.
I have a good friend who is a military historian / journalist and the editor of a magazine in the weapons and defense industry.
I had a conversation with him yesterday about a different matter but happened to mention this thread. – I then sent him the link.
This was his reply to me :-
.
Nick, look at the 'evidence' and analyse it rather than just accepting it at face value as most keyboard warriors seem to have done in the 21st Century.
Turpin was the design draughtsman and as such would have had no say in the name, nor would its designer Major Shepherd – indeed Shepherd (who headed the design team and whose idea Turpin brought to design fruition) is quoted as saying he is not responsible for the name.
The weapon would have been assigned a project number, not a name, throughout its design and prototype stages. On acceptance for production officals from the Ministry of Suppy and the War Office would have named it, not the design team.
As the official history of the Royal Ordnance Factories during WWII, published by HMSO in 1949, says Enfield and not England, I'd go with that rather than an explanation given by a model magazine editor – for it was Percy Marshall and not either Shephherd or Turpin who first said EN stood for England.
Think about it. Would it make more sense to confirm in a hobby magazine at the height of wartime that the Britain's firearms design team had been drawn together in ENfield or to pass off the last two letters as simply being taken from ENgland?
Remember also that the British Forces' rifle of the day was the Lee-Enfield, not the Lee-England.
However as the argument is taking place on t'internet one cannot expect common sense to triumph.
As far as I'm concerned, it's the Shepherd Turpin ENfield … but I wouldn't waste time arguing about it on t'internet as life's too short.
Nick