+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35

Thread: 4T's

Click here to increase the font size Click here to reduce the font size
  1. #11
    Contributing Member mrclark303's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last On
    Today @ 11:11 AM
    Location
    The wild west of England
    Posts
    3,401
    Real Name
    Mr Clark
    Local Date
    03-28-2024
    Local Time
    07:17 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Payneicon View Post
    I gather there was an idea to convert new No4 Mk2's to meet the requirement for the L42 programme as so many of the 4T's were pretty well used by 1970. However, the idea was not proceeded with as sufficient 4T's with enough life in them were ultimately found for the conversion programme. From what I have been told (largely from PL) keeping the required number of L42's up & running during their service lives was a challenge at times.

    Even so, I've often wondered why, when 4T's were converted to L42's EFD didn't hang the triggers on the body at the same time..........seems like a missed opportunity to make an excellent rifle even better.
    Very good point Roger, also, considering they utilised NOS MK2 bodies and bolts to make up the L39's etc, it's odd they didn't simply dig into the parts and build the L42's up from the same stock.

    On a wider note, going back to my father's NS experience, shortly after the final shots of WW2 were fired and armies started de-mobilising, they must have rapidly ran out of available storage for small arms, as literally millions of them would have been in circulation.

    Add to this the vast captured ex axis arsenals...

    With the best will in the world, you can only store a small fraction of them, even gifting ( as the ex Italianicon, Greek ect Enfields, Carbines, Garlands), will still only scratch the surface....

    I wonder how much was scrapped and recycled? Probably not much considering the vast wartime over production of steel.

    I would assume 'huge' amounts were simply dumped at sea?
    Last edited by mrclark303; 10-31-2020 at 08:12 AM.

  2. Thank You to mrclark303 For This Useful Post:


  3. # ADS
    Friends and Sponsors
    Join Date
    October 2006
    Location
    Milsurps.Com
    Posts
    All Threads
    A Collector's View - The SMLE Short Magazine Lee Enfield 1903-1989. It is 300 8.5x11 inch pages with 1,000+ photo’s, most in color, and each book is serial-numbered.  Covering the SMLE from 1903 to the end of production in India in 1989 it looks at how each model differs and manufacturer differences from a collecting point of view along with the major accessories that could be attached to the rifle. For the record this is not a moneymaker, I hope just to break even, eventually, at $80/book plus shipping.  In the USA shipping is $5.00 for media mail.  I will accept PayPal, Zelle, MO and good old checks (and cash if you want to stop by for a tour!).  CLICK BANNER to send me a PM for International pricing and shipping. Manufacturer of various vintage rifle scopes for the 1903 such as our M73G4 (reproduction of the Weaver 330C) and Malcolm 8X Gen II (Unertl reproduction). Several of our scopes are used in the CMP Vintage Sniper competition on top of 1903 rifles. Brian Dick ... BDL Ltd. - Specializing in British and Commonwealth weapons Specializing in premium ammunition and reloading components. Your source for the finest in High Power Competition Gear. Here at T-bones Shipwrighting we specialise in vintage service rifle: re-barrelling, bedding, repairs, modifications and accurizing. We also provide importation services for firearms, parts and weapons, for both private or commercial businesses.
     

  4. #12
    Legacy Member GeeRam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Last On
    03-18-2024 @ 03:21 PM
    Location
    Berkshire, UK
    Posts
    853
    Local Date
    03-28-2024
    Local Time
    06:17 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Payneicon View Post
    I gather there was an idea to convert new No4 Mk2's to meet the requirement for the L42 programme as so many of the 4T's were pretty well used by 1970. However, the idea was not proceeded with as sufficient 4T's with enough life in them were ultimately found for the conversion programme. From what I have been told (largely from PL) keeping the required number of L42's up & running during their service lives was a challenge at times.

    Even so, I've often wondered why, when 4T's were converted to L42's EFD didn't hang the triggers on the body at the same time..........seems like a missed opportunity to make an excellent rifle even better.
    Yes, that is baffling, given the building of the Enforcer and L39's and Envoys etc.

    I'm sure some accountant in MOD sucked hard through his teeth when EFD told them it would be an extra two pounds, five shillings and sixpence per rifle to do that mod, and thus they all stayed in Mk.1 fit.....
    Just the thing for putting round holes in square heads.

