Paint on magazines |
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Author | |||
Zormpas
Groupie Joined: August 07 2013 Location: Central Florida Status: Offline Points: 73 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: July 21 2019 at 12:04pm |
||
Two Mark IV/V mags. The one on the left is the one that came with my Mark V, and is serialized to it. The one on the right is one I picked up from a guy with 10 rds of ammo in it - unknown story. Not serialized to anything.
What's up with the half paint job on that one? |
|||
-Zorba
"The Veiled Male" http://www.doubleveil.net |
|||
The Armourer
Senior Member Joined: June 23 2019 Location: Y Felinhelli Status: Offline Points: 1246 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Assuming your are talking about Lee Enfieds, the mags do not seem to stack up. The Mk4 is a .22rf rifle The MKV was the development rifle between the No1 MK3 and the No4 Mk1 Are you sure ? Do you really mean No4 & No5 ? They would appear to actually be No4 / No5 magazines (the magazine is the same) |
|||
Shamu
Admin Group Logo Designer / Donating Member Joined: April 25 2007 Location: MD, USA. Status: Offline Points: 17566 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
I think he means No4 & No5, not mark? It looks like some lazy "restorer" painted it in the gun. |
|||
Don't shoot till you see the whites of their thighs. (Unofficial motto of the Royal Air Force)
|
|||
Zormpas
Groupie Joined: August 07 2013 Location: Central Florida Status: Offline Points: 73 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Yea, I meant No4/5 - I'm an idiot and I keep on calling them "Marks" for some brain dead reason...
|
|||
-Zorba
"The Veiled Male" http://www.doubleveil.net |
|||
A square 10
Special Member Donating Member Joined: December 12 2006 Location: MN , USA Status: Online Points: 14412 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
both should be the same for the no4 & no5 , they were the same action in 303 and the difference in the rifles is the lightening cuts to the rifle actions , i do not know why one might be half finished saved for the above mentioned reason , they were fitted to the action originally never meant to be interchanged - they were meant to be charged from the chargers by the user , possibly a refurnb thing but more likely the above ,
the mkIVs are 22s , a whole different ball game - mostly empty cases but some were fitted with loading ramps - not at all sure that was a military thing tho - think it more likely a target shooting thing \ corrected - yes a typo - mkVi was the aussie no5 version of the no1 and very rare , sorry about that ,
|
|||
Zormpas
Groupie Joined: August 07 2013 Location: Central Florida Status: Offline Points: 73 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Then the original finish would have been stripped off of the subject mag?
They both work fine in my Number (!!) 5. I thought maybe it was an age thing - something like "early Number 4 mags were made like that" or somesuch. |
|||
-Zorba
"The Veiled Male" http://www.doubleveil.net |
|||
A square 10
Special Member Donating Member Joined: December 12 2006 Location: MN , USA Status: Online Points: 14412 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
maybe - i cannot recall any such split finish in all my research over the years [save for the M1911] i will not say one way or the other just use it if it works but remember these were not meant to be interchangeable or disposable they were an integral part of the enfield rifle meant to stay in place in that rifle - so unlike the american rifles we all know ,
there would not be a reason to leave it unfinished if you want it so , i think i would put a finish on that , but i would keep the original with your rifle if it were me , that was how it was meant to be , if you have a used that demands the use of a second magazine box and it works that is a whole different discussion - i would use charges to charge the original in the rifle without removing it if it were me , save the other for one you might buy that is missing it - but just my humble opinion here
|
|||
The Armourer
Senior Member Joined: June 23 2019 Location: Y Felinhelli Status: Offline Points: 1246 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Using the correct nomenclature on Lee Enfield's is very important, one number / letter the wrong way around and we start talking about a totally different rifle. I'll assume that MkVI is a 'typo' for MKIV (Mk4) The MKVI was a 303 calibre. The No2 MkIV was a pukka Military conversion for use as a training rifle. I think every model of Lee Enfield had a .22rf version for use a 'trainer' .22 SHORT RIFLE MKIII Approved 9th August 1912 (LoC 16291) for Land Service, this rifle was made up from Converted Mk II and Mk II* SMLE rifles (which were themselves either "long" Lee-Metford or "long" Lee-Enfields converted to "short" Lees). About 11,000 conversions were done by BSA, LSA and RSAF Enfield. .22 RF PATTERN 1914 SHORT RIFLE No. 1 A wartime trainer approved 24th May 1915 (LoC 17320) for Land Service, this rifle was also made up from Converted Mk II and Mk II* SMLE rifles (see above) by boring out the .303 barrel and inserting a .22 calibre liner inside the barrel. Conversions were done by A.G. Parker & Co. Ltd. and Wesley Richards & Co. About 427 conversions reported. .22 RF PATTERN 1914 SHORT RIFLE No. 2 Approved 28th April 1916 (LoC 17755) for Land Service, this is the first rifle made from up from an original SMLE Mk III. Again, the .303 barrel was bored out and a .22 calibre liner inserted. Conversions were done by A.G. Parker & Co. Ltd. and Wesley Richards & Co. Some 1,743 conversions reported. .22 RF SHORT RIFLE PATTERN 1918 Approved 10th July 1918 (LoC 21675) for Land Service, this rifle is unique in that it used a dummy .303 cartridge as a holder or conveyor for the .22 rimfire cartridge. The .22 barrel liner was soldered into place after the chamber. About 975 conversions done by W.W. Greener Co. .22 SHORT RIFLE MkIV Approved 19th November 1921 (LoC 24909) for Land Service, this rifle starts out with a used SMLE Mk III or Mk III* (like the 1914 Short Rifle No. 2, above) but uses a solid, not tubed, barrel. Total number of conversions done by RSAF Enfield unknown. RIFLE No.2 MkIV* Same rifle as above; just a change in nomenclature adopted in 1926. This rifle was the principal trainer for the next thirty years and was widely produced by in Britain, Australia and India. Issued in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Ireland and India, a variety of issue and ownership marks can be found on these rifles. At least 30,000 conversions made by the various factories. The next grouping consists of trainers from the Rifle No.4 family of rifles: RIFLE C No.7 MkI The first Enfield built from the ground up as a .22 trainer and not as a conversion or retro-fitting of an earlier rifle - albeit built on a No.4 body and intended to mirror the Rifle No.4 as closely as possible. About 20,000 made at Longbranch, Ontario 1944 - 1950's. Unknown number of wooden transit chests also produced. RIFLE No.7 MkI Although a No.7 MkI, the British version is very different from it's Canadian counterpart (above). This rifle was a conversion of an existing No.4 and is interesting in that a BSA five-round commercial .22 magazine was welded into a SMLE Mk III* magazine to produce the only Enfield .22 repeater. These rifles were a special contract and produced exclusively for the Royal Air Force (RAF) in 1948. Total production 2,500. RIFLE No.8 MkI An interesting hybrid, a .22 calibre trainer intended to be also be used in smallbore rifle competitions, this rifle was introduced in the late 1940's. About 15,000 produced at Fazakerley. Another 2,000 were produced by BSA Shirley in the 1950's specifically for New Zealand. RIFLE N9 MkI The last of the .22's, these are No.4 rifles sleeved in a manner similar to the WWI Pattern 1914 Short Rifle No. 1 (above). The work was done by Parker Hale in Birmingham 1956 - 1960. 3,000 rifles made specifically for the Royal Navy. This list is not all-inclusive. The Long Lee family of .22 trainers is not included, nor are any of the .22 trials rifles, or the No5 'Jungle Carbine'. |
|||
Honkytonk
Senior Member Joined: December 30 2017 Location: Brandon Mb Status: Offline Points: 4763 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
||
I think I know why, as I did the same thing. Had an aftermarket magazine that fit real tight in a Sporter I saved. I had painted the hardware olive drab and wanted the magazine to match. The paint layer would bind up the mag when installing or removing so I removed the paint that went into the rifle.
|
|||
britrifles
Senior Member Joined: February 03 2018 Location: Atlanta, GA Status: Offline Points: 6512 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
||
Back in the 1970's, the Cadet and Reserve regiment in Canada I belonged to used .22 Lee Enfield trainers. If I recall correctly, the barrel was a sleeved .303 barrel. I don't think they were C No. 7 rifles (because of the sleeved barrel), I think they had the No. 7 rear aperture sight (adjustable for windage and elevation). That's going back over 40 years now, and my memory is just not that good.
Any Canadians on the forum who recalls shooting this rifle in the Army Cadets or Reserves? Perhaps Long Branch did some No. 4 conversions to .22 after the C No. 7 production for the military and it's not recorded in any of the literature? |
|||
Zormpas
Groupie Joined: August 07 2013 Location: Central Florida Status: Offline Points: 73 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
||
That makes some sense, perhaps that was the situation in this mag's history. I normally load via strippers, but I've found its kinda nice to pre-load the 1st 20 rounds into these two mags, then strip in more after they've been expended. |
|||
-Zorba
"The Veiled Male" http://www.doubleveil.net |
|||
The Armourer
Senior Member Joined: June 23 2019 Location: Y Felinhelli Status: Offline Points: 1246 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
The problem with doing that is that the magazines were not designed for removal and taking out / putting back in can 'knock' the ears giving poor loading and cycling. It only takes a fraction of a mm out of sync and the magazine will give problems. Each magazine is 'tuned' to its host rifle as each rifle is fractionally different and requires slight adjustments to cycle correctly. |
|||
Zed
Special Member Donating Member Joined: May 01 2012 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 5569 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
If you have the correct quality "charger" clips; it's quicker loading than changing the mag'. If it wasn't; I doubt the british Army would have used the system.
|
|||
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice!
|
|||
Goosic
Senior Member Joined: September 12 2017 Location: Phoenix Arizona Status: Offline Points: 8760 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Not trying to be a jerk here but the correct term is charger clips The Armourer. The magazine is in fact designed to be removed,hence the detachable box magazine with the magazine release. I and a few others here,including you,have an Enfield that cannot be loaded with a charging clip with the scope in place and that only leaves two options. Single feed through the receiver or remove the magazine and hand feed then replace the mag. Yes,the magazine was matched to the rifle from the factory. However,it was quite common during wartime open firefight conditions to have multiple preloaded magazines on ones self so when the time arose to reload the soldier dropped the empty mag and slammed a loaded one in place and kept going as opposed to trying to grab a charging clip and thumb those bullets in place. Back to the Original Post question. The paint job was not factory. That looks to me to be the work of a Bubba.
|
|||
Honkytonk
Senior Member Joined: December 30 2017 Location: Brandon Mb Status: Offline Points: 4763 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Totally agree that chargers are the proper way to load a Lee Enfield. Having scopes on most of my rifles, obviously this is an issue. It the range I just load individually. Removing the magazine when hunting is a quick and easy way to be in compliance with the law (when travelling, crossing roads,etc.) I've removed and installed the magazine in my main deer rifle, a No4 Sporter with a scope hundreds and hundreds of times. Absolutely no feeding issues.
|
|||
The Armourer
Senior Member Joined: June 23 2019 Location: Y Felinhelli Status: Offline Points: 1246 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
I would be grateful to be educated on that - do you have any official instructions detailing that as it was absolutely forbidden to do that in the British Army. Where would they get the spare magazines from ? Only one magazine was 'on issue' per rifle. It is quicker to load from chargers than it is to change a magazine. It is still an amazing achievement that the record the most shots fired (and on target), for any bolt action rifle EVER (yes even today) in one minute is held by the Lee Enfield and the reason for the 'mad-minute' competition we have today. The Mad Minute was a pre-World War I bolt-rifle speed shooting exercise used by British Army riflemen, using the Lee–Enfield service rifle. The exercise formally known as "Practice number 22, Rapid Fire, ‘The Musketry Regulations, Part I, 1909", required the rifleman to fire 15 rounds at a "Second Class Figure" target at 300 yd (270 m). The practice was described as; "Lying. Rifle to be loaded and 4 rounds in the magazine before the target appears. Loading to be from the pouch or bandolier by 5 rounds afterwards. One minute allowed". The first Mad Minute record was set by Sergeant Major Jesse Wallingford in 1908, scoring 36 hits on a 48 inch target at 300 yards (4.5 mils/ 15.3 moa).Another world record of 38 hits, all within the 24 inch target at 300 yards (2.25 mils/ 7.6 moa), is said to have been set in 1914 by Sergeant Instructor Alfred Snoxall, |
|||
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |