I also lack knowledge when it comes to the Enfield trainers. I've only owned one and it was a "sporterized" example (a MkII dated 1922 as I recall).
For a good review of these, try this extensive site

https://www.rifleman.org.uk/Enfield_small-bore_training_rifles.html

And the people at the site below also have a lot of knowledge

https://www.gunboards.com/forums/the-22-caliber-forum.57/

Beyond that, I'm sure some of the more knowledgeable people here will chime in.

 

thanks gewer!

I'll take a look. At this point I don't know much other than to confirm that the numbers match and that it is indeed not a conversion...of which there appear to be quite a few. I told my wife that if she will "approve" (hah) yet another gun purchase I'll buy her a set of diamond earrings for Christmas. Gotta even things up every once in a while although I always remind her that I buy only "used" guns.

 

The most commonly encountered ones are conversions of the SMLE, designated Rifle No.2 Mk.IV*, all in .22LR. Besides general condition, look for matching serial numbers on the bolt, fore end and rear sight. The barrels can be purposely made solid units or .303 barrels with a .22 liner soldered in and both shoot equally well. It seems to be very unusual, but I've now come across three rifles that had a small section of the liner broken out, two under the rear sight and one under the front sight, so that may be something to look for.

One other thing to beware of are "new" Australian (Lithgow) rifles. In addition to importing complete rifles from Australia, the John Jovino company also assembled rifles from new parts, both .303 and .22. These look nice and work well but have no historical value. If memory serves, their new .22 rifles usually have a serial number with a "T" prefix, which did not exist in the Australian system.

 

thanks so much, mech. I'm not interested in a conversion although I see they were common. The tips on the aussie rifles is very well taken...don't want that. As a collector, originality and historical significance is primary.

 

whats original?

to me, what you want ask for is conflicting.

you dont want an OEM/conversion, but you want NEW?

you may want to google for "UK trainers, SMLE, Lee Enfifleds and so forth" and see if you can find any books/info on the subject. There are websites/collectors for them just like you would find for Colts, S&W, H&R, marlin...ect

Then come back with your wish list.

 

thanks. I may very well not know what I'm asking for...hence the query. My assumption has been that a conversion occurred at some time after either war. If that's not correct then I do indeed need to school myself. I'll note that some are marked ".22" and some are not.

 

All of the Lee-Enfield trainers based on the No.1 (SMLE) and earlier models were converted from .303 rifles. This was done by the factories or by private companies like A.G. Parker under contract to the British government. The later post-WWII trainers based on the No.4 rifle were built "new", more or less.

 

The marking procedure was not always 100% consistent, but British trainers normally have the new designation stamped below the parent rifle's markings which were left intact. A "real" Australian rifle has its conversion information stamped on the butt. That being said, I've got one that was converted for the British RAF in 1937 that has no additional markings at all.

 

Very helpful Mech. This answers a big question of mine. I was under the misconception that any conversion was done by private individuals, when in fact the military commissioned these conversions and then used the converted rifles for training. If that is the case, how does one identify a conversion that occurred prior to the end of WWII? Is it anything up to but NOT including a Mark IV?

This info helps me quite a bit.

 

I suspect you need to get your head around the British nomenclature. E.g. a Mark IV and a No.4 are not the same thing. I expect the post WWII .22 rifles 340mech is referring to would include the No.7 and No.8.

 

yes, couldn't agree more but I do understand the No and Mark are not the same, although I did misspeak previously. thanks

 

This is a good book, or at least I think so. https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Bo...14&searchurl=sortby=17&tn=British+Training+Rifles&cm_sp=snippet-_-srp1-_-title1

 

This the book I was thinking about. Frankly, between the COVID and cabin fever, folks around here that are normally friendly are getting downright cranky. I hope y’all don’t get RUNNOFT by this. Bonus points if you can name the movie...

 

i have a few and thats only a bit of what there is out there - there are a lot of trainer/miniatures/ETC out there to find ,

*if you are primarily interested in the WWI era you are looking for the no2 mkIV or mkIV* [there are subtle differences] these were all converted rifles but they have dedicated 22cal barrels [ill come back and attach a photo ] these were the trainers most think of - none were purpose made , all were converted from no1 SMLE rifles , there is no such thing as a purpose built WWI trainer ,

the Pat 1914 seen above is another but i think its a sleeved barrel , there are numrich conversion tubes that included a bolt to change out a 303 ,

*if your looking to WWII you might seek out a canadian Cno7 [ill come back and attach a photo ] this was a purpose made from scratch identical to the no4 rifles

there were also the cooey M82 made in canada and the no7 made in england that are hard to find [this was a magazine fed]

most were single shot , there was a conversion cartridge for gallery practice as well

 

Thank you so much, A Square. It is really appreciated. I am feverishly trying to accumulate enough knowledge to ID and purchase what I want (as I said, one and done in this category). Your note about a WWI parent with a dedicated barrel is very compelling and helpful. I started out on this odyssey thinking there were dedicated trainers, similar to our 1922. Once over that basic hurdle I've tried to familiarize myself with the various "sub-models", if that is what we can call them. I have 5 candidates chosen from GB and GI and are just focusing on determining which fits the bill.

Everyone of those rifles appear to be in better condition than anything I have seen for sale out there. Very nice. I'll note that some have the brass ID tag and some do not...perhaps that is a general differentiation between the earlier (WWi perhaps) and later (WWii) models. something else for me to consider....ugh

 

here are the photos - top photo second down is the older WWI no2 mkIV*

https://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=236893&stc=1&d=1606791822

bottom photo second one down is the WWII Cno7

https://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=236895&stc=1&d=1606792006

 

you are welcome ,

if ic can ill attach examples of the earlier "long lee" shortened conversion trainer for the SMLE - Cond' II
it should be the bottom one here , for reference it started out the length of the top rifle which is a Magazine Lee Enfield , one of the two long lees MLM & MLE ,
this example started life as a full length Magazine Lee Metford rifle , known as a MLM mkII , it was shortened and fitted with a dedicated 22 cal barrel to be used as a trainer for the SMLE mkI series of rifles , these were both the early ones in what we think of as the classic WWI rifles ,

https://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=237005&stc=1&d=1606936675

here is the cooey M82 that was a purose built trainer in WWII - these were equiped with both the rear reciever site and the peep site to allow it to be a trainer with ether the no1 rifles or the No4 rifles
its obvious what im saying about the sights in this photo - sorry about that M16

https://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=237007&stc=1&d=1606937050

BTW - the brass marking disc in the buttstock was typical in the early mkI series and mkIII rifles but was discontinued after WWI
ONLY BSAco produced no1 mkIII* rifles in WWII and these are known as "dispersal" rifles , these were not converted to trainers