  5. The Following 2 Members Say Thank You to GeeRam For This Useful Post:


  6. Avoid Ads - Become a Contributing Member - Click HERE
  7. #13
    Legacy Member Alan de Enfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Last On
    Today @ 12:25 PM
    Location
    Y Felinheli, Gogledd Cymru
    Posts
    2,526
    Real Name
    Alan De Enfield
    Local Date
    03-28-2024
    Local Time
    06:17 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by GeeRam View Post
    Yes, that is baffling, given the building of the Enforcer
    The interesting thing is that Enfield could not supply sufficient actions to meet the Police orders for the '767' Enforcers.
    They had to go out onto the 'open market' and buy up 'secondhand' rifles for conversion - this is why we see Enforcers with old Savage and Longbranch serial numbers as well as 'Enforcer' serial numbers.

    Peter Laidlericon came across documents regarding building L39's from 'used' bodies - maybe the same reasoning as the No4T Mk2 ?

    I was having a browse through the Small Arms Committee minutes relating to the L39A1 rifle the other day and found some bits and pieces that I think I ought to pass on. Including some things that I never realized either!

    The first bit is that contrary to what I firmly believed, that the rifles were built up to new rifle specification from ‘new’ components (including new barrels obviously) including bodies but the committee minutes state ‘….rifles converted from the Rifle No4 Mk1/2 and 2’ too. I was under the impression from the Armourers technical blurb that all L39’s were made ‘as new’. But this is clearly not so because Mk1/2 type L39’s will exist.

    This COULD mean that L39’s were made from brand new, unused ex c.1955 Fazakerley bodies. It could also include USED ex .303” Mk2 bodies. It could also Mk2/1 rifles unbreeched and rebarrelled at the point of conversion to L39 at Enfield and it COULD include bodies converted to Mk1/2 but UNUSED since conversion at Fazakerley in the late 40’s to mid 50’s. However, no mention is made of Mk1/3 bodies.


    Longbranch Enforcer Example :
    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...

  8. Thank You to Alan de Enfield For This Useful Post:


  9. #14
    Advisory Panel Surpmil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Last On
    @
    Location
    West side
    Posts
    4,651
    Local Date
    03-28-2024
    Local Time
    11:17 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Payneicon View Post
    I gather there was an idea to convert new No4 Mk2's to meet the requirement for the L42 programme as so many of the 4T's were pretty well used by 1970. However, the idea was not proceeded with as sufficient 4T's with enough life in them were ultimately found for the conversion programme. From what I have been told (largely from PL) keeping the required number of L42's up & running during their service lives was a challenge at times.

    Even so, I've often wondered why, when 4T's were converted to L42's EFD didn't hang the triggers on the body at the same time..........seems like a missed opportunity to make an excellent rifle even better.
    Yes, that was my question but extending it back into the service life of the rifle in the 1950s and 60s. In view of what else has been posted in this thread, I am getting the impression this is another of those examples of one hand not knowing what the other was doing: thousands of No4 rifles going through FTR were being converted to MkI/2 specs in the late 40s to early 50s, so either it was a case of whatever came through for FTR was done, or only certain rifles were?

    Is there any reason to think some No4(T)s were not going through FTR during that time as well? We know that tens of thousands of SMLEs were being FTR'd in the same time period. Ostensibly that would seem to make little sense in terms of priorities, unless they were being done to fill overseas orders?

    Perhaps No4(T)s going through FTR during that time were NOT converted as a matter of policy (uniformity?)

    As for why they weren't done at the time of the L42A1 conversion; perhaps all the parts and jigs had gone to Pakistan with the Fazackerly machinery? It is a very curious omission! Regardless, the necessary parts could have been made up from new cheaply enough, not to mention a new set of jigs. (IIRC Parker Hale had some of those blocks - and probably the jigs to braze them on)

    If rifles were bought on the civilian market for L39 conversion, that raises another question some of us have pondered: why they didn't buy back No4(T)s as dealers still had them "NOS" by the pallet load even in the late 1960s. Even twenty years later it wasn't hard to find examples in practically unused condition.

