Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 4567891011 LastLast
Results 316 to 360 of 475
  1. #316
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Enfield No.2 Mk.1** 1943 W8038

  2. #317

    Default One accounted for.

    I just bought my first Enfield today. It contains the following marking where the Enfield Stamp usually is: DI (followed by two 5-point stars.) I know that this is a later Enfield stamp (E superimposed over a D) and that the two stars represent the No.2 MKI**, though this one appears to have been retrofitted back to the MKI*, which I understand most were. Its serial number is W5850, and though hard to distinguish, it appears to have '43 stamped on the top of the barrel. I know it doesn't look too great on the outside, but the inside of this gun, including rifling, looks almost brand new. I doubt it has been fired very much at all. Anything you could tell me about this beauty would be appreciated. Also, does anyone know where to get parts for these? I'd like to retrofit it back to a MKI at some point, just for fun...
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_1592.jpg 
Views:	33 
Size:	144.8 KB 
ID:	429064

  3. #318
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    MNichigan
    Posts
    3

    Default

    I don't know if the serial number collection project is still alive, but my father recently passed away and among other firearms I inherited his Enfield No. 2 Mk I**.

    It is marked DI** on the frame, with the markings barely visible, and the stars are five pointed open stars. There is no date on the frame. The serial numbers on the frame, cylinder, and barrel all match and are ZB283.

    The barrel, cylinder, and side plate are all a nice dark bluing, but the frame has an almost dark copper color. The backstrap is smooth, and the Crown and BNP are on the frame, barrel, and between each chamber of the cylinder.

    The left side of the barrel in front of the cylinder is marked .38 767" 3 1/2 Tons. The top of the barrel is marked CAL 38 and '43, with the '43 upside down in relation to the CAL 38.

    Besides the BNP markings and the serial number, the cylinder is marked with SBN.763, with the S and B very lightly rolled.

    The grips are bakelite, with thumb grooves and diagonal lines, exactly like Woverine626's above. One of the grip panels is chipped where a roll pin through the frame engages a hole molded in the grip to prevent rotation. The lanyard ring is present.

    Overall, I'd say the condition of the gun is very good with no evidence of surface rust. The bore is bright with no pitting.

    My only complaints about the revolver is that the thumb break is very stiff, mainly because the last 1/16 of an inch has to push against the hammer and it's main spring tension in order to open the action. Also, the double action only trigger pull is extremely stiff, much more so than the double action pull of my S&W and Dan Wesson revolvers.

    Is the thumb break and double action pull weight normal for this revolver?

    Thanks,

    John

  4. #319
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    MNichigan
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wolverine626 View Post
    Also, does anyone know where to get parts for these? I'd like to retrofit it back to a MKI at some point, just for fun...
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_1592.jpg 
Views:	33 
Size:	144.8 KB 
ID:	429064
    I found Numrich has Enfield No2 MkI parts, but only have the spurless hammer available.

  5. #320
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    500

    Default

    There is an easy way around the heavy barrel catch spring - just cock the hammer first. HOWEVER, this is also the easiest way to break the catch V spring, since is over compresses it - you have been warned!

    With Webley revolvers I find that the catch pivot screw must not be done up too tightly, and the top of the lug that goes under the catch benefits from a little lubrication; sometimes also a light polish with a fine stone.

    Peter

  6. #321
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    491

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wolverine626 View Post
    .... I know .... that the two stars represent the No.2 MKI**, though this one appears to have been retrofitted back to the MKI*.....
    .... I'd like to retrofit it back to a MKI at some point, just for fun ....
    I am somewhat confused by your post, Wolverine .... although I suspect that you may be thinking that the Mark I and Mark I* variants of the revolver are the same thing. There were, in fact, three distinct main variants of the No. 2 Enfield revolver - i.e. the Mark I, the Mark I* and the Mark I**.

    To my knowledge, the only significant difference between a Mark I* and Mark I** was that the latter model eliminated the both the "Safety Stop" and the recess machined into the frame body to accommodate that part ..... Those were both internal modifications and thus not easily evident unless the revolver is completely disassembled.

    Also, I am not aware of retrofitting of any MkI** revolvers to Mark I* specifications .... nor, indeed, why such a retrofitting would have been bothered with .....

    On the other hand, there were official directions that MkI revolvers were to be "upgraded" to MkI* specifications, by replacement of the Mk I hammer by a MkI* hammer. Similarly, the List of Changes entry which introduced the Mark I** modification directed that MkI revolvers and revolvers manufactured as MkI* variants were to be "upgraded" to MkI** specifications by removal of the Safety Stop ..... although the recess machined into the body to accommodate that component was left in place, of course.

    However, the very apparent difference, externally, between an unaltered MkI revolver on the one hand, and the MkI* and MkI**, is the absence of a cocking spur and a "full-cock bent" (i.e. notch to engage the sear and hold the hammer in the cocked position, for single action fire) on the hammers of both the latter variants ......

    For further clarification, the formal entry in the List of Changes for the Mark I* variation was dated June 1938 (although that type of revolver had been produced as early as April 1936 ) and the official entry for the Mark I** variation was dated July 1942 (although, again, revolvers of this type were being produced somewhat earlier than that date.) Because of the directives in the LoC entries calling for any that earlier revolvers to be "upgraded" to the later specifications whenever they were submitted for Factory Thorough Repair, unaltered Mark I revolvers from British military service are, indeed, relatively rare.

    By saying you would like to retrofit your revolver to Mark I specs, do you mean fitting it with a Mark I hammer, and thus rendering it capable of single-action fire, rather than double-action only? If so, that would seem to me to be a rather inappropriate conversion, because your revolver was manufactured as a Mark I**. Indeed, unless your revolver body has in fact been retrofitted to Mark I/I* specifications by having the Safety Stop recess machined into it, achieving such a conversion would be impractical (at best) ....

    I have been fortunate enough to own two unaltered Mark I revolvers. The first was quite early (1931) production -


    However, I traded that one for a somewhat later 1936-dated revolver, since the latter happens to be from one of the small initial batches of Enfield No. 2 revolvers purchased by the fledgling Royal Canadian Air Force, and so marked, which is a much better "fit" in my collection of Canadian martial handguns -


    Grant Rombough
    Medicine Hat, Alberta
    Canada
    ("Rattlesnake Jack Robson", Scout, Rocky Mountain Rangers, 1885)
    WEBSITE: "RATTLESNAKE JACK'S"
    http://forums.gunboards.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=1483&dateline=1261416  127

  7. #322
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    MNichigan
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PJGP View Post
    There is an easy way around the heavy barrel catch spring - just cock the hammer first. HOWEVER, this is also the easiest way to break the catch V spring, since is over compresses it - you have been warned!

    With Webley revolvers I find that the catch pivot screw must not be done up too tightly, and the top of the lug that goes under the catch benefits from a little lubrication; sometimes also a light polish with a fine stone.

    Peter
    Being a MkI**, I cannot cock the hammer first. I could, I suppose, partially pull the trigger, but that doesn't sound like it adheres to best safety practices.

    The barrel catch spring as such on my Enfield is not overly stiff. It is the last 1/16" of travel that pushes the hammer back slightly that is the bugger. However, if this is correct for the weapon, then I won't worry about it any more, and either build up my right thumb, or continue to use two hands to break open the pistol.

    I was surprised to read (in another source) that the Enfield No.2 MkI* was know for its light double action pull, when I find it very stiff. Not binding, just a very strong mainspring.

  8. #323
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    500

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by F-111 John View Post
    Being a MkI**, I cannot cock the hammer first. I could, I suppose, partially pull the trigger, but that doesn't sound like it adheres to best safety practices.

    The barrel catch spring as such on my Enfield is not overly stiff. It is the last 1/16" of travel that pushes the hammer back slightly that is the bugger. However, if this is correct for the weapon, then I won't worry about it any more, and either build up my right thumb, or continue to use two hands to break open the pistol.
    As I indicated John, moving the hammer back out of the way of the barrel catch is not a good idea, however you do it. I must admit though that I missed the fact that you have a trigger cocking only varient! Yes, it is normal for the catch to push the hammer back slightly. Many people make the mistake of pushing down on the barrel before fully depressing the catch - this binds things up. Smoothing the top of the lug and the underside of the catch, plus a litle lubrication, will help, as already noted.

    The correct way to break the Enfields and Webleys is to elevate the muzzle, grasp the barrel from the top with your left hand, depress the catch with the right hand thumb, and then push the body of the revolver down and forward. This throws the empty cases out down and backwards, and avoids any falling under the ejector star. If the catch is hard to fully push back then the left thumb can be used to push back the top of the catch whilst the right one is depressing it. Again, make sure not to push down on the barrel too soon.

