Little enough information (as with the Tokarev copies they're pimping) and it looks like an unaltered copy of the classic design. Having said that, you now (I suppose) need one to complete the set!

Having said that, if it's not complete junk, then it's probably one durable little pistol. Here's hoping they eventually show up stateside.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/...il-aces-and-osv-96s/

I will take one and a SMLE!!

quote:

Originally posted by 4859:
I will take one and a SMLE!!

that is not a SMLE,
the one pictured is a No4 Mk1 or Mk2,

with what looks like a flip rear vs the adjustable, and a competition sling swivel infront of the magazine

It's also a .308. Then again, is it better than an Ishapore?

I'm still trying to figure out where the Vietnamese expect to sell those, the Makarovs and the Tokarev knockoffs. I keep hoping that they're planning on sneaking them up into the black market in communist China.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
It's also a .308. Then again, is it better than an Ishapore?

I'm still trying to figure out where the Vietnamese expect to sell those, the Makarovs and the Tokarev knockoffs. I keep hoping that they're planning on sneaking them up into the black market in communist China.

now that you mention it, it is a 308 mag,

interesting looking rifle,


as far as where, if they got permits to sell in the US, you know they would sell out quickly


but probably right, about the china sales

I'd certainly buy at least one of the Makarovs!

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
It's also a .308. Then again, is it better than an Ishapore?

I prefer the peep sights of the No. 4 Enfields over the notch sights of the No. 1 SMLEs. So in that regard, a .308 No. 4 would have an advantage over the Ishapore 2As.

quote:

I'm still trying to figure out where the Vietnamese expect to sell those

As mentioned in Part One of that article series at https://www.thefirearmblog.com...lds-m79s-and-bizons/ , the VDI factory had already tooled up to produce these .308 No. 4s for AIA years ago, back in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The original intended market was the Australian civilian market, where bolt action rifles are popular due to firearm restrictions and folks are already familiar with the Enfield from the surplus rifles floating around the country. A few of these AIA Enfields were imported and sold on the US civilian market too. But AIA went out of business shortly thereafter.

So since they already had the tooling, it would have been no big deal to just made a few more to include in that lineup of what they're capable of making at that trade show.

Another potential market is the Indian police, who still issue Enfields in .303 to some of their rural forces and reserve units. The Indians might consider replacing their aging .303 Enfields with new production .308 Enfields for some of these second-line units, if they don't want to bother upgrading them to something more modern.

Why would you copy the past? Sure, they all work, but given the choice of copying a Glock or a Makarov, you chose the Makarov?

1911s and AKs sell just fine, and the Pistolet Makarova is a well-known and well trusted design in Eastern Europe and Asia.

quote:

Originally posted by lyman:

quote:

Originally posted by 4859:
I will take one and a SMLE!!

that is not a SMLE,
the one pictured is a No4 Mk1 or Mk2,

with what looks like a flip rear vs the adjustable, and a competition sling swivel infront of the magazine

No matter what model they are the are all based off the SMLE. Same rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by 4859:
No matter what model they are the are all based off the SMLE. Same rifle.

Not quite...

You wouldn't refer to the M1903 Springfield as a "Mauser", even though it's based off the Mauser 93 and Mauser 98.

"SMLE" is generally not used to refer to later Lee-Enfield iterations like the No. 4. Instead, "SMLE" is a term used to refer to the earlier Lee-Enfield No. 1, with the most widely used version being the No. 1 Mk. III of WW1 and early WW2 fame.

This is because the British Army changed their rifle terminology in 1926. The rifle formerly known as the "Rifle, Short, Magazine, Lee-Enfield" (or "SMLE" for short) was renamed the "Rifle No. 1". However, the SMLE moniker stuck around unofficially for that rifle.

But this was over a decade before the later Lee-Enfield version, the "Rifle No. 4", was introduced. So by the time the No. 4 was introduced, there was no longer any such thing as a "SMLE", officially.

I don't know why my statement is so hard to understand. They are all based off the SMLE. Same basic rifle. If you can use parts from K98 Masuer on a M1903 Springfield I would like to see that.

Sorry for the tread drift.

quote:

Originally posted by 4859:


I don't know why my statement is so hard to understand. They are all based off the SMLE. Same basic rifle. If you can use parts from K98 Masuer on a M1903 Springfield I would like to see that.

No.

