What, exactly, is a "no.4 mk1/3 Enfield?
- Thread starter msloan
- Start date
- Location
- WMU248 near Edmonton
so a No4 Mk I/3 is a conversion of a No4 MkI* rifle to the Mk2 trigger configuration
- Location
- WMU248 near Edmonton
ok I'll make my post clear
A Mk2 was manufactured with the trigger hung off the receiver.
it was decided to convert existing MkI and MkI* to the Mk2 trigger
the MkI after conversion was designated the Mk1/2 and the MkI* was designated the Mk1/3
Now when it came to marking them they normally did not overstrike the roman numeral I with a 1 so the marking looks like I/2 but the * on a MkI* got overstruck the the /
A Mk2 was manufactured with the trigger hung off the receiver.
it was decided to convert existing MkI and MkI* to the Mk2 trigger
the MkI after conversion was designated the Mk1/2 and the MkI* was designated the Mk1/3
Now when it came to marking them they normally did not overstrike the roman numeral I with a 1 so the marking looks like I/2 but the * on a MkI* got overstruck the the /
Woodchopper, I used to be the proud owner of an Indian No4 MkI/3 T. It was an Indian conversion of the No4 MkI. If you want some pics send me your email add by PM and I will show you. No, I didn't take the rifle down to take pics of the internals. I did take picks of both sides of the receiver though and the markings are clear.
From what I can tell, the 1/2 and 1/3 designation had more to do with slight conversion differences than rifle marks.
From what I can tell, the 1/2 and 1/3 designation had more to do with slight conversion differences than rifle marks.
ALL Lee rifles are important, as are all ROSSES (I bow and say a silent prayer toward Quebec City).
Yes, we have had most of the nice ones and more are coming out of the woodwork all the time, the OP's rifle included.
WOODCHOPPER was spot-on in his explanation. That's what it is supposed to mean.
But then, what did the British Army ever know about British rifles, anyway?
Good, solid rifle with a trigger that doesn't depend on how tight your screws are.
.
Yes, we have had most of the nice ones and more are coming out of the woodwork all the time, the OP's rifle included.
WOODCHOPPER was spot-on in his explanation. That's what it is supposed to mean.
But then, what did the British Army ever know about British rifles, anyway?
Good, solid rifle with a trigger that doesn't depend on how tight your screws are.
.
- Location
- Tucson, Arizona
If you are bowing to Ross, you should do so in the direction of Florida cause that's where he retired to after he sold the company
I have no solid knowledge of what the Indians did, but they had their own system of making things and marking things, started even before Ishapore got into full production. Anything is possible from India. It would be interesting to see their List of Changes or their equivalent... and then find out how closely they stuck to it.
Even British-made rifles have variants at times. The SMLE Mark I*** is a case in point; there must be several variants, of which I have only two. It was supposed to be a conversion to bring Mark I* rifles up to Mark III spec and the Army rifles (or, at least, the one I have) did this very well. Problem was that the Navy had their own ideas as well as a dearth of parts, so just about anything seems to have gone there, depending upon the year the conversion was done, what parts were (and were not) available, what direction the wind was blowing from, how drunk the Inspector had got the previous night, that kind of thing. My Navy rifle has a solid charger bridge (although others still have the split bridge), it has the rear sight screwed directly to the barrel rather than on its own proper band (as required by Mark III spec), it has the original rear sight with the pretty water-buffalo-horn buttons and it has an original taper-bored barrel (produced only in 1906 and 1907).... with a '27 installation date! I give up! Sure shoots nice, though.
@John Sukey: I'm a Canadian! We CAN'T bow to Florida; we're all frozen stiff and we might break! Besides, if we start doing that, we will all want to move there and the place will SINK! Right now, it's 15 below here and the wind NEVER stops if it's above 40 below. LOL!
.
Even British-made rifles have variants at times. The SMLE Mark I*** is a case in point; there must be several variants, of which I have only two. It was supposed to be a conversion to bring Mark I* rifles up to Mark III spec and the Army rifles (or, at least, the one I have) did this very well. Problem was that the Navy had their own ideas as well as a dearth of parts, so just about anything seems to have gone there, depending upon the year the conversion was done, what parts were (and were not) available, what direction the wind was blowing from, how drunk the Inspector had got the previous night, that kind of thing. My Navy rifle has a solid charger bridge (although others still have the split bridge), it has the rear sight screwed directly to the barrel rather than on its own proper band (as required by Mark III spec), it has the original rear sight with the pretty water-buffalo-horn buttons and it has an original taper-bored barrel (produced only in 1906 and 1907).... with a '27 installation date! I give up! Sure shoots nice, though.
@John Sukey: I'm a Canadian! We CAN'T bow to Florida; we're all frozen stiff and we might break! Besides, if we start doing that, we will all want to move there and the place will SINK! Right now, it's 15 below here and the wind NEVER stops if it's above 40 below. LOL!
.
