+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 38

Thread: N° 8 Mk I trainer fitted with an A. J. Parker 8/53 sight attachment

Click here to increase the font size Click here to reduce the font size
  1. #1
    Member Didier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Last On
    Today @ 02:23 AM
    Location
    France
    Age
    56
    Posts
    25
    Local Date
    10-19-2021
    Local Time
    05:36 PM

    N° 8 Mk I trainer fitted with an A. J. Parker 8/53 sight attachment





    Hello to all,

    Here is a .22 LR Lee-Enfield trainer I bought last week.



    If my interpretation of its markings is correct, this rifle was built at ROF Fazakerley in 1951 and FTR'ed in Enfield Lock in 1966.




    The rear sight leaf was fitted with an A. J. Parker 8/53 sight attachment and its battle aperture ground off.




    I would have a couple of questions for you about this rifle:

    - was it common for .22 LR Enfield trainers to undergo FTRs?
    - does the fact that the ejector screw is absent from this n° 4 receiver show that it was never actually used on a Lee-Enfield service rifle during WW2?

    Thank you in advance for your replies!

    Didier

  2. # ADS
    Friends and Sponsors
    Join Date
    October 2006
    Location
    Milsurps.Com
    Age
    2010
    Posts
    All Threads
    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.LIMITED TIME OFFER FROM THE AMERICAN GUNSMITHING INSTITUTE: Get Immediate Online Access To AGI's NEW Armorer's Course for Glock Pistols, Covering Every Generation of Glocks, Including the Latest Model 42/43 and Double Stack Pistols for ONLY $7.00! Brian Dick ... BDL Ltd. - Specializing in British and Commonwealth weapons Chuck in Denver ... Buy-Sell-Trade .. Guns, Cars Motorcycles 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.
     

  3. #2
    Advisory Panel Patrick Chadwick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last On
    Today @ 07:12 AM
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,913
    Local Date
    10-19-2021
    Local Time
    05:36 PM
    - does the fact that the ejector screw is absent from this n° 4 receiver show that it was never actually used on a Lee-Enfield service rifle during WW2?


    Redundant query! WW2 was long over in 1951, when the receiver was made. The No.8s were built using No.4 MK1 action bodies in the 1950s. See "the Lee Enfield Story" P.442. But I imagine the Mk1 bodies were probably - at least partially! - new but surplus factory stock, as the No4 Mk2 was generally in production.

    - was it common for .22 LR Enfield trainers to undergo FTRs?

    Most definitely not. I have collected auction sales adverts of (almost) all No.8s offered here in Germanyicon for several years. I have never seen one marked with FTR before. The FTR UE 66 refers to a factory thorough repair at Enfield in the 1960s. See "the Lee Enfield Story" P.442.

    BTW. thanks to the FTR, that looks like a "very low mileage" No.8. You were lucky!

    Patrick
    Last edited by Patrick Chadwick; 09-06-2021 at 05:07 PM.

  4. Avoid Ads - Become a Contributing Member - Click HERE
  5. #3
    Really Senior Member Mk VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last On
    10-17-2021 @ 01:41 PM
    Location
    England
    Age
    60
    Posts
    1,260
    Local Date
    10-19-2021
    Local Time
    04:36 PM
    Some have got the ejector screw (because it fastens on the PH5C sight) some have not, it has no other function. Some are built on No.5 bodies.

  6. #4
    Member Didier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Last On
    Today @ 02:23 AM
    Location
    France
    Age
    56
    Posts
    25
    Local Date
    10-19-2021
    Local Time
    05:36 PM
    Thread Starter
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick View Post
    - does the fact that the ejector screw is absent from this n° 4 receiver show that it was never actually used on a Lee-Enfield service rifle during WW2?

    Redundant query! WW2 was long over in 1951, when the receiver was made. The No.8s were built using No.4 MK1 action bodies in the 1950s. See "the Lee Enfield Story" P.442. But I imagine the Mk1 bodies were probably - at least partially! - new but surplus factory stock, as the No4 Mk2 was generally in production.

    - was it common for .22 LR Enfield trainers to undergo FTRs?

    Most definitely not. I have collected auction sales adverts of (almost) all No.8s offered here in Germanyicon for several years. I have never seen one marked with FTR before. The FTR UE 66 refers to a factory thorough repair at Enfield in the 1960s. See "the Lee Enfield Story" P.442.

    BTW. thanks to the FTR, that looks like a "very low mileage" No.8. You were lucky!

    Patrick
    Thank you for your answer, Patrick. I do not own the book and had always thought n° 4 Mk I rifles were wartime production, hence my question, but the use of brand new receivers does make sense.
    Yes, indeed, I was very lucky to chance on that rifle, all the more so as the price it was sold for was quite decent according to Frenchicon standards.
    One should also note that the markings are not electropencilled, but it looks like engraving them was common practice at Enfield in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

    ---------- Post added at 11:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Mk VII View Post
    Some have got the ejector screw (because it fastens on the PH5C sight) some have not, it has no other function. Some are built on No.5 bodies.
    I had the feeling that those with the ejector screw - the older rifles - had been built using parts salvaged from scrapped n° 4 and 5 rifles. Is this assumption correct?

  7. #5
    Really Senior Member Mk VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last On
    10-17-2021 @ 01:41 PM
    Location
    England
    Age
    60
    Posts
    1,260
    Local Date
    10-19-2021
    Local Time
    04:36 PM
    I think they were all unused actions. The 5's were probably left over from No.5 production, maybe partially finished.

  8. #6
    Member Didier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Last On
    Today @ 02:23 AM
    Location
    France
    Age
    56
    Posts
    25
    Local Date
    10-19-2021
    Local Time
    05:36 PM
    Thread Starter
    Quote Originally Posted by Mk VII View Post
    I think they were all unused actions. The 5's were probably left over from No.5 production, maybe partially finished.
    I must say I had tried to find out about that for quite a long time but the question had apparently never been raised or, at least, had never seemed to attract the attention of Lee-Enfield enthusiasts.

  9. #7
    Really Senior Member tr63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last On
    Today @ 10:27 AM
    Location
    maine U.S.A.
    Posts
    397
    Local Date
    10-19-2021
    Local Time
    11:36 AM
    I under stand the number 8 used the PH D receiver sight that used a much higher drilled and taped hole on the left side of the receiver to attach it .

  10. #8
    Member Didier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Last On
    Today @ 02:23 AM
    Location
    France
    Age
    56
    Posts
    25
    Local Date
    10-19-2021
    Local Time
    05:36 PM
    Thread Starter
    I wanted to thank everybody on here for their messages - I now have a clearer idea of how these rifles were made and where their constitutive elements came from.
    I would be curious to know how many No.8 MkI trainers underwent FTR at Enfield in the late 60s - Ian Skennertonicon states that "Quite a few of the No. 8 rifles also bear Enfield receiver markings 'UE' followed by the year and the FTR mark." (The Lee-Enfield, A Century of Lee-Metford & Lee-Enfield Rifles & Carbines (page 508) but that does not tell us how many were actually FTR'ed at that time.

    This one is actually my second Lee-Enfield trainer, the first one being an ex-1916 BSA Mk III* SMLE converted to a No.2 Mk IV* rifle. I am also into WW2 Britishicon uniform collecting, which is rather consistent with the taste I am developing for Lee-Enfield rifles, I think



  11. The Following 3 Members Say Thank You to Didier For This Useful Post:


  12. #9
    Member Didier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Last On
    Today @ 02:23 AM
    Location
    France
    Age
    56
    Posts
    25
    Local Date
    10-19-2021
    Local Time
    05:36 PM
    Thread Starter
    Quote Originally Posted by tr63 View Post
    I under stand the number 8 used the PH D receiver sight that used a much higher drilled and taped hole on the left side of the receiver to attach it .
    I had not really noticed the screw on the left side, next to the safety lever, or, at least, had thought it served some practical purpose on the rifle as it is, but upon closer scrutiny I was able to see that it is not present on all No. 8 rifles - do you think it would be possible to ascertain which of the numerous PH sights had once been attached to this rifle?


  13. #10
    Really Senior Member tr63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last On
    Today @ 10:27 AM
    Location
    maine U.S.A.
    Posts
    397
    Local Date
    10-19-2021
    Local Time
    11:36 AM
    PH No 5D was used for the No8 it did not use the threaded hole as used for the ejector on the No4 .It had a higher mounting arm than the PH 5 and used threaded holes on the left side of the receiver. One that was much higher then found on the .303 cal. No4 and the hole just in front of the safety . that is not found on the No4 .
    Last edited by tr63; 09-08-2021 at 11:10 AM.

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-11-2018, 10:33 AM
  2. SLR -Fitted with double aperture rear sight
    By Flying10uk in forum FNFAL Rifles
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-05-2016, 07:16 PM
  3. NZ No. 2 Patt 14 AJ Parker .22 Trainer
    By Roy in forum The Lee Enfield Knowledge Library Collectors Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-01-2014, 09:00 PM
  4. Springfield M1903 - previously fitted with a Lyman M48 Receiver sight?
    By Arkaler in forum M1903/1903A3/A4 Springfield Rifle
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-12-2013, 10:43 PM
  5. M 1903 rear sight attachment
    By kanterj in forum M1903/1903A3/A4 Springfield Rifle
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-07-2013, 08:12 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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