.303 Mark 2 stripper clips


#1

I bought two of these from a flea market with some rounds on. One is marked “II K”. I presume this is Kynoch. The only markings on the other are a “C” with a “W” inside. Who used this maker’s mark? I paid


#2

Falcon - could that “C” with a “W” inside actually be a “C” with a broad arrow inside instead? If so it is Canadian. If not, I don’t know. I used to have a collection of .303 strippers when I collected that claiber, and I don’t recall if I had the “C” with browad arrow inside or not, but that is a fairly common marking on Canadian stuff.


#3

I also thought that is was a Canadian marking when I first saw it, but closer inspection revealed a “W” instead of a Broad Arrow inside the “C”.


#4

There is a maker with this type of mark. It might be a large ‘G’ with a ‘W’ inside it. If so, the maker is WW Greener, a major supplier to the UK gun trade at one time.

As to value. Everything depends on condition of the charger and the clarity of the makers stamp. This isn’t a mark you see all the time so if you include the value of the drill rounds, you did rather well.

Peter


#5

Thanks, now you mention it, I can see that it is indeed a “G”, so that answers the question. Of course I have heard the name Greener before. Both chargers are in good condition, with no rust and probably 90% of the original finish. I have also noticed that there is a faint “II” stamp on the Greener one.


#6

Don’t forget that there are two variations of the MkII charger. One has three side lugs, two on the ‘rim’ part of the charger and one on the sidewall, this is the first MkII. The other dispensed with the third sidewall lug and is the MkII (modified). Greener marked chargers seem to be the first type.

It is a mystery why this third lug was ever incorporated into the design of the Enfield charger, it only features on the MkI and MkII versions and as it doesn’t bear on the Enfield action in any way at all it would seem to be completely superfluous.

Anybody got any ideas?

Peter


#7

Thanks for pointing that out, I didn’t even notice it. You are right that the Greener one has the extra lug. The Kynoch one does not.


#8

No expert on Enfield chargers here, but the extra lug could have been there simply as a manufacturing aid. Perhaps the lug was there to hold or position the charger in the stamping dies. As the manufacturing process was refined, the extra lug was no longer needed?

Just a guess…

AKMS


#9

[quote=“AKMS”]No expert on Enfield chargers here, but the extra lug could have been there simply as a manufacturing aid. Perhaps the lug was there to hold or position the charger in the stamping dies. As the manufacturing process was refined, the extra lug was no longer needed?

Just a guess…

AKMS[/quote]

AKMS, falcon and Peter,

I have never found anyone who could account for the extra lug on the Mark I and Mark II chargers. Even the great Herb Woodend remained baffled despite trying the chargers in every early rifle, including prototypes, in the Enfield Pattern Room. The best guess I have heard so far is that the very early trials were with a rifle which used this lug to steady the charger against a two-piece charger guide. The rifle was then modified and the improvement did away with the need for this lug but the charger drawings did not get changed.

It is shown on the Patent drawings but, despite detailed descriptions of every other feature, the lug gets no mention. So, it is still a mystery.

gravelbelly