Enfield-Rifles.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Enfields > Enfield Rifles
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Paint on magazines
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Paint on magazines

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message
Zormpas View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: August 07 2013
Location: Central Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 68
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zormpas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Paint on magazines
    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
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
The Armourer View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: June 23 2019
Location: Y Felinhelli
Status: Offline
Points: 897
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Armourer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 21 2019 at 12:55pm
Originally posted by Zormpas Zormpas wrote:

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?



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)
Back to Top
Shamu View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar
Logo Designer / Donating Member

Joined: April 25 2007
Location: MD, USA.
Status: Offline
Points: 13015
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Shamu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 21 2019 at 2:31pm
I think he means No4 & No5, not mark?
It looks like some lazy "restorer" painted it in the gun.
Censored
Don't shoot till you see the whites of their thighs. (Unofficial motto of the Royal Air Force)
Back to Top
Zormpas View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: August 07 2013
Location: Central Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 68
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zormpas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 21 2019 at 4:44pm
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
Back to Top
A square 10 View Drop Down
Special Member
Special Member

Donating Member

Joined: December 12 2006
Location: MN , USA
Status: Offline
Points: 11183
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote A square 10 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 21 2019 at 6:55pm
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 , 
Back to Top
Zormpas View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: August 07 2013
Location: Central Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 68
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zormpas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 21 2019 at 7:27pm
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
Back to Top
A square 10 View Drop Down
Special Member
Special Member

Donating Member

Joined: December 12 2006
Location: MN , USA
Status: Offline
Points: 11183
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote A square 10 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 21 2019 at 7:40pm
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 
Back to Top
The Armourer View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: June 23 2019
Location: Y Felinhelli
Status: Offline
Points: 897
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Armourer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 21 2019 at 11:48pm
Originally posted by A square 10 A square 10 wrote:

the mkVIs 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 


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'.
Back to Top
Honkytonk View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 30 2017
Location: Brandon Mb
Status: Offline
Points: 3506
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Honkytonk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 22 2019 at 4:38am
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.
Back to Top
britrifles View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 03 2018
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Points: 2593
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote britrifles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 22 2019 at 8:26am
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?
 
Back to Top
Zormpas View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: August 07 2013
Location: Central Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 68
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zormpas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 22 2019 at 9:06am
Originally posted by Honkytonk Honkytonk wrote:

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.

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
Back to Top
The Armourer View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: June 23 2019
Location: Y Felinhelli
Status: Offline
Points: 897
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Armourer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 22 2019 at 9:49am
Originally posted by Zormpas Zormpas wrote:

[QUOTE=Honkytonk]
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.



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.


Back to Top
Zed View Drop Down
Special Member
Special Member
Avatar
Donating Member

Joined: May 01 2012
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 3970
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 22 2019 at 11:18am
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!
Back to Top
Goosic View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 12 2017
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 4929
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goosic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 22 2019 at 11:19am
Originally posted by The Armourer The Armourer wrote:

Originally posted by Zormpas Zormpas wrote:

[QUOTE=Honkytonk]
I normally load via (strippers).


 
"The problem with doing that is that the magazines were not designed for removal and taking out / putting back."


Not trying to be a jerk here but the correct term is charger clips Wink

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.
Back to Top
Honkytonk View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 30 2017
Location: Brandon Mb
Status: Offline
Points: 3506
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Honkytonk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 22 2019 at 11:27am
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.
Back to Top
The Armourer View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: June 23 2019
Location: Y Felinhelli
Status: Offline
Points: 897
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Armourer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 22 2019 at 12:32pm
Originally posted by Goosic Goosic wrote:

Originally posted by The Armourer The Armourer wrote:

Originally posted by Zormpas Zormpas wrote:

[QUOTE=Honkytonk]
I normally load via (strippers).


 
"The problem with doing that is that the magazines were not designed for removal and taking out / putting back."



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.



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,
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.