Please help me identify this No. 4 Enfield
- Thread starter cantom
- Start date
Claven2 said:I've always thought of Badgerdog as a "Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman" kind of guy...
I have another little factoid to throw into the mix. I just compared my Long Branch with this rifle, side by side. Someone asked about the top cover? The rear top cover is the same length as on the Long Branch. It's originally a stock item. It's just been bevelled down to end at an angle as you see in the pic.
The difference is, the band is 17" from the beginning of the butt socket to the band on the Long Branch. On this rifle the measurement is 16". One inch less, which is why they could have the wood extend past the band.
The lower wood would appear to have been purpose built for this gun. There is no sign of there having been a groove there for the 17" dimension, I looked carefully. Not a mark. The wood is all matching in grain and colour, front to back.
BTW, I know what a No 4 Mk 1/2 is, there is one for sale with pics on Collectors Source website.
hxxp://www.collectorssource.com/item.asp?recid=1904
- Location
- Tucson, Arizona
No, not Numrich arms, but Navy Arms.
Thats the best line of BS I have heard in a while.
Have seen one of those in Tucson.
I believe the Royal Marine Commandos served in the European theatre, so a shortened rifle would be a bit out of character. In any case, can you envision in your wildest dreams the British NOT having a bayonet lug on a rifle? Especialy the MARINES? Out of curiosity, you might take a magnet to that flash hider to see if its steel or pot metal.
Thats the best line of BS I have heard in a while.
Have seen one of those in Tucson.
I believe the Royal Marine Commandos served in the European theatre, so a shortened rifle would be a bit out of character. In any case, can you envision in your wildest dreams the British NOT having a bayonet lug on a rifle? Especialy the MARINES? Out of curiosity, you might take a magnet to that flash hider to see if its steel or pot metal.
Last edited:
John Sukey said:No, not Numrich arms, but Navy Arms.
Thats the best line of BS I have heard in a while.
Have seen one of those in Tucson.
I believe the Royal Marine Commandos served in the European theatre, so a shortened rifle would be a bit out of character. In any case, can you envision in your wildest dreams the British NOT having a bayonet lug on a rifle? Especialy the MARINES? Out of curiosity, you might take a magnet to that flash hider to see if its steel or pot metal.
A magnet won't stick to it, possibly meaning pot metal I guess. There was an Enfield expert at the show named Bob who also mentioned it being pot metal, as in he couldn't believe Britain would put pot metal on one of their rifles.
Any pics of a Navy Arms conversion?
BTW, if it's shortened it's only by an inch of barrel, but the barrel is actually longer with the hider on it.
Any idea what actual changes Navy Arms made? Did they make new lower wood for example? See the post about the band being 1" closer to the butt socket than other No. 4's. Did Navy Arms stamp the action or barrel in any way?
BTW, I'm not that worried if these rifles turn out to be a modern conversion, my world will keep rotating. I'd be happy enough just to know the actual provenance of the rifle. I do not take ownership of that Royal Commandos story, that is just what I've been hearing from various people.
Last edited:
I've been reading this thread and came up with the most logical (in my mind) answer to this:
1) A guy maybe late 40's early 50's had a batch of these made up.
2) He got a bunch of people to dress up like Royal Commando's and took a picture of it which by now would look old and aged anyways.
3) He then told that story and might have shown the picture to people to convince them its true to make a buck or 2 more then what he could have got for normal Enfields.
4) His story is kept by all the owners of these rifles since.
5) His story is spread agian and a fellow CGN buys the rifle then posts here.
Thats my take on all of this.
Dimitri
1) A guy maybe late 40's early 50's had a batch of these made up.
2) He got a bunch of people to dress up like Royal Commando's and took a picture of it which by now would look old and aged anyways.
3) He then told that story and might have shown the picture to people to convince them its true to make a buck or 2 more then what he could have got for normal Enfields.
4) His story is kept by all the owners of these rifles since.
5) His story is spread agian and a fellow CGN buys the rifle then posts here.
Thats my take on all of this.
Dimitri
Dimitri said:I've been reading this thread and came up with the most logical (in my mind) answer to this:
1) A guy maybe late 40's early 50's had a batch of these made up.
2) He got a bunch of people to dress up like Royal Commando's and took a picture of it which by now would look old and aged anyways.
3) He then told that story and might have shown the picture to people to convince them its true to make a buck or 2 more then what he could have got for normal Enfields.
4) His story is kept by all the owners of these rifles since.
5) His story is spread agian and a fellow CGN buys the rifle then posts here.
Thats my take on all of this.
Dimitri
Hehehe...who knows, you may be close. I remember Enfields selling for $30 each at Sears in the 70's. Someone may have wanted to "enhance" their value a trifle...
I hope someone supplies the definitive word, one way or the other.
I find the different lower wood interesting...anyone have a theory on that?
I got an email from Gordon at Milarm today, they have one of these and pics are forthcoming. I'll post em as I get em. Hopefully they'll be better than what my webcam can provide.
Last edited:
tiriaq said:
As promised I have received 3 pictures of Milarm's copy of the same rifle. They are named Milarm on this site:
http://s94.photobucket.com/albums/l88/cantom_2006/
EDIT: To make it easier and quicker for folks to see, I've reformatted the pics into the post.
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
Note that the wood is the same colour as mine, the barrel band is the same distance from the butt socket, the metal is also gray. The bolt handle is also hollow! Man, Bubba must have been busy eh? If that's not the same rifle I'll be a monkey's nephew.
1) Different metal finish than other British Enfields.
2) Cut barrel with a set screw retained flash hider.
3) Different stock configuration including location of barrel band on lower forestock.
4) Hollow bolt handles.
5) No bayonet lug.
Reply from Milarm just received re asking for the pic showing soldiers with this rifle:
Tom; "therein lies the rub", it would be easy to substantiate our
claims, IF I could find the collectors journal showing this rifle.
Both Allan and I have recollection of it, but with in excess of 5000
books in our reference collection, we are up to our eyeballs to
determine where it is.
Our rifle measures the same 16" measurement on the lower fore stock.
Last edited:
Odd ball No.4
The rifle is question is one made by Golden State Arms in the 60's as a quasi "Jungle Carbine". They were a No.4 with the forend wood cut down. There was two models: one forend was cut just ahead of the middle band and used the original rear handguard and a stamped metal nose piece to hold the uncut number 4 rear handguard on the rifle, while the other model had the middle band moved back and the original handguard was just rounded off at the nose. The flash hider was a cast pot metal flash hider secured to the bayonet lug by a set screw. The barrel was "bobbed back" about 3/4 inch. These rifles have been sold as "Commando Carbines", Long Jungle Carbines, experimental No.4's, etc. but they are just a 60's bubba job on a No.4. One who remembers them........
Cheers,
Wheaty
The rifle is question is one made by Golden State Arms in the 60's as a quasi "Jungle Carbine". They were a No.4 with the forend wood cut down. There was two models: one forend was cut just ahead of the middle band and used the original rear handguard and a stamped metal nose piece to hold the uncut number 4 rear handguard on the rifle, while the other model had the middle band moved back and the original handguard was just rounded off at the nose. The flash hider was a cast pot metal flash hider secured to the bayonet lug by a set screw. The barrel was "bobbed back" about 3/4 inch. These rifles have been sold as "Commando Carbines", Long Jungle Carbines, experimental No.4's, etc. but they are just a 60's bubba job on a No.4. One who remembers them........
Cheers,
Wheaty
