Once, years ago, I remember finding a smaller company that made magazine fed bolt action rifles based on a modernized Enfield platform. These came in various barrel lengths and profiles with synthetic and wooden stocks and were generally quite impressive in regards to accuracy (considering the inherent inaccuracy of a plain Enfield).

I vaguely remember something like Viking or Voyager or something starting with V either in the company name or as one of the model names, but all searches turned up empty on me (although over the years I might've subconciously associated those words with the memory of that rifle, so I may be totally off here). Also, I believe that the company was US based, but it was years ago so I may well be wrong again.

I cannot find any company that makes modernized Enfield based rifles of any sort. I was wondering if someone here knows what company I am talking about?

Thanks in advance,

S30V

australian company  AIA.  here is the quick link, but there is a link to more info for you at the site.

I think you are referring to Gibbs rifles.

Perhaps "The Gibbs Rifle Company"

Wow, what a knowledgable lot! It is the Gibbs Rifle Co. indeed! Thanks a lot!

Oddly their website doesn't seem to be working for me right now, but the internet archive version confirms that that's the one.

Again, thank you.

S30V

Quoted: Wow, what a knowledgable lot! It is the Gibbs Rifle Co. indeed! Thanks a lot! Oddly their website doesn't seem to be working for me right now, but the internet archive version confirms that that's the one. Again, thank you. S30V

Dont know if Gibbs is still in business or not.There factory used to be here in Martinsburg,along with a Navy Arms store.Both have been closed for about 8 yrs now

Oh I bet you can still find some used somewhere. Although, getting them into the UK is going to be hellishly difficult. Better lawyer up if I want to go that route.

Yeah it seems like the company doesn't exist anymore. Shame, they had good prices.

Might just as well just have a local Enfield chopped to my specs, if I want an "Uber-Enfield". That might be easier but definately more expensive.

Quoted: Oh I bet you can still find some used somewhere. Although, getting them into the UK is going to be hellishly difficult. Better lawyer up if I want to go that route. Yeah it seems like the company doesn't exist anymore. Shame, they had good prices. Might just as well just have a local Enfield chopped to my specs, if I want an "Uber-Enfield". That might be easier but definately more expensive.

What all is involved in importing a legal firearm from the US to GB?Thanks.

Quoted: Quoted: Oh I bet you can still find some used somewhere. Although, getting them into the UK is going to be hellishly difficult. Better lawyer up if I want to go that route. Yeah it seems like the company doesn't exist anymore. Shame, they had good prices. Might just as well just have a local Enfield chopped to my specs, if I want an "Uber-Enfield". That might be easier but definately more expensive. What all is involved in importing a legal firearm from the US to GB?Thanks.

I'll be damned if I know. I am still moving to the UK and am a total newbie to the rules here but I do know that there are some weapons coming over here because Barrett seems to make steady sales, so does Remington (duh!), and not least of all, Rhineland Arms is a TX-based manufacturer as far as I understand it, although their entire operation is very vague to me. Of course those things might be coming over here on a special permit but my understanding (probably wrong) is that if it's legal you can import it, just fill out the paper work and wait for the permit. Let's just say that Australia is more gun-friendly than the UK, which is saying quite a bit.

Here is a not very modren, Magazine fed Enfield.
(My Favourate)
Made in limited numbers, issued to home guard units during WWII

It is Magazine Lee enfield, converted to Fully Auto. [Not very pretty]

Lovely ergonomics. Looks like an ape put it together from two tin cans, an old muffler, three pieces of wire, some string, an Enfield stock, two wooden spoons, and a 1/2" lead pipe.

I am just jealous, of course.

Quoted: Lovely ergonomics. Looks like an ape put it together from two tin cans, an old muffler, three pieces of wire, some string, an Enfield stock, two wooden spoons, and a 1/2" lead pipe. I am just jealous, of course.

That's amazing, you must have seen the design plans.....

It's an example I pull out when people talk about converting semi- to fully auto.
I try and explain that no amount of changes to a semi will stop a determined indivdual.... (AW bans are hopeless legislation)
Here is an example of Boltaction to full auto conversion.

This is how it started :

Quoted: Once, years ago, I remember finding a smaller company that made magazine fed bolt action rifles based on a modernized Enfield platform. These came in various barrel lengths and profiles with synthetic and wooden stocks and were generally quite impressive in regards to accuracy (considering the inherent inaccuracy of a plain Enfield].

First off, Gibbs didn't build modern Enfields, they merely restocked, rebarreled or rebuilt surplus guns using a mix of commerical and surp parts.

Second, the Enfield isn't inherently innacurate. Inherently implies that they're innacurate by design, which is to put it succinctly, a load of malarky.

I have over 30 Enfields, and have owned twice that many, and I've only owned a couple that wouldn't shoot as well or better as any of their counterparts....and those two were damaged or had issues beyond the scope of their execution. Most of my Enfields will shoot 2MOA or better.

The competitors at Bisley had no problem dominating the 600 yard line for about 30 years with those inherently innacurate No4's.

100% correct on the Gibbs.

I love the Enfield, very good rifles, very accurate.

However it is an inherently inaccurate design, in theory.
When an Enfield fires the whole action flexes all over the place (observable) But it is one of the weird things about the design that it seems to flex in harmony and produces accurate results.
Truth is stranger than fiction sometimes.

Quoted: Quoted: Once, years ago, I remember finding a smaller company that made magazine fed bolt action rifles based on a modernized Enfield platform. These came in various barrel lengths and profiles with synthetic and wooden stocks and were generally quite impressive in regards to accuracy (considering the inherent inaccuracy of a plain Enfield]. First off, Gibbs didn't build modern Enfields, they merely restocked, rebarreled or rebuilt surplus guns using a mix of commerical and surp parts. Second, the Enfield isn't inherently innacurate. Inherently implies that they're innacurate by design, which is to put it succinctly, a load of malarky. I have over 30 Enfields, and have owned twice that many, and I've only owned a couple that wouldn't shoot as well or better as any of their counterparts....and those two were damaged or had issues beyond the scope of their execution. Most of my Enfields will shoot 2MOA or better. The competitors at Bisley had no problem dominating the 600 yard line for about 30 years with those inherently innacurate No4's.

2 MOA isn't exactly modern bolt-action accuracy, pardon my frankness. AK's can do that too. The point is, well-[ab]used Enfields aren't exactly sniper rifles. Sure, the L42 and others were fine rifles, but they don't compare to a modern Remington 700 action, never mind the mighty Accuracy rifles. As for Bisley: Not my cup of tea.

Quoted: australian company  AIA.  here is the quick link, but there is a link to more info for you at the site.

IAI is the company that is making NEW rifles, not refurbishing and altering existing Enfields like Gibbs did.  

IAI has some pretty sweet looking rifles... a No5-ish carbine in 7.62x39... a No4MkII-ish in .308/7.62 Nato, and a few other models.  Very nice, NEW modern rifles.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Once, years ago, I remember finding a smaller company that made magazine fed bolt action rifles based on a modernized Enfield platform. These came in various barrel lengths and profiles with synthetic and wooden stocks and were generally quite impressive in regards to accuracy (considering the inherent inaccuracy of a plain Enfield]. First off, Gibbs didn't build modern Enfields, they merely restocked, rebarreled or rebuilt surplus guns using a mix of commerical and surp parts. Second, the Enfield isn't inherently innacurate. Inherently implies that they're innacurate by design, which is to put it succinctly, a load of malarky. I have over 30 Enfields, and have owned twice that many, and I've only owned a couple that wouldn't shoot as well or better as any of their counterparts....and those two were damaged or had issues beyond the scope of their execution. Most of my Enfields will shoot 2MOA or better. The competitors at Bisley had no problem dominating the 600 yard line for about 30 years with those inherently innacurate No4's. 2 MOA isn't exactly modern bolt-action accuracy, pardon my frankness. AK's can do that too. The point is, well-[ab]used Enfields aren't exactly sniper rifles. Sure, the L42 and others were fine rifles, but they don't compare to a modern Remington 700 action, never mind the mighty Accuracy rifles. As for Bisley: Not my cup of tea.

I read about 10 years ago about an article (may have been Gundigest) about long range shooting with enfield.  Long range as in 1200 yards plus.  All the front locking rifles could not come close to long range accuracy of enfield.  Something about harmonics and rear locking.  I wish I can find the copy of the article.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Once, years ago, I remember finding a smaller company that made magazine fed bolt action rifles based on a modernized Enfield platform. These came in various barrel lengths and profiles with synthetic and wooden stocks and were generally quite impressive in regards to accuracy (considering the inherent inaccuracy of a plain Enfield]. First off, Gibbs didn't build modern Enfields, they merely restocked, rebarreled or rebuilt surplus guns using a mix of commerical and surp parts. Second, the Enfield isn't inherently innacurate. Inherently implies that they're innacurate by design, which is to put it succinctly, a load of malarky. I have over 30 Enfields, and have owned twice that many, and I've only owned a couple that wouldn't shoot as well or better as any of their counterparts....and those two were damaged or had issues beyond the scope of their execution. Most of my Enfields will shoot 2MOA or better. The competitors at Bisley had no problem dominating the 600 yard line for about 30 years with those inherently innacurate No4's. 2 MOA isn't exactly modern bolt-action accuracy, pardon my frankness. AK's can do that too. The point is, well-[ab]used Enfields aren't exactly sniper rifles. Sure, the L42 and others were fine rifles, but they don't compare to a modern Remington 700 action, never mind the mighty Accuracy rifles. As for Bisley: Not my cup of tea.

Who said anything about modern guns? The Enfield's contemporaries were the K98, the 03A3, the P14, etc.....which were all battlefield accurate. A good No4 can shoot MOA, I have a few that will do it.

And, the L8, L39, L42 and even the No4mkIT were VERY capable of Sub-MOA accuracy. I have a No4T that will shoot .75" groups, my DCRA No4 in 7.62 Nato will do it with iron sights, mind you. Plenty as accurate as a modern gun, even tho they were made half a century ago.

The Enfield's ability to stabilize a 30 caliber pill at distances over 300 yards is legendary, and as mentioned above the action works as a harmonic whip to achieve this result.

That's why the Bisley shooters could take a garden variety No4 and with minimal effort shoot 600 yards with accuracy that was exponentially greater than their 100 yard reduced course scores. The Enfield is a long range weapon, and a terrific one at that.

It's not inherently inaccurate. Period.