Help with Enfield trainer *Chamber Cast Done!*

[skirsons]

I recently purchased this Sht .22 IV* and it has become somewhat of a mystery. It uses those obsolete .303 inserts that you put .22L cartridges into so that you have a repeating rifle. (edit: it was found to be chambered in some oddball wildcat .22 cartridge) It does not have an offset firing pin. I heard there are inserts that compensate for this by means of some sort of plunger... is that true?

I would like to know any info or thoughts you might have on this rifle.

The barrel is marked BSA, and the wrist Enfield.

The bolt and receiver are not matching. The barrel serial no. does not match the receiver. Was this rifle just made up from parts?

It came with a Canadian marked magazine. The rifle is canadian marked too, but the magazine was from a No. 4 and interferes with the cutoff. Much of the external hardware on this rifle is pitted and looks as if dug up from the Somme.

There is no ring on the barrel that screws into the stock. This is another factor that leads me to believe it is a made-up rifle. Consequently there is no screw behind the barrel band.

The rear sight is windage adjustable.

The buttstock has wierd holes in it!

There is an odd reinforcing screw in the stock, many arsenal repairs, and another pin near the muzzle.

A very odd safety that I've never seen. Missing the screw part.

Reads: .22L * 610"

Odd holes:

A very odd hook on the follower:

 

[BadgerDog]

Did you get the .22 inserts with the rifle?

Regards,
Badger

 

[skirsons]

No! I need em!

 

[tiriaq]

The .22" Short Rifle Pattern 1918, which used the conveyors, had a bolthead converted to rimfire. The centrefire bolt in your rifle is incorrect for this system, or for any other .22 rimfire rifle. There were the centrefire .230 conversions, but this is not one of them. The 1918 conversion had a Parker Hale sleeve soldered in, in front of the .303 chamber. The barrel was stamped "Parkerifled" and the receiver "Parker-Hale .303 *** .22 System". The proof marks on your barrel suggest that at one time your barrel had a normal .22 chamber.
The magazine has nothing to do with the rifle. What do you mean by an odd hook on the follower? I've never seen a safety like that; it is not cut to work with a bolt lock? The safety spring is the late Australian pattern.
The rifle would appear to be an assembly of odd parts. Where, when and by whom it was assembled may be difficult to determine. Obviously, the body is from a IV* rifle. The barrel may have been. Whether the C /l\ mark on the receiver relates to .303 service or .22 is anyone's guess. Canada did use IV* rifles, don't know about the Pattern 1918 conversions. Have you determined the exact configuration of the chamber? You don't have any conveyors, will a .303 case or dummy round chamber? The conveyors require a unique chamber. .22 training rifles have been altered by gunsmiths to fire centrefire .22 rounds.

 

[R005t3r]

22 enfield

You lucky bastard!

 

[Sgt Striker]

Why don't you show them the one I sold you...

 

[green]

The holes in the butt are for lightening, deleted in WWI.

 

[Calum]

Is that the right magazine for that rifle?
Looks like one for a Number 4.

 

[skirsons]

Strange double post.

 

[skirsons]

The magazine has nothing to do with the rifle. What do you mean by an odd hook on the follower? I've never seen a safety like that; it is not cut to work with a bolt lock? The safety spring is the late Australian pattern.

I am thinking I should take it to a gunshop and ask them to figure out what kind of round it is chambered for. We could try a .303 round. Is there any .22 centrefire round that you could think of that it might be? .223 Remington? That would be really cool if someone chambered it for the M16 round! I'd have a really cool "Black Rifle"

If you look at the picture of the follower, which I believe is the last picture, there is a hook on the front of it. I don't know if that's normal or not.

The safety does not lock the bolt when in cocked position. It is missing the screw piece!

 

[tiriaq]

The turned down flange on the front of the follower is normal.
The conveyors have the long cylindrical projection in front of the "neck", where the bullet would be. Might not even fit a normal .303 chamber.
It was not uncommon for these rifles to be rechambered to .22 Hornet. That would be obvious though, just looking at the chamber diameter. Other conversions could be problematic.
Keep your eyes open for a SMLE magazine, that would be the correct one.

 

[Claven2]

Wrong magazine. Wrong bolt. Was certainly NEVER a real Patt18. If the barrel is still in .22 cal all the way to the end but the chamber is .303 dimensions, then someone used a reamer to try and approximate a Patt18, but NO original Patt18's were built on No.2MkIV* actions - EVER. In fact, MkIV* rifles are a development from almost 20 years LATER!

The buttstock was likely once on a ShtLE Mk1*.

The forestock is salvaged off a rifle that did time in India at the Isahpore arsenal and the action has miscellaneous Australian bits.

Sorry to say it, but I think you have a recent "bitsa" meant to deceive someone (ie: you).

The chamber MIGHT be in .25-303 or .22-303. Common conversions on sporters i nthe 1960's. Perhaps someone restocked one.

 

[rgg_7]

Most old Enfields have an interestring history and if you study them intently they will reveal their past. I would call "Zefarm" and talk to them about the rifle....perhaps they have some history and definetly can tell you the pervious Owner. Contact this person as well.

Here's what I know is correct.....receiver is Sht. 22 IV*,so it started life as a No2 MKIV* training rifle. 1915 was a common year and they had BSA marked barrels. The Canadian "broad arrow" would indicate that it saw service in our military perhaps as late as WWII.

Now for the changes.

1. The safety has the the flat spring (3rd variation used on Ishapore and Lithgow) and no locking bolt. The safety lever however is
No.2 MKIV* (not commonly seen).
2. Magazine housing is from a No 4 MK1* Canadian marked. The follower has a modification at the rear. It has a hook formed at the
rear of the follower is to accommodate a specific cartridge length. Hook at front is normal. Could you tell us if there are any
markings on the follower?
3. Butt stock has lighting cuts (not uncommon).
4. Barrel is original to the rifle if marked BSA unless it bears a different serial number than the reciever. .22L *610" is a chamber
dimension, not a serial number, and been added to denote a modification. I suspect
the barrel to have been rechambered. You should do a chamber cast to eliminate any guessing. My guess is 22/303 or
variant......chamber looks too large for 22 hornet from viewing Zefarm's website pic's. In any event, you are going to have to
measure the chamber and slug the bore. Note...do not attempt to fire any modern day load in this rifle without confirmation of
calibre!!!!!!!!!!!
5. Stock has Ishapore repair.
6. Bolt head is incorrect for the Pattern 18 conveyor system. This system, if found,will be very pricey !!!!! and I doubt they would
function in this rifle given the chamber modifications. Also you are missing the Pattern 18 ejection system. As Claven 2 points out...No2MKIV* were much later and never made into Pattern 18's.

Picture's of this rifle are still up on Zefarm's website and may tell folks more than I've concluded.

Since the rifle has a centre fire bolt and modified magazine/chamber, you are looking at a post WWII conversion to centre fire. A closer examination would reveal more.

For your comments. Cheers, Ron

 

[tiriaq]

How exactly did Zefarm describe the rifle? What did you think you were buying? It is neither a Pattern 1918, nor is it a correct IV*.

 

[stencollector]

How exactly did Zefarm describe the rifle? What did you think you were buying? It is neither a Pattern 1918, nor is it a correct IV*.

Zefarm is a visionary and leader in the Canadian firearms field.




....his descriptions border on hallucinations and his prices will be spot on in about 5 or 10 years.

 

[Claven2]

oh boy... what a snowjob that rifle is.

Look at this:

See that hole on top of the sight blade? that means the rear sight assembly is off a post-1916 rifle when they were using up older MkIII parts. Post-1916, the older sights were pinned. Someone has "unpinned" this sight to try and copy a proper MkIV* windage adjustable sight. I'll bet my hat it's mismatched. The mismatched nosecap is also a CLEAR indicator that someone restocked a wildcatted sporter.

The stock is stained and varnished. the cutoff is a recent replacement. MkIV* actions were NEVER issued with cutoffs, even if they were built on 1915 MkIII actions with the slot milled in for one.

The forestock looks to be seriously cracked next to the buttsocket on the botl handle side. Look here:

the piling swivel isn't real - it's a sling swivel someone stuck on. the forestock has a 1930's profile and is Ishapore screwed. It is not a 1915 era stock and not original to your rifle unless it has Ishapore FTR markings on the receiver. note the lack of the distinctive pre-1920 era "hump" on the underside of the forestock:

the rear sight blade is a post-1916 era part. Also, the correct magazine should be a No.1MkIII mag with the guts removed and the side should be stamped ".22"

 

[green]

Looked at Zefarm site. They listed .303" SA made ammo as Japanese made at a coresponding price.
Have examined a few No2s converted to cf ctg. International sold No2s in 22 Hornet @$29.95 in the early 60s. Other calibres were 22/303 and 218 Bee by various.

 

[chanman]

I am thinking I should take it to a gunshop and ask them to figure out what kind of round it is chambered for. We could try a .303 round. Is there any .22 centrefire round that you could think of that it might be? .223 Remington? That would be really cool if someone chambered it for the M16 round! I'd have a really cool "Black Rifle"

Well, it seems doable, if time consuming and expensive: http://www.surplusrifle.com/shooting/no4223/index.asp

 

[skirsons]

How exactly did Zefarm describe the rifle? What did you think you were buying? It is neither a Pattern 1918, nor is it a correct IV*.

The rifle was described on his site. It is described as a IV* that uses .303 inserts. Any amateur who looked at it would probably conclude the same. I'm not sure how knowledgable Jose is. I did return a rifle once to him and he gave me a full refund.

I did want a bitser enfield trainer, but one that I could fire. This one was relatively cheap and I hope to have this rifle figured out some day soon!

 

[skirsons]

See that hole on top of the sight blade? that means the rear sight assembly is off a post-1916 rifle when they were using up older MkIII parts. Post-1916, the older sights were pinned. Someone has "unpinned" this sight to try and copy a proper MkIV* windage adjustable sight. I'll bet my hat it's mismatched. The mismatched nosecap is also a CLEAR indicator that someone restocked a wildcatted sporter.

I have a correct IV* without a windage adjustable sight.

The forestock looks to be seriously cracked next to the buttsocket on the botl handle side. Look here:

Nope. Arsenal repair. One of many.

the piling swivel isn't real - it's a sling swivel someone stuck on.

Admitted. I fixed that problem. Also, they were all misaligned on the wrong side.