New to this forum

jhonelver.

I have the same question as Goosic.  I’d particularly like to know how that heavy barrel test rifle shoots.  It’s an interesting concept, as the barrel harmonics would be entirely different than a standard No. 4 and what shoots good in the heavy barrel may not shoot good in a No. 4 with a standard service weight barrel.  

britrifles wrote: I have the same question as Goosic.  I’d particularly like to know how that heavy barrel test rifle shoots.  It’s an interesting concept, as the barrel harmonics would be entirely different than a standard No. 4 and what shoots good in the heavy barrel may not shoot good in a No. 4 with a standard service weight barrel.

Zed wrote: You do have an interesting collection. I also have a couple of No8's (one for the wife to use in competitions and one for me). They are easier to find in Europe; but are quite expensive now. I do love the .22's and also have a 1918 SMLE in .22 and a Lithgow made No2MkIV*. All are very accurate and great fun. Also more expensive than the full calibre rifles (except the special stuff) Will your collection expand into the No1MkIII / SMLE types as well? You seem to be

Goosic wrote: Correct wording when describing a certain Enfield rifle is in fact a necessity, even if YOU know what is being described. There are many a person that is new to this forum and need the correct definition of what it is that they have. Please be respectful of others here and please us the correct wording when referring to a certain No. or Mk. of an Enfield rifle...

jhonelver wrote: Goosic wrote: Correct wording when describing a certain Enfield rifle is in fact a necessity, even if YOU know what is being described. There are many a person that is new to this forum and need the correct definition of what it is that they have. Please be respectful of others here and please us the correct wording when referring to a certain No. or Mk. of an Enfield rifle...   I understand what you say. but still. who is right and who is wrong? i don't want to be disrespectful, but pushing one name and calling the other wrong is being blind for other possibilities and the fear of being wrong. P17 or US model of 1917 both are correct P14 or No.3 Mk.I and i can find many more rifles with multiple names what is correct and what is wrong. and who is to decide? No one should make a problem of either names. if they do they are the ones that are wrong. it is always from which side you are looking.

jhonelver. Were Enfield rifles air dropped to the Dutch Resistance in WW2?

jhonelver wrote: Goosic wrote: From which side you are looking.   A new member arrives and has an Enfield rifle and has supplied photos of it. The photo shows a No5Mk1.  The new member however continues to refer to it as a No1Mk5. Is the new member right or wrong? Nomenclature would have it a No5Mk1 as where a No1MkV is a totally different animal. Using your No3 Mk1 as another example. Some new members have shown us what is definitely a No1Mk111/* SMLE but have referred to it as a No111Mk1 or No3Mk1. Again, is the new member right or wrong? Correct terminology when describing an Enfield rifle goes a long way which is why nomenclature is priority one here.  I understand what you are saying. I accept multiple names for the same rifle. But someone started this argument that i need to use the correct name. Now what is cerrect and what is not can differ on many things. For instance the manual i showed. It give both P17 and US model of 1917 as name. So you could argeu that both are correct..coming from reliable source. And that is what i do. I accept both some do not. P14 or no.3 MkI i use both. But most people dont know No.3 MkI but do 14 same with P17.  And then there is something special. Every military has the right to name their weapons. So for instance the dutch used different names for Lee Enfield Rifles. I am not using them because tgose names are no longer in use and no one would understand. I have manuals and drawings from the Dutch Military Acadamy from 1927. Clearly Shown an lee enfield (MLE) but it is called Model 1895. I have Dutch manuals of WW2 about the No.4 naming it 7.7mm rifle model 1942. Palastine also gave the No.4 rifle the name model 1942. (In manual) Those were correct term as used by the Dutch military in that time period. Using them here would be wrong. But there is never only 1 correct awnser to something. And that is my point. Accept that the entire world (except americans) cal the US model of 1917 a P17. I have seen many on sale in europe, UK, Canada, south africa and australia. All calling them P17.  over 80% calls them P17 when they sell it. That is my point. You do not have to agree with me. And that would be fine asswell. This is also part of the story of these rifles. And that is something that we all need to accept.