Thread: Odds of finding an MK3 charger bridge?
Retrieved: 06/08/2014

Has anyone ever stumbled across any sites that offer charger bridges? My 1907 No. 1 MK III is missing the charger bridge and I would like to find one.

Peter Laidler
03-07-2010

The odds of the rivet holes aligning even close-to will be greater than finding the charger bridge!

breakeyp
03-07-2010

Any large local gun shop or gunsmith operation should have stripped receivers available. I am sure they would love to sell you a stripped receiver as they have no use and few people buy them unless they collect dates or mfgrs markings.

rgg_7
03-07-2010

Odds are very good. Send PM. Ron

jmoore
10-09-2010

I'm looking also. Just picked up a Santa Fe which is missing the bridge.

Does anyone sell the bridge with the flip sight in it?

Warren
10-09-2010

Drop me a line... I have some that were never installed and in the white...

Hokoman
03-02-2011

Hello Wheaty, I would dearly love to acquire a Lee-Enfield SMLE No 1 Mk III 303 Charger Bridge. This may not be quite copacetic in this fourm, however, I have a couple of these that my Dad bought for me when I was 14 from a surplus store. Took my first deer a week later with one Ala Natureal. A few years later I had the other sporterized with a real nice walnut Monte Carlo stock. I've taken deer, elk and bear plus the occasional coyote. Now comes the problem, I had real good eyes back then. Now I need a scope. Local gunsmith says that since the Charger Bridge has been removed, he can't mount one. So... I'd really like to get my hands on one if you have another you'd part with.

fergs
03-02-2011

Funny you should mention that as there is one on evil bay at the moment "RARE 1915 Lithgow No1 MkIII Charger Bridge "STAR Marked" still has 3 days to run.

BushyFromOz
03-02-2011

There's also a set of enfield parts on evilbay at the moment that contains some screws, a butt plate and a charger bridge as well.

Looking for an Eddystone barrelled P14 action...

Peter Laidler
03-02-2011

Just be warned that getting the charger bridge will be easy. Once again, I say, aligning the rivet holes will be the difficult part. They are a matched set and that's the reason why the bridge and the rivets were never available as spare parts. While they're shown in the parts list you need to remember that the parts list is a list of PARTS and not a list of AVAILABLE parts.

Just think: No32 sight bracket with mismatched cradles...

jmoore
03-02-2011

Providing you've the required tooling:

If the holes aren't TOO far out of line, just ream the holes in the assembly oversize. Turn down a bit of mild steel rod and swage the ends. Dress flush. I'd use a rivet sweezer to minimize the possibilty of distorting the action body (it's not too hard to do damage here!) rather than a impact gun or hammer and bucking bar. But if you've no other option, it's do-able.

I'd probably limit the oversizing operation to not much more than 0.062", but would feel better at 0.030". (It's a stressed area, after all!)

5thBatt
03-02-2011

A 1907 MkIII charger bridge has a slightly different shape, the later charger bridge is more beveled on the front edge.

I think the chances of finding one will be slim, but if you know what to look for, you might get lucky

Here's my 1907 & a 1911 MkIII, the 1907 being the top one.

Bruce_in_Oz
04-04-2012

The other catch will be setting up to rivet the beasty on.

The attachment of the bridge is one of the many bits of tech info on which I have very little original information.

There are two different sizes of rivets used. Those I have drawings of in the big file.

I also have a receiver drawing. However i have not yet got round to either doing the maths on the hole alignment nor loading the drawings into a 3d modelling programme.

The other question is whether the riveting process was hot or cold. I don't recall seeing anything to indicate either way, nor do I recall seeing any details of what jig was to be used for the job.

I will rummage through the drawings and see if there are any annotations.

And as per previous posters; the 1907 bridge has several differences in contour. I also have no drawings of that earlier version.

Rumpelhardt
04-04-2012

Numrich has them but as Peter Laidler said you probably are not going to get the rivet holes to line up. I put one on a Lithgow but it is a DP rifle that is just a wall hanger so I epoxied it.

HOOKED ON HISTORY
04-04-2012

A bit off subject (Mk 3) but still on the subject of charger bridges. Would it be practical to replace the charger bridge on a No 5 Mk 1?

Frederick303
04-04-2012

I had a No 2 MKIV that someone had removed the charger bridge from. It was an LSA 1914 action. I got one of the MkIII bridges from Numrich, it was not quite finished and was in the white but had the holes drilled. The holes matched perfectly. To mount it I used the two rivets left in the right hand side of the action. To make the longer rivets in the left hand side, as these were completely missing, I used soft galvanized nails from the hardware store; there is a size, which I do not recall that is an exact match. I cut them to slightly oversize and used a C clamp and my riveting device. Now I have to check but I seem to recall on the inside of the right hand bridge there were two additional pins that help the rivet in place, inserted from the interior of the action body. Not sure if I mounted those or not. I do recall the most time was spent on smoothing the internal rivet side, on the interior right hand side of the action body.

Actually the entire rework was easier than I thought it would be, but as I said the alignment of the action bridge and the action holes was exact. I might have been just lucky.

Worked quite well and was very solid. In my case the action bridge does not need to withstand more than the recoil from a MKII .22 caliber cartridge.

jmoore
04-05-2012

It'd be a simple job to replace a No5 charger bridge although the bridge was never available as a separate part from Ordnance (oh no it wasn't......). Just knock out the old one from below and insert your new found second hand one, Then tig weld at the side as per the EMER. While we didn't replace them, we removed, cleaned up and re-welded hundreds of loose ones.

On the other hand, if it's just got a hole in it, just slightly countersink it and get it mig or tig welded up

HOOKED ON HISTORY
04-05-2012

The drilled hole in the bridge ruptured thru the front of the bridge. I am quite sure a skilled welder could repair it. Trust and cost are my limiting factors on either option. If I turned it over for repair and it came back botched I would be Ill! More ill than I get looking at the holes.

What I need is a skilled local Gunsmith with Enfield experience.

Thunderbox
04-05-2012

People usually fill those Parker Hale scope mount holes simply by inserting the correct screws (IIRC 2BA) with Loctite or similar, polish off the heads and paint/blue over the top. The charger bridge repair can be filed to shape if the screw hole has gone through the side; the charger bridge is not a major structural element and doesn't need a strong repair.

HOOKED ON HISTORY
04-05-2012

Perhaps I will try epoxy in the bridge hole and use the screws up front. If I mess up it would not be irrepearable and would only be angry at myself and not have wasted money on an unsatisfactory job.

Peter Laidler
04-05-2012

If you don't mind me respectfully suggesting it HoH, you'll be spoiling the ship for 10 cents worth of tar if you epoxy your rifle! Your state will be knee deep in good tig welders who would fill-weld the holes in 5 mts flat for a bit of pocket money cash.

The method of repairing the holes in the breeching up ring so that the weld doesn't affect the breeched up barrel thread has been detailed earlier and welding them up will make the rifle as good as new. Some on the forum might consider epoxy - as good as it is - as a bit of a... er... what's the word I'm looking for now... Anyway, you get my drift.

And when it's welded properly, you can phosphate and paint and the repair will be invisible. And what's more, it's there for good. Just my take on things

HOOKED ON HISTORY
04-05-2012

In full agreement with your points. My prefrence would be to have the repair done correctly and completely if I can find an individual with the skills required. I think I wil revisit the posts concerning the proper method of repair and ask around a bit to determine if I can find someone with the requsite skills and the ability to convince me they can do the job without ruining the piece. A bit "gun shy" (pardon the pun).

After having a gunsmith remove the butt stock on a No 1 without removing the forestock first. Minimal damage but a pretty basic Enfield gunsmithing (common knowledge) mistake.

Bruce_in_Oz
04-05-2012

OK, here is my set of numbers:

From: Drawing A.1833 - Original mean dimensions of S.A.F. references, dated 26October 1926

Holes in receiver LH side:
Datum: front face of receiver -
Angle above dead level: 27deg 14 min.
Distance from datum to centre of:
Rear hole - 4.2507"
Front hole - 3.7904"
Hole diameter:

Holes on RH side.

Datum: front face of receiver and bolt-way centre-line.
Front: 3.5427 from front, 0'5872 below centre
Rear: 4.0381" from front datum, 0.4688" below centre-line.

Oddly enough, in drawing A.1837, dated the SAME date, the dimensions are shown in a different style:

Holes RH side -
Datum; Centre line of Front receiver screw hole!
Datum to front RH hole - See Note 27

Holes, LH side -
Datum; Centre line of Front receiver screw hole, AGAIN!

Distance between holes 0.460" which is noted as being taken from Enfield gauge No.1717.

BIG NOTE: (27), (applies to both LH and RH hole sets): "This figure cannot be ascertained either from Enfield specification or gauges. A difference of 0.16" was noted when Enfield bodies were measured."

Remember also that the Lithgow SMLEs were built on machinery produced by Pratt and Whitney in the US. The entire production system was built using the "Pratt and Whitney inch", as opposed to the "Enfield inch". There IS a difference and Lithgow produced a chart that showed the differences.

Lee Enfields can be fun and frustrating at the same time.

Following up on the Lithgow dimension issue:

The lads were working with TWO sets of drawings and TWO sets of gauges, one from Enfield and one from Pratt and Whitney.

No wonder things started slowly at the factory. I also suspect that another reason, apart from peacetime / depression that things went slow at the factory post WW1 is that the engineers had to thrash out all of the differences and settle on a standardised set of dimensions and tolerances. Just after the shooting stopped in Europe would would like a good time to do such a massive task.

As is apparent by my 1926 drawings, things were still in a state of flux at that time.