a little later, had a glance, need to read it all.

Cheers.

[muffett.2008]

Obviously a fake Brad, better bring it to the Range and I will take it off your hands

[Son]

Obviously a fake Brad, better bring it to the Range and I will take it off your hands

Are you going to be open this weekend mate?

[22SqnRAE]

Well, now, you can call me Stan.

Stan Corrected.

Humble Pie, one large serve, with sauce, pelase.

Much like Brian and Lance, my No 9 is, in fact, finished as they say...

Attachment 106213Attachment 106214

So I guess that PH did make some No 9 copies for Civilian ownership and use in the 60's. I need to close out an earlier thread I commenced on a No 9 Savage that made its way to Israel before being converted to a No 9 format, but Out of Service. The research on markings took much longer than I had expected.

You learn something every day...?