Too bad the stock has been "restored", but appears to be an interesting transitional piece from the MkII to MkIII.
Except for the aperture screwed onto the leaf, the sight appears to be a standard MkIII pattern, and does not look hand-made, so that is probably a later addition.
The charger bridge may be a replacement since the wear marks shown under the left hand edge cannot have been made by that bridge. Perhaps a Lyman No.50 sight was originally fitted that later went missing, or a different charger bridge.
The "H5" is probably for "Hughes" as Sir Charles was ever canny in seeking official approval; witness the many presentation rifle he sent to prominent officers and politicians.
The swell of the buttplate at the heel is much more pronounced than a Lee Enfield butt plate, and the tab on the butt-trap cover looks longer, the tang looks quite different too.
Have seen a trigger guard like that on some other rifle, but can't place it now.
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." W.L.S.C..
"None need deceive a people determined to deceive themselves."
The charger bridge may be a replacement since the wear marks shown under the left hand edge cannot have been made by that bridge. Perhaps a Lyman No.50 sight was originally fitted that later went missing, or a different charger bridge.
When looking at the video it would had surprised me myself that someone would try to submit a military rifle where one needs to lift the rear sight to allow a stripper clip to be used. The sheet metal basis for the rear sight could had been extended to the rear to allow clearance, but of course then would had partially covered the rear bolt end. Still better than to limit reloading. Your picture makes it clear the rifle most possibly originally had another rear sight that probably got missing and got replaced with what was thought to be "more correct".
PM
Originally Posted by soonerfan66
