-
Legacy Member
Earliest date for Ishapore 2A/2A1?
Hi folks,
I'm thinking of buying a 2A/2A1, and it has a 1960 date on it. Everything I've read seems to suggest they weren't issued until a few years later -'64ish. Is it possible that they were made this early, or do I have something else entirely? I don't have the rifle in hand yet, but all the pics seem consistent with a 2A/2A1.
Cheers,
BurtonAttachment 106611
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. |
|
-
-
03-30-2020 07:38 PM
# ADS
Friends and Sponsors
-
Contributing Member
Ishapore 2A's started production in 1963. Does it say what caliber the rifle is? Search this site for "1960s RFI Ishapore No 1 MkIII*" and I think that will answer your questions.
-
-
-
Legacy Member
It's a 7.62 Nato, not a .303. It has the 2A magazine, the stamped sling, the squared off nose piece, the strange butt-plate... as I said, all the features of a 2A.
-
-
Contributing Member
Wow, that is strange! I can't wait for some of the real experts to answer up. Definitely going to learn something when they do!
-
-
Legacy Member
There is a passage in Skennerton
's tome that refers to them being produced at Ishapore from 1960, but that is the only reference I can find.
-
-
Legacy Member
The Ishapore rifles seem to be well made and good shooters in general. In addition, your example may be rare. Depending on the price it should be a good buy. More photos would help the experts to decide.
-
-
Legacy Member
According to the Proofmaster of the Ishapore factory the first 7.62 version of the No1 Mk3 was produced in February 1965
Extract
A bolt action rifle similar to the SMLE Mk. III*, modified to fire the 7.62 NATO cartridge was produced at Ishapore, first in February 1965. Their receivers were made of SWES 48 steel, un-heat-treated, and with the NATO proof cartridge receivers were found to distort with the oiled or the dry proof round! The material was changed to an EN steel so now the rifles stand up better to dry and oiled proof.
Source :
"Gun Proof in India - An Historical Account." It was written by Mr. A. G. Harrison the former Proof Master at the Rifle Factory Proof House, Ishapore, India and was published in "The Gun Digest, 33rd Edition, 1979."
---------- Post added at 08:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:38 AM ----------
Originally Posted by
BurtonP
Hi folks,
I'm thinking of buying a 2A/2A1, and it has a 1960 date on it. Everything I've read seems to suggest they weren't issued until a few years later -'64ish. Is it possible that they were made this early, or do I have something else entirely? I don't have the rifle in hand yet, but all the pics seem consistent with a 2A/2A1.
Cheers,
Burton
Attachment 106611
Looking at the photo it appears to be an 'older rifle' which has a FR (Factory Rebuild) date of 1960.
Could it be a civilian No1 Mk3 subsequently fitted with a 7.62 barrel ?
Could it be an early 'experimental' 2A rifle ?
Why does it not have the correct calibre markings shown ?
Certainly an interesting project trying to find some history of this rifle.
Mine are not the best, but they are not too bad. I can think of lots of Enfields I'd rather have but instead of constantly striving for more, sometimes it's good to be satisfied with what one has...
-
-
Legacy Member
Originally Posted by
BurtonP
Hi folks,
I'm thinking of buying a 2A/2A1, and it has a 1960 date on it. Everything I've read seems to suggest they weren't issued until a few years later -'64ish. Is it possible that they were made this early, or do I have something else entirely? I don't have the rifle in hand yet, but all the pics seem consistent with a 2A/2A1.
Cheers,
Burton
Attachment 106611
I think, it is a fake/joke. Take a look on the marks of RFI FR62-64 No. 4 oder No. 5 rifles and then see the difference to the marks of 1975-89 RFI No. 1 Mk. III* (most of them are also FRs). This marks have no commons with the marks of the 60s but lot of commons with the later marks.
-
-
I know not a lot about 2A & 2A1 rifles, but the markings on the butt socket look decidedly dodgy to me..........
Last edited by Roger Payne; 03-31-2020 at 06:25 AM.
-
The Following 2 Members Say Thank You to Roger Payne For This Useful Post:
-
Legacy Member
Thanks for the responses so far. It seems like people are having the same thoughts that I am. Namely, it's a 7.62 conversion of a no1 MkIII*, or that it's an early experiment, without the later standard stamp. I wasn't looking at it particularly as a collector rifle, more as a shooter in a cheaper calibre, in a really interesting form. I'm tempted to take a chance either way. Then I can look closer at the other stamps.
-
PM
