Results 1 to 1 of 1

Thread: ROF Fazakerley Trials Conversion or one of their common typo's??

Click here to increase the font size Click here to reduce the font size

Threaded View

  1. #1
    Advisory Panel Lance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Last On
    Yesterday @ 07:31 PM
    Location
    New England, USA
    Posts
    662
    Real Name
    Lance
    Local Date
    06-13-2024
    Local Time
    02:40 AM

    ROF Fazakerley Trials Conversion or one of their common typo's??

    I just obtained this "rare" girl and thought I would entertain the group with her, a 1948 dated ROF Fazakerley Rifle No. 4 Mark 1/2 conversion. Yes, 1948.

    Production of the Rifle No. 4 Mark 2 began at ROF Fazakerley in April 1949 with 1949 dated Rifle No. 4 Mark 1/2 and 1/3 observed showing they too began in 1949. 1949-dated examples are uncommon compared to other years of conversion. So how did this rifle become 1948 dated?

    Unfortunately, there is no "smoking gun" showing it is a 1948 "trials" conversion as the barrel is undated and the new production fore-end conveniently has damage through the Fazakerley inspector's mark.

    Of interest is the placement of the brackets around "(FTR)". In 1947 the creator(s) of the pantograph marking stencil bracketed the FTR rather than the "(F)" which can be observed in undated (assumed) 1947, dated 1947, and 1948 Fazakerley FTR'd rifles. In 1948 new pantograph stencils were created returning the brackets around the "F" rather than the "FTR".

    So was the marking stencil for this rifle a modified earlier stencil that did not correct the bracket placement and the year or, perhaps, a trial run of Mark 1/2 and 1/3 rifles did occur in 1948??? Unlikely, but with Enfields never say never.

    The actual conversion is unremarkable with the exception of an extra clean junction on the bottom of the body by the trigger guard.

    For my fellow collectors who strive to collect an example of every year of a particular rifle, I apologize to you. You now have another example to find!
    Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC01053a.jpg‎
Views:	89
Size:	1,002.6 KB
ID:	136168   Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC01209a.jpg‎
Views:	84
Size:	2.05 MB
ID:	136167   Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC01084a.jpg‎
Views:	82
Size:	2.81 MB
ID:	136166   Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC01167a.jpg‎
Views:	78
Size:	1.77 MB
ID:	136165   Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC01173a.jpg‎
Views:	86
Size:	1.29 MB
ID:	136169   Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC01176a.jpg‎
Views:	48
Size:	2.24 MB
ID:	136170   Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC01230a.jpg‎
Views:	49
Size:	1.69 MB
ID:	136171  

    Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC01181a.jpg‎
Views:	46
Size:	2.48 MB
ID:	136174   Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC01191a.jpg‎
Views:	48
Size:	1.84 MB
ID:	136172   Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC01199a.jpg‎
Views:	48
Size:	1.59 MB
ID:	136173  

  2. The Following 4 Members Say Thank You to Lance For This Useful Post:


Similar Threads

  1. Not rare but not common
    By CINDERS in forum Milsurps General Discussion Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-12-2022, 10:51 AM
  2. US Model 1917 .22 LR conversion third type-- Parker Hale conversion
    By breakeyp in forum Pattern 1913/1914 and M1917 Rifles
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-24-2018, 06:50 PM
  3. How common are P14 (F) non snipers?
    By AD-4NA in forum Pattern 1913/1914 and M1917 Rifles
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-26-2015, 05:08 AM
  4. Infantry Trials and Development Unit trials question
    By pzluchs in forum Milsurps General Discussion Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-12-2014, 05:36 AM
  5. Is this a common failure?
    By Rumpelhardt in forum The Lee Enfield Knowledge Library Collectors Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-18-2010, 11:37 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts