Enfield No2

[trevorsworth]

I traded a three-shot Savage 720 for this puppy today.

.380/200 (.38 S&W). Made in 1944, looks to be a somewhat uncommon No2 Mk1** variant. Timing is perfect, bore is perfect, lockup is perfect, just a little cosmetically challenged (like most things British).

I have always wanted one of these (or a Webley). I think they look very imposing and I love top break guns.

Can't find much info about the Mk1** so if anyone knows anything cool, hit me.

 

[Scharfschuetzer]

My Dad had one in my youth. I took it out hunting and hiking all the time.

Yours has the spurless hammer as the Royal Armor Corps complained of trouble with the spur catching on appendages inside their tanks.

 

[LVSteve]

The Mk1** had a simplification that compromised safety. Allegedly they were recalled and rebuilt to Mk1* standard.

 

[JohnRippert]

Nice No2 MK1.


I have a slightly different No2

 

[Absalom]

The Mk I** version, introduced in 1942 for the remainder of production, has lower numbers, about 64,000 compared to 144,000 for the Mk I*, but is not exactly uncommon; that term is better reserved for the spurred version from the 1930s.

.....
Yours has the spurless hammer as the Royal Armor Corps complained of trouble with the spur catching on appendages inside their tanks.

To expand on this a bit, because some people keep talking about a "tanker model" as if there were another one:

While there is documentation for an early order of spurless-hammer revolvers by the Royal Tank Corps, the 1938 change to the spurless hammer was a general model change to the entire production, and all Enfields after that, the bulk of production at over 200,000, were manufactured as Mk I* or Mk I** without a spur. The change is generally attributed to cost savings and changes in revolver use doctrine, as the British under the influence of Fairbairn and others actually shifted to a primitive form of "instinctive shooting". None were ever built back to DA/SA and a spur hammer by the British either, another urban legend.

The Mk1** had a simplification that compromised safety. Allegedly they were recalled and rebuilt to Mk1* standard.

I think this is somewhat of a misunderstanding. Widespread, including in the Wikipedia article on these, but the literature says the opposite:

At least according to Ian Skennerton, still the standard reference, Mk I and Mk I* were simplified to the Mk I** standard as they came in for repairs. Below the relevant section.

 

[kaaskop49]

There is no crest (proper term?) on the right side of the frame of the OP's gun. When removed/faced off, I have read that signifies the gun has been relegated to parade duty and is not to be fired. Yes? No?

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

 

[Absalom]

There is no crest (proper term?) on the right side of the frame of the OP's gun. When removed/faced off, I have read that signifies the gun has been relegated to parade duty and is not to be fired. Yes? No?

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

Are you referring to the full Enfield logo as seen on the photo below? (borrowed from the internet)

If so, I have not heard your story.

To my knowledge that simply went away in 1941/42 as a war economy and was replaced on all production at RSAF with the simple Enfield D/E (it usually just looks like a mangled D as on the OP's gun) and the I* or I**. Below is mine (Jan. 1943), somewhat clearer.

 

[needsmostuff]

Commonly misidentified as a defensive handgun they are in fact an isometric trigger finger strength enhancing training tool.
Shoot a box or two with that beast and you are ready to take on the double action world.
Fact or fiction I believe Jerry Miculek squeezes one in his sleep all night. There , the secret is out
Nuff Said.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

I wouldn't say most things British are cosmetically challenged and in 1944 things were a little rough over there. I have an unaltered No. 2 Mark I made in 1932, good shooter.

 

[LVSteve]

Commonly misidentified as a defensive handgun they are in fact an isometric trigger finger strength enhancing training tool.
Shoot a box or two with that beast and you are ready to take on the double action world.
Fact or fiction I believe Jerry Miculek squeezes one in his sleep all night. There , the secret is out
Nuff Said.

As a relatively recent arrival from the UK I should step up and refute these scurrilous accusations. However, as an honest man, I cannot.

 

[2152hq]

Kind of strange in that the Brits removed the hammer block safety from their revolver in WW2 and we put one in ours.

Neat revolvers and fun to shoot. I had a nice '30s issue but traded it off for something much more desireable at some point but I can't remember what it was.

I used to shoot 9mm Browning Long in it.
It was commercial Norma FMJ ammo that Century sold by the case at the time.
It came to something like $3.50 for a 50rd box. Shipping was included!