Very few No. 1 parts are interchangeable with No. 4 parts. Off the top of my head, major interchangeable parts are the firing pin and cocking piece (which have to be swapped together as a set), and the buttstock. Otherwise, it's mainly minor things like sling swivels and stock screws.

It's not just a matter of it being the same rifle, with a different nosecap and rear sight. Far from it. The No. 4 was a nearly complete redesign.

Just because they're both called "Lee-Enfields", based on their use of similar bolt systems based on the original rear-locking cock-on-closing design by James Lee way back in the 1880s, doesn't mean that they're the "same basic rifle", just as a Mauser 93 isn't the same thing as a Mauser 98, which isn't the same thing as a M1903, even though all three of those share common design elements based off of systems designed by Paul Mauser.

(You can stop rolling your eyes now.)

Aaaaaaanyway, I'm more interested in the prospect of a Enfield clone that takes AK mags. A No.4 in .308 is pretty cool too, but if these guys have got the gear to make the 7.62x39s, well that would just be moist.

quote:

Originally posted by airsoft guy:
but if these guys have got the gear to make the 7.62x39s, well that would just be moist.

They should, since they were reportedly the ones making the Enfields for AIA, and AIA offered 7.62x39 versions that used AK mags:

Ayyyyye, that's the ticket right there. Gimmie a Jungle Carbine style, and a No.4, and I'll be a happy camper.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by 4859:
No matter what model they are the are all based off the SMLE. Same rifle.

Not quite...

You wouldn't refer to the M1903 Springfield as a "Mauser", even though it's based off the Mauser 93 and Mauser 98.

"SMLE" is generally not used to refer to later Lee-Enfield iterations like the No. 4. Instead, "SMLE" is a term used to refer to the earlier Lee-Enfield No. 1, with the most widely used version being the No. 1 Mk. III of WW1 and early WW2 fame.

This is because the British Army changed their rifle terminology in 1926. The rifle formerly known as the "Rifle, Short, Magazine, Lee-Enfield" (or "SMLE" for short) was renamed the "Rifle No. 1". However, the SMLE moniker stuck around unofficially for that rifle.

But this was over a decade before the later Lee-Enfield version, the "Rifle No. 4", was introduced. So by the time the No. 4 was introduced, there was no longer any such thing as a "SMLE", officially.

Yes.

The last of the SMLE types was the Mk VI which became the prototype for the No.4 MkI rifle. Wouldn´t there have been a change in designation numbers back in 1926 (1929?) it would have been called SMLE as well. The action type of the No.1, No.2, No.4 and No.5 rilfes are similar although the No.4 and No.5 have been improved for rational manufacturing. Some details in the trigger and the magazin changed as well. The .308/7.62mm version of the No.4 became the rilfe L7. Both ROF and Stirling sold 7.62mm conversion kits for the No.4 and very few for the No.5. A lot of L7´s and converted No.4 are still used for long range shooting. The last of the classic snub nose SMLE´s was the MKV trials rifle.
One of each plus subervsions of them are in my collection

quote:

Originally posted by airsoft guy:
Aaaaaaanyway, I'm more interested in the prospect of a Enfield clone that takes AK mags. A No.4 in .308 is pretty cool too, but if these guys have got the gear to make the 7.62x39s, well that would just be moist.

No.5'ish carbine in 7.62 Warsaw, or NATO.
<p>[URL=https://giphy.com/gifs/oh-number-farkcom-d9DsJZVQWEukg]via GIPHY[/URL]</p>

And yes, I know about the "No.7" cut down ishapore thingys.

The Rifle No.7 was a training rilfe made in Enfield and Long Branch. I think you mean the rifle No.6, which is an Australian Lithghow type Jungle carabine based on the SMLE MK III, of which only 400 exist. Those cut down Ishapore conversions where intended for the commercial market and have nothing to do with Lee Enfield types of the British Empire. Buyers beware.

quote:

Originally posted by OTD:
The Rifle No.7 was a training rilfe made in Enfield and Long Branch. I think you mean the rifle No.6, which is an Australian Lithghow type Jungle carabine based on the SMLE MK III, of which only 400 exist. Those cut down Ishapore conversions where intended for the commercial market and have nothing to do with Lee Enfield types of the British Empire. Buyers beware.

I meant the commercial conversions done by "Navy arms"(?). Which is why I have no interest in them.