    Sniper rifles spend a disproportionate amount of time close to the ground, wet grass etc. Moisture getting into the woodwork we all know can upset triggers and bedding. If any rifle cried out for conversion to Mk1/2 it was the No4(T).
    Last edited by Surpmil; 11-01-2020 at 12:18 PM. Reason: Typos
    “There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.”

    Edward Bernays, 1928

    Much changes, much remains the same.

  10. The Following 2 Members Say Thank You to Surpmil For This Useful Post:


  11. #15
    Legacy Member GeeRam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Last On
    03-18-2024 @ 03:21 PM
    Location
    Berkshire, UK
    Posts
    853
    Local Date
    03-28-2024
    Local Time
    06:17 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Surpmil View Post
    As for why they weren't done at the time of the L42A1 conversion; perhaps all the parts and jigs had gone to Pakistan with the Fazackerly machinery? It is a very curious omission! Regardless, the necessary parts could have been made up from new cheaply enough, not to mention a new set of jigs. (IIRC Parker Hale had some of those blocks - and probably the jigs to braze them on)

    If rifles were bought on the civilian market for L39 conversion, that raises another question some of us have pondered: why they didn't buy back No4(T)s as dealers still had them "NOS" by the pallet load even in the late 1960s.
    Logic and common sense are not often words or principles that can ever be applied to a great many decisions (or indecisions) made within the bowls of the MOD........
    Just the thing for putting round holes in square heads.

  12. Thank You to GeeRam For This Useful Post:


  13. #16
    Contributing Member Micheal Doyne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Last On
    03-26-2024 @ 02:34 AM
    Location
    Wiltshire Uk
    Posts
    397
    Real Name
    Ed Vigors
    Local Date
    03-28-2024
    Local Time
    07:17 PM
    Maybe the the feeling was that the mk2 hung trigger made for a trigger that more easily set up as as I am sure many of us know Mk1 if more that capable of having a tigger as good or better than a mk2 if the time is taken to set it up and maintain it. Might it not be the assuming that as Ts and L42 where given a quite a bit or armourer time the mk2 trigger wasn’t need and if the body is working don’t change it?

    I have no data to back this up, it is just wild theorising!

    When is PL due back?

  14. #17
    Legacy Member Bruce_in_Oz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last On
    Today @ 04:54 AM
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    2,237
    Local Date
    03-29-2024
    Local Time
    04:17 AM
    I suspect decision for the "exclusive" use of the No4 Mk1 for "T" conversion, (see also late "trials rifles with weird threads, etc) was all to do with the bedding.

    Whilst the later bodies with the trigger hung off the added bracket make setting up the trigger / sear / cocking-piece relationship quite straightforward, the actual woodwork seems to have been the issue.

    Only the Mk1 / Mk1* have a fore-end which is "solid" at the rear, all of the "hung trigger" jobs are "open" and use a transverse screw to clamp the for-end to the trigger hanger.

    Thus, in the absence of stainless-steel bedding epoxies and thread -locker in bottles, the most stable fore-end was the Mk1 style., This seems to have been even more critical on the L42 series, all of which appear to have been made from Mk1 (T) rifles. At least in a No4, the barrel is fairly well stabilized inside the fore-end and with the upwards pressure at the front end of the fore-end, etc.. Not so much on the L42, with an entirely different setup.

    The trigger on the trigger-guard is a pain to set up precisely, especially if the trigger-guard is a bit wonky, but, let's face it, if you have big bins of parts, and a bench full of jigs and gauges, it would simply be a tedious walk in the park.

    A while back I brewed up a bogus "L41 1/2"; stainless barrel and all, on a No4 Mk2 that had previously been someones 7.62 NATO conversion target rifle and that had been badly neglected. That fore-end now features a lot of internal glass-fibre "stiffening", aluminium bedding plates top and bottom of the front trigger-guard screw hole, stainless Devcon bedding and a new high-tensile M3 cap screw and home-brewed "nut" to clamp the fore-end to the trigger hanger.

    It works for me.
    Last edited by Bruce_in_Oz; 11-01-2020 at 03:40 AM.

