ZF markings - again

[Son]

Put it in a rest or lead sled a long piece of string on the trigger an oiled proof round in the chamber cock take the loose end of string go for a long walk to the end of the length of string then pull to fire reinspect then repeat several times if nothing found. Report findings.

Very tempted... I thought about doing something like that but then I thought... "what if the last test round I fired was the one that weakened it's fault (whatever it is) beyond safe limits". I'd never be sure the next round wasn't going to be my last.

[Thunderbox]

With all due respect to the board experts, I personally remain unconvinced that there isn't another "ZF" out there with an unrelated meaning to the accepted British/Commonwealth "scrap" designation:

- why are there so many marked rifles out there? Why weren't most of them scrapped in the usual manner as they passed back up the depot system?
- why do many/most of the these rifles have no apparent defects, even under inspection, gauging & proof testing? Some even appear to be little used since an FTR or similar, or even from initial production.

One aspect that intrigues me is that the "stamped" ZF mark on butts I've examined appears to be an identical font to the "FR" that appears on NIW and fitted wood associated with Pakistani production.

[curly]

I think it's odd too.

I'm trying to ascertain if the 'ZF' mark was applied to fully serviceable rifles which happened to have an 'A' suffix to their serial number.

In Mr Skennerton's research he has found EME Regulations dated january 1951 announced that "Rifles No.4 Mk1 which bear the suffix letter 'A' to the serial number e.g. 444A, are fitted with components which are not generally interchangeable, and care must be taken when changing such components. When a replacement is required and a spare component will not fit, the rifle will be exchanged."

However, Mr Skennerton goes on to tell us that in the mid 1950's rifles with an 'A' suffix to the serial were ordered to be withdrawn and scrapped. I can only presume that most of these rifles were perfectly serviceable but must have been stamped or painted with the 'ZF' mark. What is also baffling is why they still exist if they were ordered to be scrapped...

Curly

[Peter Laidler]

Hey, the usually so methodical and sensible Bindi........., you're not really, truly serious are you, to suggest that to another Armourer

Will somebody PLEASE get out of the archive and re-print the long article about DP and ZF rifles. Thunderbox, please, please, take it from me, an Armourer for a couple of years who has ZF'd one or two weapons in his short inexperienced life. ZF means only one thing. It's got a BIG fault that can't be fixed at a Unit or Field workshops. That's the opinion of the senior examiner and the reason for the Z. The F indicates that it's even worse than that, because it's a Base or Factory repair only.

You see, most of us enthusiastic amateurs on the forum or your expert Gunsmiths don't have all of the necessary tooling, gauges and, dare I say it, expertise that these old time, long in the tooth examining Armourers have. Do you know that your ZF marked rifle hasn't been in an blazing inferno or that the rear locking lugs are worn out or the induction hardening has failed, measured by using the special inspectors calibrated bolt.....................

Here's a word of advice. Don't shoot a DP or ZF rifle

[curly]

Hi Peter, I did warn you that this would get very boring for a lot of people which is why I PM'd you with the initial question but you suggested asking the question on the open forum. I sincerely apologise for going over old ground.

All I want to know is what identifying mark would an Armourer give to a fully serviceable rifle which was ordered to be withdrawn and scrapped because of non-standard or non-interchangeable parts?

Thanks very much,

Curly

[Peter Laidler]

To be honest Curly, there isn't a mark because since the early 60's to date, I can't (unless any other REME RA/RNZ/RCEME Armourer out there can, offhand..... Tankie or Son help here?) I can't think of anything that fits into this category. If something is declared obsolescent, and plenty is, then we keep it going until it's finally worn out. If it's obsolete, then it's usually withdrawn reasonably soon/quick. But in this case, there's no mark as such, it's just, well, withdrawn as obsolete!

As I explained, if something didn't have interchangeable parts, like a lot of Fazakerley No4's (Magazines were always a bit of a pain as was breeching up.....) and the trials type No4's, then they would still soldier on until they couldn't be fixed. As simple as that. Then they'd be classified as Y (for an examiner at a larger Field workshop to certify. Then he'd certify it as Z BER. That means that it would never even get close to a Base workshop or factory facility as the Z meant major fault and BER was that it was beyone economic repair.

I could(?) be wrong(?) but in spite of much searching, I can find NO reference whatsoever of ANY notification that rifles, pistols or sub machine guns bearing the A prefix, either Fazakerley, Enfield or even Albion will be withdrawn simply because they carry the A suffix.

If your rifle has those magic initials ZF written, indited, carved, marked, engraved, or in any other way deliniated OR any of those letters, characters or the least trace of any such letter or character is visible, then avoid it like the plague. It means that there something wrong with it. I know some disagree, but I wouldn't just spout off a load of old tripe about this.

[curly]

Hi Peter,

that all makes sense, I don't think there would have been a "make do and mend" issue if an order was made to withdraw and scrap the trials rifles - they mostly had very different bodies to the standard No.4 Mk1 so no amount of adding parts or tinkering would have brought them within spec.

I would have liked Mr Skennerton to have added any information as it's his book which quotes the order, but perhaps another day.

Thank you very much for taking the time to help with these clear answers.

Curly

[Peter Laidler]

You're not quite correct there Curly and nor is Mr Skenneron, and with the greatest of respect, I don't think that even the good Lord will find an order withdrawing the trials No4's. I know this for a fact because during the early 70's, some of these rifles were in the system. But better still, when the very last No4's and derivatives were being withdrawn in the late 80's/90's, there were STILL No4 trials rifles sloshing around in the system. Not many I agree but if there WAS (but there wasn't.....) a 1950's order to withdraw them, why were they still in the Ordnance system in the 70's, 80's and 90's............................

I hope that that has closed the matter.

Now, for a bit of advice................. DON'T SHOOT A ZF OR A DP RIFLE

[Son]

We repair to Y level, but there are some Y level tasks we cannot do- these we send up the line. I can and do sentence equipment Z, which gets it all the way almost to the factory door. Once there, some specific faults are repaired or the equipment is judged as scrap (BER) or fit for FTR and sent on to the factory.

[Bindi2]

I know blasted colonials. The intention of my last post was as a test to uncover the fault that Son with his training and experience has not found. Not for normal use.