    My wife and I shoot Webley Mk IV 38s in revolver competitions and I assure you that we can emply and refill (with speedloaders) our guns far faster than those people using swingout cylinder S&Ws etc!

    Peter

  9. #324
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Colorado, Somewhere East of the Rockies.
    Posts
    39

    Default

    I have just recently acquired an Enfield Mk I**. It is serial numbered ZC5647 on frame, barrel, and cylinder. It is FTR marked on right side frame flat , and dated 54 on both barrel and right side. After reading the above posts, I assume it was manugactured in 1944, although such markings are no longer visable. Thanks to everyone who has added to these postings. This has been a great source for indentifying my pistol's history.

  10. #325
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    232

    Cool No2Mk1 3 inch barrel

    Serial E29XX dated 1936

    Stamped RAF 3 inch (83mm) barrel
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails RAF Enfield c.JPG  

  11. #326
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Are you still colecting data? I have a few in my collection in Holland and can give you the address of a German auctionsite where regularly /enfield turn up. Often with enough snaps to identify them.
    Regards,
    Bert

  12. #327
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    614

    Default

    Mine has serial#G22**, dated 1939.

  13. #328
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    butler MN
    Posts
    456

    Default

    Mine is a #s matching 1938 on side,FTR-54, barrel date is 54 ser.# F6234

  14. #329

    Default

    Another for the record:
    DI** (No FTR) x2211 '43

  15. #330
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Whitefish, MT
    Posts
    220

    Default

    OK, here you go.

    Albion 1942 B926 (Mark 1**)
    Enfield 1937 E9251 (Mark 1*)
    Enfield 1933 C3227 (Mark 1)
    DI* AD/1

  16. #331
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    220

    Default

    Just picked up a No. 2 Mk1 **
    1943 X3851
    No FTR
    No import mark
    Bakelite grip steel disk
    Oval aluminum disk attached to lanyard ring stamped "NSS"
    Best,
    Mike

    "A gentleman seldom if ever needs a pistol, but when he does, he needs it very
    badly." (Sir Winston Churchill)

  17. #332
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Beach Va
    Posts
    8,476

    Default

    Albion No 2 Mk1** 1943. C7195 on barrel and frame, plastic grips
    Enfield No2 Mk1* 1940 J3902 on barrel and frame w/ Canadian proofs, also has SLI or SL1 on frame just behind the hammer, wood grips
    what's so funny about peace love and understanding?

  18. #333
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    491

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyman1903 View Post
    Enfield No2 Mk1* 1940 J3902 on barrel and frame w/ Canadian proofs, also has SLI or SL1 on frame just behind the hammer, wood grips
    By "Canadian proofs" I suspect you mean Canadian military acceptance/ownership markings (e.g. the C-Broadarrow as seen in the last image in my post #321 above) since Canada has never really had a formal firearms proof law .....

    The frame behind the hammer was the standard place for unit markings, and the stamp there is presumably "SLI", denoting the Saskatoon Light Infantry - http://web.archive.org/web/200803052.../archives/sli/
    Grant Rombough
    Medicine Hat, Alberta
    Canada
    ("Rattlesnake Jack Robson", Scout, Rocky Mountain Rangers, 1885)
    WEBSITE: "RATTLESNAKE JACK'S"
    http://forums.gunboards.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=1483&dateline=1261416  127

  19. #334
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    563

    Default

    I had a chance to look over Enfield made Mk1 serial number '1' on Saturday. very nice!

  20. #335
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Beach Va
    Posts
    8,476

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GrantRCanada View Post
    By "Canadian proofs" I suspect you mean Canadian military acceptance/ownership markings (e.g. the C-Broadarrow as seen in the last image in my post #321 above) since Canada has never really had a formal firearms proof law .....

    The frame behind the hammer was the standard place for unit markings, and the stamp there is presumably "SLI", denoting the Saskatoon Light Infantry - http://web.archive.org/web/200803052.../archives/sli/
    Sorry, long day, meant to say ownership,,,

    And thanks for the info on the marking good to know, I'll try to post pics, when I get time
    what's so funny about peace love and understanding?

  21. #336
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    491

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyman1903 View Post
    I'll try to post pics, when I get time
    Yes, please ...... I foolishly neglected to add

    Grant Rombough
    Medicine Hat, Alberta
    Canada
    ("Rattlesnake Jack Robson", Scout, Rocky Mountain Rangers, 1885)
    WEBSITE: "RATTLESNAKE JACK'S"
    http://forums.gunboards.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=1483&dateline=1261416  127

  22. #337
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Beach Va
    Posts
    8,476

    Default

    here's the albion,
    hard to get a good shot of the rib markings,
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	001.jpg 
Views:	27 
Size:	304.5 KB 
ID:	511925Click image for larger version. 

Name:	005.jpg 
Views:	33 
Size:	299.9 KB 
ID:	511926Click image for larger version. 

Name:	006.jpg 
Views:	32 
Size:	308.6 KB 
ID:	511927Click image for larger version. 

Name:	007.jpg 
Views:	37 
Size:	297.8 KB 
ID:	511928

    and here is the other,

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	008.jpg 
Views:	28 
Size:	311.5 KB 
ID:	511929Click image for larger version. 

Name:	009.jpg 
Views:	25 
Size:	310.1 KB 
ID:	511930Click image for larger version. 

Name:	010.jpg 
Views:	30 
Size:	296.3 KB 
ID:	511931
    Last edited by Lyman1903; 02-08-2012 at 07:41 PM. Reason: add more pics
    what's so funny about peace love and understanding?

  23. #338
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    488

    Default

    Lyman1903, I note your C prefix Albion has the "Circle D" marking on the barrel rib. I'm starting to think this is some form of quality control marking applied to revolvers manufactured/assembled by Coventry Tool & Gauge. The marking seems to be making it's appearance in the late B prefix and continues on until the cessation of production by that firm in the mid D prefix.

    Characteristics of these revolvers are similar throughout the remainder of the production run:

    *Barrels are universally marked with 'Circle D' on rib in close proximity to the 'CAL.38' marking.
    *Barrels are dated '42 on rib
    *Frames are dated 1943.
    *Other components e.g. cylinder cam, barrel latch may or may not have any visible manufacturer's marking.

    I think this theory effectively gives weight to the possibility that Coventry actually manufactured or assembled Enfield I** pattern revolvers, and helps explain the discrepancies in the number of revolvers actually accepted for service issue. By my theory, this would mean Albion manufactured revolvers end in the high B prefix (B8000 as a rough starting point meaning 18,000 actually completed with some thousands handed over to Coventry in a state of completion but not yet inspected/proofed in the first quarter of 1943 but ready for issue otherwise. We'd then arrive at Albion's stated production of roughly 21,000 revolvers. Effectively all of the later C and D prefix revolvers would then be made under the auspices of Coventry Tool & Gauge and should be considered as such. If we reflect on these two prefix series production by Coventry, roughly another 15,000 revolvers, we then can come very close to the all up WWII production by these two firms of 41,000 revolvers.

    Just something to think about....

    "Never retreat alone, shoot without an object or lay down your gun until the last extremity"
    Private James Collins at King's Mountain, 1780

  24. #339

    Default

    I recently traded for a HAC. Late style logo, no date.
    SN # A301, all matching. Light pitting or rough finish over most of the surface.
    can try to post pics later.

  25. #340

    Default

    Here are pics. I love having a studio in-housse!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails _DSC9782.jpg   _DSC9783.jpg   _DSC9786.jpg   _DSC9787.jpg   _DSC9789.jpg   _DSC9790.jpg  

    _DSC9794.jpg  

  26. #341
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    919

    Default

    Just bought what I guess is a No. 2 MkI** from what I've read here. E superimposed DT**

    Serial Number ZA3970; barrel date 43

    Marked England on the right side of barrel; Crown over BNP on each chamber; barrel, and frame. Also the cylinder is marked: SBN.763.

    Pictures to follow; just got it today...

  27. #342
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    919

    Default

    the promised photos...






  28. #343
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2

    Default

    For record: MK I*. 1942.Bakelite grips with bronze disc.Serial No Q5279
    ESC.320 on cylinder

  29. #344
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    849

    Default

    Helping out a friend who recently acquired a #2 Mk1**. Serial number on the barrel and frame is ZG2485 with a 44 on the barrel. The cylinder is marked ZJ2485. Shouldn't it also be "ZG" prefixed like the barrel and frame? The pistol is marked FTR 53 and has commercial proofs, but no apparent importer's marks. So, the pistol was sold as surplus in England, but not imported? Please educate me how these pistols got into the US without an importer's mark... Also on the side of the cylinder appears to be "S.P.I.J" and stamped deeper nand heavier than most of the other markings. What is this mark? Lastly, on the right side of the frame, below the manufacturer's mark, right behind the trigger guard in the "triangle" shaped area there is a marking that looks sort of like "TAJ" under a broad arrow. This mark is faint and the letters are sort of stylized, not block letters. What is this mark?

    Many thanks for any information you might have!

    Rob

  30. #345
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Northwest Ohio
    Posts
    4,861

    Default

    Mk1** 1943 ZA9318 . The cylinder has been replaced and is from ZC3418. Bakelite grips with blued steel disk.

  31. #346
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Lone Star State
    Posts
    650

    Default

    Mine is blued,no import mark,black plastic grips with brass disc,marked on trigger MK 1*,serial no. ZE 9444. HTH
    My idea of border control is m-60 machineguns every 100yds with interlocking fields of fire.

  32. #347
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Lone Star State
    Posts
    650

    Default

    Almost forgot the cylinder is marked SPT 50 in addition to the serial number.
    My idea of border control is m-60 machineguns every 100yds with interlocking fields of fire.

  33. #348
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    29

    Default

    My No2. Mk.1** is dated 1944 ser. ZE88**

    I have a 1937 Mk.1 on the way & will post the # when it arrives

    Peter (in Ontario)

  34. #349

    Default

    I just picked up a nice 1931 dated Enfield Ser # A1368.

    FR'd in 1969.

  35. #350
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4

    Default

    From Cabela's yesterday, '43 (near as I can tell, dings on the barrel) MkI**, pretty good condition, missing lanyard ring. No import marks, no "England" export mark, but does have the "...3.5 TON" mark. SN ZB7722, frame, barrel, cylinder all match. S.B.N. 769. on cylinder. Bakelite grips with steel disc. Priced $49.99 plus tax. After $25.00 off for joining cablea's club, $29.34 out the door.

  36. #351
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2

    Default

    I just purchased one with Z72 as the serial number matched on cylinder, barrel and trigger guard. Can you tell me the significance of just the 3 characters in the serial number? The barrel stamps are hard to determine the year but its either 43 or 45. The cylinder also has a C.G.1 stamped on it and from all the research I have found it seems that this could be Coventry Guage and Tool as the maker in Scotland that was sublet to make them during WWII because Enfield could not make enough of them at the time, but correct me if I am wrong. Thank you.

  37. #352
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    488

    Default

    dw, it is likely a '43 manufactured revolver. The C.G.1 is the cylinder's steel batch number--it is unlikely to have been supplied by Coventry as the newest research soon to be published in Skennerton's collector's annual will attest. Coventry Gauge and Tool was not a steel producing firm. This is one of the codes assigned to the raw steel stock which was provided by numerous firms to RSAF Enfield to fabricate cylinders. Check the proofs on the rear face of the cylinder, that should tell the tale as to exact manufacturer of your component.

    Anyway, that's my best guess...

    "Never retreat alone, shoot without an object or lay down your gun until the last extremity"
    Private James Collins at King's Mountain, 1780

  38. #353
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Thank you, Barbarossa, for your information. I am very new to this. Can you make anything out of the 3 digit serial number which seems to be very different from the standard 5 or 6 digit serial numbers on all others in this forum? The person I purchased this revolver from said his dad took it from a captured Nazi officer who had taken it from a captured English officer. it also has the Enfield logo on and "England" on the right side and only 3 stamped crowns on the left barrel framework just about an inch in front of the cylinder. I don't know what they mean, if anything. Thanks again!

  39. #354
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    614

    Default

    My example has serial#G2290 and the date is 1939 with no *.

  40. #355
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    488

    Default

    dw, sounds like you been sold a bill of goods on the provenance. The "ENGLAND" marking and the three crowns on the barrel are commercial proofs applied when the revolver was released from service stores and sold as surplus likely in the 1950s or early 1960's.

    Nothing strange with the serial number either. Just an early example of that letter prefix group. Numbering would have been begun with Z1 and progressed to Z9999.

    Hope that helps. Recommend you buy the Enfield revolver book written coauthored by Stamps and Skennerton. It should be of some assistance to sorting out the questions you have on your revolver.

    "Never retreat alone, shoot without an object or lay down your gun until the last extremity"
    Private James Collins at King's Mountain, 1780

  41. #356
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Brasilia, Brazil
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0243[1].jpg 
Views:	13 
Size:	300.5 KB 
ID:	591751Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0244[1].jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	300.6 KB 
ID:	591752
    Quote Originally Posted by mayralphie View Post
    Need more of those Enfield numbers guys. Charlie
    E in D I five point star (photo)
    SN P9435
    Year 41
    unknown mark: f over W over W (photo)
    If you can help me.

  42. #357
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    500

    Default

    I think that this is the first time that I have seen a gun with the post 1955 Birmingham proof marks on the right hand side! Sorry, but I cannot help with the fWW mark.

    Peter

  43. #358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GrantRCanada View Post
    I am somewhat confused by your post, Wolverine .... although I suspect that you may be thinking that the Mark I and Mark I* variants of the revolver are the same thing. There were, in fact, three distinct main variants of the No. 2 Enfield revolver - i.e. the Mark I, the Mark I* and the Mark I**.

    To my knowledge, the only significant difference between a Mark I* and Mark I** was that the latter model eliminated the both the "Safety Stop" and the recess machined into the frame body to accommodate that part ..... Those were both internal modifications and thus not easily evident unless the revolver is completely disassembled.

    Also, I am not aware of retrofitting of any MkI** revolvers to Mark I* specifications .... nor, indeed, why such a retrofitting would have been bothered with .....

    On the other hand, there were official directions that MkI revolvers were to be "upgraded" to MkI* specifications, by replacement of the Mk I hammer by a MkI* hammer. Similarly, the List of Changes entry which introduced the Mark I** modification directed that MkI revolvers and revolvers manufactured as MkI* variants were to be "upgraded" to MkI** specifications by removal of the Safety Stop ..... although the recess machined into the body to accommodate that component was left in place, of course.

    However, the very apparent difference, externally, between an unaltered MkI revolver on the one hand, and the MkI* and MkI**, is the absence of a cocking spur and a "full-cock bent" (i.e. notch to engage the sear and hold the hammer in the cocked position, for single action fire) on the hammers of both the latter variants ......

    For further clarification, the formal entry in the List of Changes for the Mark I* variation was dated June 1938 (although that type of revolver had been produced as early as April 1936 ) and the official entry for the Mark I** variation was dated July 1942 (although, again, revolvers of this type were being produced somewhat earlier than that date.) Because of the directives in the LoC entries calling for any that earlier revolvers to be "upgraded" to the later specifications whenever they were submitted for Factory Thorough Repair, unaltered Mark I revolvers from British military service are, indeed, relatively rare.

    By saying you would like to retrofit your revolver to Mark I specs, do you mean fitting it with a Mark I hammer, and thus rendering it capable of single-action fire, rather than double-action only? If so, that would seem to me to be a rather inappropriate conversion, because your revolver was manufactured as a Mark I**. Indeed, unless your revolver body has in fact been retrofitted to Mark I/I* specifications by having the Safety Stop recess machined into it, achieving such a conversion would be impractical (at best) ....

    I have been fortunate enough to own two unaltered Mark I revolvers. The first was quite early (1931) production -


    However, I traded that one for a somewhat later 1936-dated revolver, since the latter happens to be from one of the small initial batches of Enfield No. 2 revolvers purchased by the fledgling Royal Canadian Air Force, and so marked, which is a much better "fit" in my collection of Canadian martial handguns -


    I'm a little confused, mine is a 1939, marked with one * but it has a hammer spur. Also, wood grips and the finish looks more parkerized (grey-green) than black paint.
    Turning relics into near-relics since 2005.

  44. #359
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    563

    Default

    I've just bought another 3 No.2 Mk1s, unissued with 99% original finish left. I'm over the moon with them, theres no ware and are so crisp its unreal. They have no BNP marks or sold out of service marks, they are from a batch of 20 from a undisclosed source in the UK. The numbers are 1929 number 44, 1932 number A6527 and RAF marked 1938 number F5922. I don't have number 44 yet and I may have the option on a 4th gun with genuine Enfield previously unrecorded patten grips.











    Last edited by brit plumber; 10-07-2012 at 01:07 PM.

  45. #360
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    563

    Default

    I got the Number wrong for my 1929 gun, its number 42









    The odd thing is the barrel date, its 1930 whereas my later 1929 number 177 has a 1929 dated barrel.

Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 4567891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •