#1 22 conversion magazine avaiilability

[tanker trash]

My FIL has a NZ marked #1 that was converted to .22 and later on sporterized. I know little about Enfields, but imagine that the trainer 22 was single feed only, with the regular magazine follower all the way up. Is this correct. I don't think the military would go to the effort to make a magazine fed trainer. Note that this is an original trainer, not an aftermarket (Numrich) conversion. thanks in advance

[M1Garandy]

The rifles I've seen that had nothing but an empty magazine body to catch the empties with no follower or spring installed. I can't remember but I think some of them may have been marked "22" as well.

Then there is the Parker-Hiscock magazine which held five rounds. They are rare and expensive.

[JB White]

Yup, an empty mag case will suffice. Some did have .22 stamped on the side but only to explain the missing follower and spring.
The bare box beats the heck out of picking empty spents off the ground!

[Sunray]

Not sure about No. 2's, but No. 7 mags had a follower that didn't do anything but act as a loading platform and place for the empty to fall into.

[Richardrose]

My FIL has a NZ marked #1 that was converted to .22 and later on sporterized. I know little about Enfields, but imagine that the trainer 22 was single feed only, with the regular magazine follower all the way up. Is this correct. I don't think the military would go to the effort to make a magazine fed trainer. Note that this is an original trainer, not an aftermarket (Numrich) conversion. thanks in advance

Hi, I have a 22 trainer as well. I have looked all over to find out about them They are called a No2 Mk4 trainer. The brits aussies and Nz made them. started during WW1 until the 1950s. My magazine has a balsa wood filler installed. Its a 1918 converted by BSA marked B 55 FTR A166 converted in 1955, and has a BSA barrel. the rifle is like new and shoots like a dream. Great rifles.
Rich

[Alan De Enfield]

Not sure about No. 2's, but No. 7 mags had a follower that didn't do anything but act as a loading platform and place for the empty to fall into.

Just a slight correction - the ONLY Lee Enfield .22 trainer that was manufactured as original with a functioning magazine was the No7 Mk1.

There was another rifle made that some people confuse with the No7 and this was ( correct nomenclature) CNo7 Mk1 and was manufactured by Longbranch. This is one reason that careful use of the correct numbers is important.
The "CNo7 Mk1" was a single shot trainer.

The Parker Hiscock magazine mentioned above was never a 'standard production part' as it was manufactured as a 'after market' part.

Hence the No7 Mk1 ( of which there were only 2000 produced for the RAF) is the ONLY .22rf magazine fed Lee Enfield.

[smlemk111]

Hi I beg to differ about the Parker Hiscock it was a standard issue assembly but made nonstandard in the British army about 1927 or there about. check out Skenerton Alan Abramson

[Alan De Enfield]

I think we may be 'arguing around' terminology.

The SMLE .22rf was not originally designed to be used with a magazine, and the rifle was not 'issued' with a magazine.
The magazine was developed by a non-oem suppler and then 'sold' to the MOD on the basis of better representing the 'real thing' (which of course it should do)
The magazine was purchased and used by the UK MOD.

[Richardrose]

Hi, I have a 22 trainer as well. I have looked all over to find out about them They are called a No2 Mk4 trainer. The brits aussies and Nz made them. started during WW1 until the 1950s. My magazine has a balsa wood filler installed. Its a 1918 converted by BSA marked B 55 FTR A166 converted in 1955, and has a BSA barrel. the rifle is like new and shoots like a dream. Great rifles.
Rich


04-13-2014, 05:21 AM #6
5th Batt WWCT's Avatar
5th Batt WWCT
5th Batt WWCT is online now Senior Member

Join Date
Dec 1969
Location
New Zealand
Posts
1,531

Default

Quote Originally Posted by Thunderbox View Post
BSA carried out a large No1 FTR programme in 1953. As the rifles were marked "FTR", it was evidently done to government contract (BSA also carried out other No1 and No4 refurbishments for commercial use, and without any FTR marks).

It is thought that these No1s were being prepared for issue to Commonwealth countries through the Colonial Office or the Commonwealth Relations Office (later the Commonwealth Office and later still the Foreign Office). The 53 FTRs do not turn up with any ownership or identifying marks, so perhaps this order may have been later cancelled, leaving the rifles as surplus. Likely destination countries such as India and South Africa went on to purchase large quantities of surplus rifles directly from commercial suppliers.

The No1s do not appear to be part of any British military procurement, and are not known to have turned up in any British military service such as cadet forces, etc.
The BSA FTR1953 rifles show up in NZ, i have owned 2 & seen many others.