>This was an especially entertaining read, because this (in .22, so
>likely a replica I assume) was the rifle I was taught to shoot with,
>by my mother some time in the 80's.

Not necessarily a replica—there were several official .22 rimfire training versions of the Lee-Enfield over the years. The earliest versions were conversions of worn-out .303 rifles; later models were produced in .22 from the start. Most of them, particularly the WWI-vintage SMLE conversions (later redesignated Rifle No. 2 Mk IV, in the same way that the .303 SMLE retroactively became Rifle No. 1), were externally indistinguishable from the .303 version apart from some markings and the bore diameter, specifically so that they would provide the most seamless possible training experience.

I've never seen one of those in person, but I can only assume that they make great .22s, because I have to think that a rifle as big and heavy as an SMLE, originally designed for .303, would essentially have no recoil at all firing .22 rimfire. From what I see here, it seems like your experience was pretty positive too. I might have to try and round one of those up sometime.

(That is the one thing about the SMLE I'm not a big fan of: .303 British kicks like a mule. But then all the full-power service rifle cartridges of WWI did. The Lee-Enfield .308 conversion Gramp also had was much milder on the shoulder, but the .303 had the history, so that's the one I went with.)

>She was rated Expert with her service pistol, but was still a mean
>shot with rifles. I ended up using what I learned to later teach
>rifle safety in the Boy Scouts.

Well, that's pretty badass. Was she a cop or something? (Apologies if this has come up before and I've just forgotten about it; I'm old and crap. :)

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.