 

[trevorsworth]

I wouldn't say most things British are cosmetically challenged and in 1944 things were a little rough over there. I have an unaltered No. 2 Mark I made in 1932, good shooter.

I think it's a great looking gun, just rough around the edges as British surplus often is - certainly all of mine has been.

 

[Absalom]

I think it's a great looking gun, just rough around the edges as British surplus often is - certainly all of mine has been.

Are all three serials matching? Barrel unit, grip frame, cylinder. Many, if not the majority, were kept alive after the war by "consolidating" parts, so guns with three different numbers aren't uncommon.

Since you stated 1944, I assume that's on the barrel. I have some general data gleaned from the web, so if you provide the serial, most importantly the letter prefix, I might be able to narrow down a guesstimate.

 

[trevorsworth]

Are all three serials matching? Barrel unit, grip frame, cylinder. Many, if not the majority, were kept alive after the war by "consolidating" parts, so guns with three different numbers aren't uncommon.

Since you stated 1944, I assume that's on the barrel. I have some general data gleaned from the web, so if you provide the serial, most importantly the letter prefix, I might be able to narrow down a guesstimate.

The serial numbers all match - 5200 or 3200, I can't really tell if the first digit is a 5 or a 3 in any spot. There's no prefix attached to the serial number but near the serial number on the frame & barrel it looks like there is "ZC" - all these markings are pretty poorly struck.

The sideplate has a serial number on the inside as well, it's different - ZC3066. Cool how close it is.

The Enfield marking itself is incredibly faint - even "England" on the left side of the frame is only partially impressed. They were really in a rush on these it seems.

Speaking of markings, there is only one broad arrow visible when the grips are installed - on the front sight blade! There are another 3 on the grip frame for some reason.

There is also a crossed sword marking with the letters F G which I believe indicates that it was sold onto the civilian market in 1955.

 

[Absalom]

The serial numbers all match - 5200 or 3200, I can't really tell if the first digit is a 5 or a 3 in any spot. There's no prefix attached to the serial number but near the serial number on the frame & barrel it looks like there is "ZC" - all these markings are pretty poorly struck.

The sideplate has a serial number on the inside as well, it's different - ZC3066. Cool how close it is.

Since there were only four digits, each prefix group seems to have covered about two months, six prefixes a year.

ZB was the bridge prefix 1943 to 1944, meaning we have both 43 and 44 stamped barrels. So your ZC gun, whatever the actual digit, falls into the first full 1944 group, likely February/March 1944.

My Enfield is V 7366. V happens to be the bridge prefix 1942 to 1943, and I've found mention of guns up to the V 6500 range with 42 barrels. So placing my 43 stamped gun in Jan. 1943 is a very safe bet.

A bit of sleuthing is the best we can do since the Enfields, in contrast to Webleys, can't be lettered.

 

[Absalom]

Kind of strange in that the Brits removed the hammer block safety from their revolver in WW2 and we put one in ours.

An additional remark about this:

In looking at my collected notes for the dating, I came across a notation (unfortunately not properly sourced) that the hammer block was reinstated for the new-production contract for Pakistan in 1956. About 6000 revolvers were manufactured as Mk I*.

Those were likely the last ever, since in 1957 the FN Hi-Power was adopted by the British military as L9A1 to replace both the Enfield and the Inglis Hi-Power over the next several years.

 

[M E Morrison]

how peculiar - mine has a very good trigger pull.
perhaps still having the hammer spur - and SA/DA makes a difference?

 

[HOUSTON RICK]

Just think of all the tea that was consumed in the presence of your #2!

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

I read they had to pay Webley for patent infringement. The original .380/200 lead bullet load had to be withdrawn due to Geneva Convention restrictions, it was replaced by a 178 grain cupronickel bullet. I have read the Brits preferred the S&W, be fun to read after action reports. Mine was made in 1932, shows little sign of wear, I like to think somebody had it near at hand during "Their Finest Hour".

 

[Absalom]

... I have read the Brits preferred the S&W, be fun to read after action reports ....

By the end of the war, the British and Commonwealth forces actually had a couple hundred thousand S&W .38 hand ejectors MORE than their own topbreaks, even if you add the supplementary 105,000 Webleys to the total Enfield production