  15. The Following 2 Members Say Thank You to Bruce_in_Oz For This Useful Post:


  16. #18
    Advisory Panel Surpmil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Last On
    @
    Location
    West side
    Posts
    4,651
    Local Date
    03-28-2024
    Local Time
    11:17 AM
    Interesting, but considering the points of attachment between forend and barrelled action on the No4, the Mk2 forend with the cross-bolt should be more secure, not less. What does the tie-plate achieve that the cross-bolt cannot do better?

    I would expect that this was all studied, tested and proven before the Mk2/Mk1/2 modification was ever introduced?
    Last edited by Surpmil; 11-01-2020 at 12:49 PM.
    “There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.”

    Edward Bernays, 1928

    Much changes, much remains the same.

  17. Thank You to Surpmil For This Useful Post:


  18. #19
    Legacy Member Bruce_in_Oz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last On
    Today @ 04:54 AM
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    2,237
    Local Date
    03-29-2024
    Local Time
    04:17 AM
    I guess that it may have been all about the stability, or otherwise, of the furniture available.

    I have several "new" No 4 Mk2 -type fore-ends here and a couple of them are clearly "warped" and or twisted to some "minor" degree. This would possibly indicate that, when they were made, the raw "flitch" had been cut from timber that was not fully "cured and / or correctly "quarter-sawn" from the log originally and that the flitch itself may not have been properly "cured".

    The somewhat older and more "pre-loved" Mk1 fore-ends look pretty true.

    Then there was the basic problem of supply and demand. In the "good old days" Lee Enfields were SPECIFIED to be fitted with Italianicon Walnut. This was also required to have been cut from certain sections of the trees, aged for YEARS, cut into "flitches" for final machining and stored again. Between operations, the timber had to be kept in low, but not TOO low-humidity storage. Finished furniture was then to be stored in linseed oilicon for months. All excellent and achievalbe operation sin a peace-time environment. However.....

    Come 1914 and Italy was busy doing its own thing with whatever stored stocks of walnut it had and the other good stuff from either Turkeyicon or Russiaicon was unavailable due to related circumstances. Hence all the other species of trees being recruited, Kiln -drying helped, but if done too fast, the flitches would split and twist, thus becoming useless for anything much more than bayonet grip scales. Australiaicon turned to Coachwood as a substitute. Straight-grained, but somewhat prone to splitting, it had been used previously for making household furniture. Other local trees were also signed up but the short time-lines meant that processing and evaluation were compromised. So much Coachwood was consumed by WW1 and WW2 that the species came close to extinction. There are small stands still surviving on the east coast of Oz, but very few seem to want to make furniture of any sort out of it. Some is occasionally available from specialty joiners suppliers and is used by restorers to rebuild antique household furniture.

    LOTS of variables to toss around in this issue.

    Relying on the interaction between steel and wood to stay the same for extended periods in ANY weather / climate was a huge act of faith. Most of the time it was good enough for government work. Inch and a quarter groups at 100 FEET? 3.5 MOA acceptance? At average actual combat ranges; also good enough for government work

    There are very good reasons "chassis" systems have arisen and proliferated. Ditto synthetic furniture.
    Last edited by Bruce_in_Oz; 11-01-2020 at 05:28 PM.

  19. #20
    Contributing Member
    bigduke6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last On
    03-25-2024 @ 09:09 PM
    Location
    North West England,UK
    Posts
    3,279
    Local Date
    03-28-2024
    Local Time
    06:17 PM
    The No 4 (T) was already set up with pads and brackets and its scope, a new barrel, magazine and extractor, is childs play compared to using another rifle and building a sniper rifle from scratch, Civilian shooters had proved that replacing the barrel with a heavy 7.62mm had proved its effectiveness, not a lot really to test.

    like I always say the Lee Enfield has to be one of the most environment friendly (green) rifles there is regarding the amount of times it was converted etc,

    L39 was easy to produce and the Enforcer wasn't probably high on the priority list and to fit them with the mounts that were fitted was a much more basic procedure than the No4 (T).

    My own L42A1 has the FTR mark, I gather this was applied in its previous life as a 4(T) or on its conversion as was one of the trials L42,s
    Last edited by bigduke6; 11-02-2020 at 11:44 AM.

  20. Thank You to bigduke6 For This Useful Post:


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Raven Rocks