You don't see one of these every day; Enfield No.1 Mk. V

#1
I was just browsing on Egun, when I found this......

3433884_2.jpg

eGun

It's a lot of money, but I think they're pretty scarce. I wish I had £1200 going spare....

T_T
 
#2
You don't do you.

I saw that EFD have had them in the past but they don't seem to have any at the moment.

I kind of like the look of them...but at £1,200 I'll just have to be content with just that.
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#4
At the risk of being mown down by the experts, I believe these were trials rifles in the 1920s and were never issued in quantity, so they're quite scarce. I saw one in Fulton's a while back for £1500
 
#5
i may be mistaken but isnt that a Mk1 smle, yes they are reasonably rare but a lot of monies for what it is.

not many around still with single round loader cut away plate in.
 

Ravers

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#7
Not wishing to sound like a twat, but I do actually see one of these everyday. There is one in my armoury. ;)
 
#8
]i may be mistaken but isnt that a Mk1 smle[/B], yes they are reasonably rare but a lot of monies for what it is.

not many around still with single round loader cut away plate in.
Yes, you are mistaken..

That is not a No 1 Mk 1 SMLE, it is a No 1 Mk V SMLE..

This was the immediate predecessor to the rifle No4, and was produced in limited numbers between the wars.. ( although I think Ishapore kept turning them out..?)

The givaway is the aperture sight above the bolt. Previous marks of the No 1 rifle had a V sight on the forend.

The No 4 had a floating barrel which improved accuracy and was easier to manufacture..
 
#9
I've got three.....


About 20,000 produced, in two large and several small batches. One type built from new, another as a conversion kit fitted to a standard No1 receiver. The kit was developed as it was considered that a programme might be developed to convert all of the Army's standard No1 MkIII/*s.

Mystery surrounds the fate of these rifles after the troop trials were finished. They disappear completely from UK use (they were never actually accepted for service, as they were a trials weapon) and don't even make an appearance post-Dunkirk, when the stores were trawled for usable rifles. The majority of rifles currently around appeared in the US surplus market in the 60s and 70s, but it is not known where they came from. Rumours persist that many MkVs ended up in the Far East. Its logical that as the rifles were a non-standard pattern with no spares backup (ie for the special sights and top handguards), they were stored throughout WW2 and finally given away to some country or other.

This is one of the most intriguing "Enfield" photos that has ever come to light:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


 
#10
Interesting photo indeed! Is that a Long Lee in the background too?

Where was the photo taken?
 
#13
Apologies for hijacking the thread chaps. Is egun any good? I'm flogging my MK II Bren deac and it's at a very good price.

Shame I can't advertise it on here. But rules are rules...
 
#16
Interesting photo indeed! Is that a Long Lee in the background too?

Where was the photo taken?

It appears to be Vietnam or Cambodia, during the Vietnam war.

Rifle in the back is an SKS with side-mounted folding bayonet.

The MkV appears to be in pretty decent condition. The bolt handle is popped up, so presumably he has just fired at the aircraft or whatever they are aiming at.

UK re-occupied French Indo-China after the Japanese surrender (because the french were not in a position to garrison their former colony), and it seems that a very large quantity of British weapons - Sten, Enfield No4, Bren, etc - were used to arm local forces. These British weapons were evidently left behind, as they frequently appear in the photos of Vietnamese weapons scrap yards. Its possible that a large number of MkVs were left in the region at this time.
 
#18
The No 4 had a floating barrel which improved accuracy and was easier to manufacture..
When I went through AAS Carlisle the standard for bedding the No4 was under the receiver, around the reinforce, one third of the lower circumference of the barrel at mid way down the forend and at the muzzle.

If memory serves correct bedding was established when the bedding points were there and it took 7lbs to pull the muzzle of the rifle away from the forend.

On this basis the No4 did not have a floating barrel.

As I'm an old git my memory may be failing a bit and I could be wrong but most of the brain washing done there has stuck, so I'll stay with the above.
 
#20
When I went through AAS Carlisle the standard for bedding the No4 was under the receiver, around the reinforce, one third of the lower circumference of the barrel at mid way down the forend and at the muzzle.

If memory serves correct bedding was established when the bedding points were there and it took 7lbs to pull the muzzle of the rifle away from the forend.

On this basis the No4 did not have a floating barrel.

As I'm an old git my memory may be failing a bit and I could be wrong but most of the brain washing done there has stuck, so I'll stay with the above.
Correct standard military bedding has the barrel free-floating from the chamber up until the last inch or so of the forend, where the barrel presses down with 6-7lb of force.

An alternative "centre-bedding" method (originally a WW2 authorised method to enable warped forends to be used) is for the barrel to free-float along its entire length, less for a single support point about one third of the way along (typically a wood block positioned between the two rear lightening scoops inside the forend). This method was later commonly used in the "accurising" of No4s for "Service Rifle B" (SRb) competitions. In practice, however, the standard military bedding is usually just as good as the "centre-bedding" method.
 

Latest Threads

Top