PDA

View Full Version : Enfield no4 mk 1? a FAKE? I need some history and wisdom


anfnfalfan
December 30, 2009, 11:14 PM
A friend of mine gave me an enfield rifle, and I can not for the life of me find much of anything out about this rifle. It plainly looks like a no.4 mark 1, but the rear sight is adjusted by sliding, not turning a knob. It has a little lever on side that locks the distance. Distance of 2-13. And it is marked ( mk III ), which confuses me because I thought no. 1 mk III sights were completely different from those of no. 4 rifles. The magazine has a numerical 4 digit serial number on it. The bolt handle has serial number e266XXa, and an ( E ) and possibly a ( J ) or (U) on bottom side. The bolt also says ( A S ARMS 2 ), and the tip of the handle for the bolt has what looks like the crown symbol with 3 unrecognizeable numbers or letters below it. The end of the bolt that holds the shell has a ( 2 ) on it and maybe a very small ( H ). The trigger assembly has a square looking S on it by where the chain is supposed to be attached to the magazine. The little bolt release that enables you to take the bolt out has an ( F ) on it. The sling piece at the butt has what looks like several V's very close to each other (VVVV). The top of the butt has an ( L ) in the wood. The reciever above the trigger assembly has a serial number (KC267XX). That is what confuses me the most! The band at the front sight has an ( F ) and ( 52 ) on one side, and an ( A ) and ( 15 ) on the other side. I thought that was a little wierd. There is an ( S ) with a square around it on top of one end of the stock where the metal is. The stock is made out of beech. There is an ( SL ) in the wood on the bottom of the stock. Where the bayonet goes there is an ( 8 ) on the catch. The tip of the barrel has an (NP) (303) (2.22) and maybe (18.5 tons). Ok, now after going through all of this, i guess it does have a little more markings than i thought! And crazy enough as it is....i busted out my $80.00 flash light, and if i shine it just right on the reciever, i can BARELY make out what looks like (NO 4 MK I ROF (F) 1/44). Now I have had this rifle for a few weeks now, and im still surprised i found that! That is the best i can read it too. Well anyways, there is something about this rifle that makes it addicting! Im already wanting another one.......but one will do for now. If anyone can help me figure out what type and where this gun came from, as well as some of these markings meanings would be great. I do know what the crown symbolizes and the ( S ) with a square around it, but thats all ive found out. Another thing, what would this gun be worth? Could it be fake? Or possibly assembled from mere parts? It's in very, very good shape, almost to good to be true! Any help or wisdom would GREATLY be appreciated!

NuJudge
December 31, 2009, 09:01 AM
There are at least some "Khyber Pass" copies of Lee-Enfield rifles that one encounters, usually No. 1 Mk. III rifles. Some or all of these rifles are made in the Tribal areas of Pakistan. Markings can be correct, incorrect, or missing. I would be afraid to fire a rifle I even suspected was made in the Tribal areas.

Take a look on the receiver and the barrel near the muzzle for an importer's marking. If you see that, it probably is not a copy.

The markings near your muzzle indicate it was "Proofed" by the British before export. Seeing it makes me feel it is less likely a Tribal areas copy, but who knows.

The No. 4 bolt was designed to easily adjust headspace by having replaceable bolt heads, sequentially numbered to give tighter and tighter headspace.

The markings on the left side of the receiver indicate what type of rifle it is, that it was refurbished at the Royal Ordnance Factory (Fazakerly), and when that happened. In my experience with No. 4 rifles, they usually have the serial number near or under the ROF(F) on the left side of the receiver, and some of the serial number on the rear of the bolt and on the bottom of the magazine. The Indians are supposed to have scrubbed a lot of rifles during their refurbishments. The British and the Indians used a lot of black paint on their refurbished rifles, sometimes obscuring markings.

There are a lot of marks on No. 4 rifles, some mean nothing. Some markings indicate which Countries used it:
http://enfieldrifles.profusehost.net/gh5.htm

Serial numbers frequently have prefixes and suffixes, and those letters indicate sometimes who made the rifle, and maybe when:
http://enfieldrifles.profusehost.net/in2.htm

I've had several No. 4 rifles, and IIRC, each had a stamp on the socket for the butt that indicated maker also, on the one I have now it says "M/47C". Another duffer's list of makers marks for all sorts of parts is here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~smithkaia8/id3.html

There were a lot of rear sights used on the No.4, including some that seem to be what you describe:
http://enfieldrifles.profusehost.net/ti14.htm

limpetmine
December 31, 2009, 11:42 PM
Everything you describe id indicative of a bitster, an original No4 with a slew of different mfgr's parts, which is not uncommon when in foreign service.
The square S is Savage; the bolt release is Fazakerly, the mfgr of the rifle. The SL on the butt may be Slatzenger, which would be odd, because they made No1MkIIIwood, but late in the 40's and 50's. The sight sounds correct.

" A friend of mine gave me an enfield rifle, and I can not for the life of me find much of anything out about this rifle. It plainly looks like a no.4 mark 1, but the rear sight is adjusted by sliding, not turning a knob. It has a little lever on side that locks the distance. Distance of 2-13. And it is marked ( mk III ), which confuses me because I thought no. 1 mk III sights were completely different from those of no. 4 rifles.True, No1 and N4 sights are completely different type, no comparison. Your sight sounds correct. The magazine has a numerical 4 digit serial number on it. Possible, mags were numbered at the unit level, not the mfgr. Usually with the last 4-6 digits of the serial number, leaving off any prefix. The bolt handle has serial number e266XXa,this sounds odd. and an ( E ) and possibly a ( J ) or (U) on bottom side. The bolt also says ( A S ARMS 2 )this soounds really odd, and the tip of the handle for the bolt has what looks like the crown symbol with 3 unrecognizeable numbers or letters below it. this is a proof mark, and is OKThe end of the bolt that holds the shell has a ( 2 )this is the bolt head size, used for adjusting headspace on it and maybe a very small ( H ). The trigger assembly has a square looking S savage mfgron it by where the chain is supposed to be attached to the magazinenot a chain, that went out with the no1 mk1-that a loop for the breach coverf. The little bolt release that enables you to take the bolt out has an ( F ) on itFazarerley mfgr. The sling piece at the butt has what looks like several V's very close to each other (VVVV).??? The top of the butt has an ( L ) in the wood.for long butt, as opposed to short or reg The reciever above the trigger assembly has a serial number (KC267XX)this is an import serial number, not the origonal #. That is what confuses me the most! The band at the front sight has an ( F ) and ( 52 ) made by Faz in 1952on one side, and an ( A ) and ( 15 ) on the other side. I thought that was a little wierd. There is an ( S ) with a square around it on top of one end of the stock where the metal is. savageThe stock is made out of beech.typical for early to mid 1950's production There is an ( SL )Slatenger?? this is odd in the wood on the bottom of the stock. Where the bayonet goes there is an ( 8 ) on the catch. The tip of the barrel has an (NP) (303) (2.22) and maybe (18.5 tons).these are sold out of service proof marks Ok, now after going through all of this, i guess it does have a little more markings than i thought! And crazy enough as it is....i busted out my $80.00 flash light, and if i shine it just right on the reciever, i can BARELY make out what looks like (NO 4 MK I ROF (F) 1/44). Now I have had this rifle for a few weeks now, and im still surprised i found that! That is the best i can read it too. Well anyways, there is something about this rifle that makes it addicting! Im already wanting another one.......but one will do for now. If anyone can help me figure out what type and where this gun came from, as well as some of these markings meanings would be great. I do know what the crown symbolizes and the ( S ) with a square around it, but thats all ive found out. Another thing, what would this gun be worth?w/o pics hard to say, but it sounds like a bitster, around 150-200 Could it be fake?unlikely Or possibly assembled from mere parts?perhaps parts changed over time, hard to say It's in very, very good shape, almost to good to be true! Any help or wisdom would GREATLY be appreciated!Hope this helps a little bit, limpetmine

anfnfalfan
January 5, 2010, 09:10 PM
Thank you so much for that info, now all i have to do is get out of the house and see how it shoots! Just ordered some prvi partizan ammo for it, hope it handles well!

kilimanjaro
January 6, 2010, 12:15 AM
Sure is a parts gun, however, if well assembled, should shoot alright.

You're going to want to get a fully original No. 4 when you can, and then a No. 1, plan on paying about $400 to $500 for the pair. Get slings and bayos, too.

Enjoy it.

madcratebuilder
January 7, 2010, 08:49 AM
Not unusual to find a assortment of different 'parts' on a LE. Your Faz rifle has Savage parts. Look for an "FTR" on it, that would explain all the mismatched parts to some degree. "FTR" is an English rebuild and "FR" is a Indian rebuild.

A assortment of LE rear sights.

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d37/madcratebuilder/LESights.jpg
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d37/madcratebuilder/LESights01.jpg

wogpotter
January 7, 2010, 09:18 AM
The magazine has a numerical 4 digit serial number on it. Possible, mags were numbered at the unit level, not the mfgr. Usually with the last 4-6 digits of the serial number, leaving off any prefix.
I have to question this.
I have unwrapped an unissued mummy & the magazine inside the sealed wrap was serial number matched to the rifle. This seems to indicate that the magazines were matched at some point before sealing the wrap.

Tikirocker
January 7, 2010, 11:44 AM
This seems to indicate that the magazines were matched at some point before sealing the wrap.

Some were and some weren't ... it was not an absolute; that is the reason for the discrepancy.

Tiki.

limpetmine
January 8, 2010, 07:56 PM
You of course are correct, in that the PF and UF series had what seemed every part serialed. They are unique, however in the big Enfield picture.
There are too numerous to count examples of correct rifles w/o serialed magazines, and just as many with!

madcratebuilder
January 9, 2010, 11:36 AM
Quote:
This seems to indicate that the magazines were matched at some point before sealing the wrap.
Some were and some weren't ... it was not an absolute; that is the reason for the discrepancy.

Tiki.

+1

I have unwrapped one rifle and watched two come out of the wrap, two from 55 and one from 52. These rifles had numbered mags (and bayonets). I think most of the post war rifles were completely numbered as there was no rush in production.

War time production the emphasis was on the number of rifles produced not the numbers on them.

How many rifles had the mags ep'ed during FTR?