When in doubt or completely in the dark.... rely on the collective knowledge of the group.
I was asked what the left hand bolthead is from? No7 on the right for comparison.
I have no knowledge about No7's or later versions of the Enfields 22's.
If i had to guess, maybe from a CNo7 ?? I think i might have read, there was slight differences between the two rifles?...
I know one thing for sure... some of you guys will know.
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.
I'm no expert on these either, but I wonder if it could be the bolt head for the No5 .22 prototypes..........I think I might even have a similar one somewhere myself. I believe the CNo7 had a similar bolt head to the N9.
A C No.7 used a standard .303 bolt, with a rimfire bolthead. The .303 firing pin became a striker which made contact with the rimfire firing pin in the bolthead. Not unlike the .22" SMLE based rifles.
Your boltheads are very similar except that one has the positioning finger opposite the extractor, while the other does not. I have no idea if one is a standard British No.7 part and the other is a variant.
They are not mine, but my friend who they belong to did mention that he was wondering if it might be for the No5 .22 prototype... so maybe there is something there.
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...
From the looks of that i would say the bolt is from a No6 rifle.
Am i missing something, the only No6's i was aware of was the Australian trials No6 Mk I and Mk I/I... i looked in Skennerton's and didn't see him mention any No6 in .22
Interesting
Thanks Patrick for putting up thoes photos on my behalf!, I can't seem to be able to upload them from my phone.
That "other" bolthead in the left of thoes pictures above is the same size dimensionally as my BSA no7 bolthead. but there are some machining differences on the underside and not machined for right hand spring groove or the little firing pin circlip at the rear by the bolt body threads. So it's either from something else or was there two different boltheads available for the no7?
Cheers
Tony
From the looks of that i would say the bolt is from a No6 rifle.
Am i missing something, the only No6's i was aware of was the Australian trials No6 Mk I and Mk I/I... i looked in Skennerton's and didn't see him mention any No6 in .22
Interesting
As time goes by and more collectors release their 'stash of information' we find more and more ommissions and errors in various books - as Skennerton says "it was based on the information I had at the time".
The .22rf No6 Rifle.
Whilst similar in some respects to its predecessor - the .22 RF No.5 Rifle - it differs in many aspects. However, the action is also modified from that of a No.4 rifle and the bolt body and head are all but identical (except that the bolt-head is 10.5mm longer and the body correspondingly shorter), but only single-shot configuration has been found so far, with a loading platform in the magazine well. In fact, rather than being a modified action, it is one that has been taken from the No.4 rifle production before the machining was done for the folding leaf sight, and for the removal of metal for the lightening cut on the right-hand-side; the action body therefore remains effectively slab-sided, with the top then being milled flat to take the new sight-mounting bridge. The fore-end woodwork is deeper below the receiver and fractionally shorter in front of the barrel band. This, and the fact that the barrel is 3.5" longer than that of the No.5, gives a hint that this rifle is destined to lead to the No.8 rifle with its barrel length of 23.2". Note that the No.8 rifles were built up on the .303in No.5 "Jungle Carbine" actions, possibly because a decision had already been intimate that the latter rifle was not to be made the main issue service rifle, as had been mooted late in WW2 (as a result of its "Wandering Zero" issue), and many of the lightened actions were had become surplus to requirements.
One major difference from the .22RF No.5 action is the raised section carrying the new rear sight. This section, or bridge, is fitted into and over the recess originally machined for the No.4 type rear sight folding leaf (as was fitted to the .22RF No.5 with the addition of a target type elevation slide with windage adjustment and a Parker-Hale style six-hole rotating disc screw-in rear aperture unit. This design of rear-sight preceded the A.J. Parker designed 8/53 adapter unit by nearly ten years, although it required a complete replacement of the elevation slide rather than the simple screw-on fixing of the 8/53 windage adapter for target shooting with the Rifles Nos.4,7,8 and 9 )
The foresight of the .22RF No.6 is identical to that of the .22RF No.5, with a revolving knurled centre section which, when rotated through 180 degrees, releases the fore-sight element from the top. The rifle was usually issued with two elements - one with a post fore-sight and one a ring fore-sight. These complete units were especially manufactured for the No.5 and No.6 .22RF rifles, and we are only aware that they were used on one other rifle - and that was the 1948 Olympic Free Rifle for the British Team. The fore-sight tunnel fitted into a laterally machined dovetail in the fore-sight block which was sweated and pinned onto the barrel. This system appears to have formed the basis of that used on the later Rifle No.8; this permitted the fitment to that rifle of either a target type foresight tunnel or the more familiar service issue open sided fore-sight protector wings emulating those of the No.4 rifle. The quality of manufacture of the No.5 and No.6 tunnel units is exceedingly high, and these fore-sights must have been very expensive to produce as they were effectively custom made. The same holds true of the respective rear-sight modifications for both rifles, let alone the complex bolt-heads which were the pre-cursor to those fitted to BSA's Lee-Enfield No.7 rifle of which approximately 2,500 were built for the Royal Air Force contract.
The .22RF No.6 is built rather more along these lines than those of the .22RF No.5, which more closely resembles the finer lined woodwork of its full-bore service rifle brother - the colloquially known "Jungle Carbine". The No.5, though, has a specially made .22 magazine insert fitted into a slotted platform riveted into the top of a .303 magazine, which has had the spring and follower removed. This system is almost exactly that later used for the No.7 rifle, with the exception that the No.7 utilised the .22 magazine from the BSA sporter of the day; this simply had the catch and spring inverted to permit locking into the magazine slot from above rather than from below as in the sporter.
Info and pictures from Rifleman.org
Last edited by Alan de Enfield; 12-23-2022 at 03:36 AM.
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...
Information
PM
Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield
