An Enfield what??

[John25]

Edit: just seen John's post - John do you know if it would have been sporterised before, during or after the war..?

Most surplus rifles were sold for export and in bulk quantities.

I have an old Target Gun Magazine which offered imports from the USA at forty quid.

There were many 'improvements' on offer, as there are with black guns now.

'Free floating' the barrel was part of turning these rifles into sporting guns and some had heavy barrels added to make them 'Target Rifles'.

When I first started shooting TR we all had number four derivitives for long range and mauser derivitives for short range.

As for the magazine catch, it's how they are. The Britsh Tommy wasn't taught to 'squander' ammo so had no need to change mags.

Let us know how it shoots.

[Dougan]

Edit: just seen John's post - John do you know if it would have been sporterised before, during or after the war..?

Most surplus rifles were sold for export and in bulk quantities.

I have an old Target Gun Magazine which offered imports from the USA at forty quid.

There were many 'improvements' on offer, as there are with black guns now.

'Free floating' the barrel was part of turning these rifles into sporting guns and some had heavy barrels added to make them 'Target Rifles'.

When I first started shooting TR we all had number four derivitives for long range and mauser derivitives for short range.

As for the magazine catch, it's how they are. The Britsh Tommy wasn't taught to 'squander' ammo so had no need to change mags.

Let us know how it shoots.

I had an Enfield conversion; but that was converted to 7.62, had a stainless steal barrel and aperture sights - this looks more natural, which is what made me think it was an early conversion...but then I'm no expert, as Gaz pointed out ( :P ).

I can't remember seeing such a simple conversion (must pay more attention at the trade fairs...)....I really like it tongueout

[Chuck]

WOT...No droppie mag - bang in another...how prinitive....LOL......

Thanks for the feedback chaps, comments passed on to owner.

She has acquired some Sellier and Bellot .303 - hope I get a chance to shoot it sometime soon..I'll keep you posted...

[Chuck]

Finally shot this wee rifle today...sweeeet! Hardly any kick..Owner was using Sellier and Bellot .303 ammo, nice and light, typical Enfield action and still as good as the day it was made..wish I had got some photos taken.

[Blu]

Chuck, Bubba did a number on a No4 mate. There are probably thousands of the things over here that look just like it. Go to Gunbroker.com or Auction Arms and you will find them on there guaranteed. The only company that I know of that did a somewhat half decent job of taking a perfectly good No4 and fecking it up was/is "Golden State Arms Santa Fe". Below is a photo of one of their modified No4's.

Golden State.jpg

Blu

[Chuck]

Whwere's my reply...just posted it........?

Anyway, her rifle nowt like that one but the locals seemed somewhat taken with it.....and all things British.

[John25]

I'm pleased to hear that it shoots well. My number four, bought for forty quid, shot better than a quarter of a minute at long range.

I only sold it because it was wearing out and, even at twenty tons proof ( not the usual nineteen) it wasn't up to continued use of 155g ammo. and I took up 'F' class.

Fond memories of it 'though.

[Rearlugs]

and, even at twenty tons proof ( not the usual nineteen) it wasn't up to continued use of 155g ammo.

Out of interest, what do you base that assumption on?

I have an Envoy with a documented 9,000+ rounds of 155 through it, and the headspace remains (extremely) tight on its original "0" bolt head. IIRC there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that No4 actions are not easily capable of continued use with 155 or the .308W loads warned against on t'internet..

Even the No1 action can easily withstand successive thirty ton proof firings (albeit in .303), according to the authoritative "Text Book of Small Arms".

[John25]

It wasn't designed for the 155 grain bullet which has a completely different profile to that which the rifle was chambered for.

I shoot 180 grain bullets though my SMLE, but the gun was designed for it and .303 doesn't generate the pressures of .308.

Converted number fours were chambered for the 174gr military ball long before the 155 ammo became the norm.

On the advice of more than one gunsmith, and using my little bit of knowlege and experience, I did not, and would not shoot 155 RUAG through a number four in it's original configuration.

I know of two which have blown up whilst using 155, and while I cannot show proof that the ammo alone was the cause, if I had another 7.62 No.4 'as original' it would be loaded only with 174.

:cheers: