"IS THIS RIFLE REALLY A 'No.6' " ?' You may well ask .............................. read on and decide for yourself
There are those Enfield historians who consider that the designation 'No.6' given to this model of the Birmingham Small Arms Company's .22in. RF training rifle series was an error in nomenclature made at the time the rifle was produced. However, the fact that the Australian version of the No. 5 "Jungle Carbine" , trialled around two years earlier, was also given the number "6" ( initially they were known as the 'Lightened Pattern' rifles) is not really good reason to draw this conclusion. When the B.S.A Co. was prototyping the variously proposed designs of .22 training rifles, first "off the blocks" was the conversion of the Rifle No.4.
...and so on. :lol:
It might be easier to say one is a No6 .303 and a No6 .22lr? :-P
“The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.”
I would really like to get my hands on one of those Australian No 6 rifles, one model I believe never imported in to the States. Thanks for posting the picture.
etprescottuk wrote:I would really like to get my hands on one of those Australian No 6 rifles, one model I believe never imported in to the States. Thanks for posting the picture.
Navy Arms made up a bunch of ersatz #6s from Ishapore 2A1 rifles. Pretty cute little carbines. I have read on various Lee Enfield oriented forums that very small numbers of #6s were released to the civvy market in Australia but certainly not enough to see mass export to the U.S.
etprescottuk wrote:I would really like to get my hands on one of those Australian No 6 rifles, one model I believe never imported in to the States. Thanks for posting the picture.
You'll be lucky! only about 100 were made and only a handful made it civi hands.
