RCAF Marked enfield pistol info required

[GrantR]

^^^^^^ it was reference to your "tanker" post and ment in fun

That's what I suspected .... but was a bit confused because it wasn't you who used the "t*nk*r" word .....

now another question are the shaved hammer enfields able to shoot double action with just a hammer change?

I'm definitely not a gunsmith, and honestly don't know for sure, but I suspect that at least MkI* revolvers might operate in double action with just a hammer change. My references indicate that the main change from the MkI (original, double-action configuration) to the MkI* (first of the shaved hammer versions) was the elimination of both the thumb spur and the "bent" (i.e. full #### notch) from the hammer, which was then designated the MkI* hammer. However, both the MkI and MkI* revolvers apparently utilized the same trigger/trigger group.

I'm even less sure about the second version of spurless revolver (the MkI**) because it incorporated yet another hammer configuration and a different trigger. (However, the main change introduced in the MkI^** revolver was elimination of the "safety stop", and the changes to the hammer and trigger related solely to that change, as near as I can tell ....)

 

[shortandlong]

cool thank you

 

[ipscgraz]

FWIW, I note that the foresight blade on this revolver has been filed down to lower it ...... so despite its generally nice condition it is no longer "as issued" ...... (Such sight modifications were often done to Enfield revolvers after they were in private hands to make them shoot to point of aim with commercially-available .38S&W ammunition. The British .380 service revolver cartridge was a military version of the .38S&W, but had a heavier bullet ....)

Somebody...filed...the front sight down...on that piece of history.

What a despicable act. Bubba is alive & well and has his head up and locked.

 

[Tex Critter]

Given that it is not an antique, uses almost obsolete ammo, bastardized front sight, old lemon squeezer, $100.00. Century Intl was selling them for $69.00.

 

[GrantR]

..... $100.00 Century Intl was selling them for $69.00.

Yeah ..... Right!



If Century had 1930's-dated RCAF-marked No. 2 Mk I (not Mk I* or I**) Enfield revolvers in this condition for even twice that amount, I'd buy every one of them without batting an eye ....

 

[ipscgraz]

Lever Arms had them for $25.00 in the mid seventies. None were anywhere near that condition and none were RCAF marked.

They were brit or aussie or NZ but no Canadian.

 

[shortandlong]

I remember the good old days when a longbranch was under 100

 

[Tex Critter]

Yeah ..... Right!



If Century had 1930's-dated RCAF-marked No. 2 Mk I (not Mk I* or I**) Enfield revolvers in this condition for even twice that amount, I'd buy every one of them without batting an eye ....

I wish I could get my scanner working and I'd show you the ad.

They are infact Enfield Model 2 Mark 1 and were being sold out of Montreal for 64.95 in Good Condition. So BS yourself.

 

[JP]

Yes and Century had Johnson Model 1941 rifles for $69.00 (Average price now $3,000.00 to $6,000.00) and Ross MKIII with bayonet for $97.00 (rifles now $1200.00 and bayonets for $200.00). I could go on and on, today are different times my friend.

 

[can14]

lever arms sold the same model RAF marked for $20.00. I have one in the same condition with the RAF holster.

 

[GrantR]

Tex:

Yes indeed ..... what year was that Century Arms advert published?

Frankly, I still feel justified in calling because I suspect that you really don't appreciate the significant difference (in both physical characteristics and collector value) between a Mark I and a Mark I* or I**, let alone the importance - in this particular discussion - of date, condition, Canadian service provenance and RCAF markings .....

However, I have been wrong before ...... Please do try to get your scanner working (or get access to another) and show us the ad together with confirmation of when it was published.

 

[sf]

lever arms sold the same model RAF marked for $20.00. I have one in the same condition with the RAF holster.

I thought the Lever ones were Kiwi surplus with a funky iron rear sight added to the 'tanker'.

 

[John Sukey]

And in the late 1950's you could buy one of those for $19.95 WITH a belt and "quick draw" holster.
No1Mk3's were $9.95, No4's, $11.95. 03 Springfields were $40, a 1917 Smith or a Colt New Service sold for $35 and Cadet Martini's were $9.95.

If I only had a time machine

I suppose issuing .380 revolvers to pilots made sense since they had all those machine guns to start with.

Just an opinion , but the .380 revolver was PATHETIC. The 200gr lead bullet NEVER made it into WW2, being declared obsolete in 1937 and replaced by a FMJ bullet of 178 gr. at 600fps.
If I was going to have to use a revolver with that Muzzle velocity, I would want it in .455

 

[Mr. Buttons]

I used to own one of these about 5 years ago. 1937 RCAF No.2 MK.I . The markings looked identical to yours. I was really into these Enfields at that time.

Mine was serial number E57XX. As you asked about value I think I paid $375 for it here on CGN. I think I probably sold it for about the same once I lost interest in breaktops a couple of years later. At that time you could buy an Enfield No.2 MK.I* (bobbed hammer) for under $100 - I have no idea what these go for now...

Don't know if this helped.

 

[Tex Critter]

Tex:

Frankly, I still feel justified in calling because I suspect that you really don't appreciate the significant difference (in both physical characteristics and collector value) between a Mark I and a Mark I* or I**, let alone the importance - in this particular discussion - of date, condition, Canadian service provenance and RCAF markings ..

You're right on the collector value part. I buy guns to shoot not to stare at.

 

[GrantR]

I also shoot every complete and functional firearm I own - a good number of which are well over 100 years old - but I prefer to seek out examples with collector significance.

If they are taken proper care of, shooting anything other than a pristine "unfired" example won't devalue it. That is precisely what firearms are made for, after all ....

However, it is certainly much more satisfying to have something with specific historical significance (and thus enhanced monetary value) for my collection of Canadian martial firearms - such as one of only a few hundred 1930's-dated RCAF-marked Enfield revolvers - than just some run-of-the-mill "one half a million made" example which is really only good for shooting .......

Best of both worlds!