Fazakerley No. 4

[husk]

I picked up this Faz No. 4 a couple of weeks ago and just started a minor cleaning. Interestingly, it is in original WWII configuration with no visible upgrades other than FR being stamped in the butt. The MkII flip sight is still present and all serial numbers match. I will post additional pics when I can.

Husk

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[jmoore]

Is the fore stock numbered along with a month/year next to it? "FR" is a marking that hasn't been deciphered, yet.

Could you do some detail shots of the charger bridge area? Top and sides. Thanks!

ETA:
As it's an "A" suffix rifle, that's looking fairly original at this point, you may be able to add a bit of data to an older on going thread:


Link here:

"...actively sought out and destroyed..." 'A' Suffix No.4 Rifles

[husk]

Attachment 25574Attachment 25573Attachment 25575

Is the fore stock numbered along with a month/year next to it? "FR" is a marking that hasn't been deciphered, yet.

Could you do some detail shots of the charger bridge area? Top and sides. Thanks!

---------- Post added at 02:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:51 AM ----------

As it's an "A" suffix rifle, that's looking fairly original at this point, you may be able to add a bit of data to an older on going thread:

"...actively sought out and destroyed..." 'A' Suffix No.4 Rifles

---------- Post added at 02:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:56 AM ----------

Military Surplus Collectors Forums

[jmoore]

Thanks, that's completely not what I expected to see.

ETA: Cross linked these threads for future reference.

It'll be interesting to see what it looks like all cleaned up. If you feel like doing photos of generally covered areas whilst it's apart, I wouldn't mind a bit! Nekkid rifles...

[Claven2]

What did you not expect ot see? Matching dates on the wood, or a lack of an ugly weld blob on the charger bridge?

[jmoore]

In actuality, the monitor at which a did Post #4 is so bad, that I've completely reversed my thinking, having observed husk's photos again. Completely "normal"! I.e., "correct" and "original" as far as I can tell.
(I go most of the week w/ very poor visuals- makes life tough.)

The bridge IS welded on, just nicely- see post #1, photo showing safety and build data. The top photo is to see if the bridge was ever pinned in- if so, the weld would be a repair. The date looked odd before, but I now think it just a really close shot.

The RH photo of the bridge isn't a huge help, but after a good scrubbing there may be some visible discoloration.

Note that the engraving is still bare metal- no refinish!

[Claven2]

Yes, I agree it is welded, as are most Fazakerly rifles, but it's not an ugly undressed weld - it's neatly filed smooth prior to finishing the receiver. In my view, the receiver at least, and definitely the forestock are unaltered original parts. Probably the whole rifle is untouched.

[conec]

Does not "FR" stand for "Field Repair"?

[Peter Laidler]

FR I understand to be Factory Repair. That is as a contract repair as opposed to a full-house FTR or Factory Thorough Repair.

When we did mark Field Workshop repairs, it was usually something like
13FW
T
6/63 so as to be an identifiable source. 13 Field Workshop REME, Taiping (Malaya) June 1963

The common one was 2FW M x/xx for 2 Infantry Workshop Malacca - date

Mind you, that is only Britain/NZ/Aust Army

[Thunderbox]

The "big" FR that occurs on woodwork - both normal rifles and brand new "Pakistani" wood components - is not yet positively identified.

The fact that it occurs on lots of unaltered decent condition rifles that don't appear to have been to the sub-continent, yet also appears on new unused Pakistani-marked woodwork, leads me to the opinion that this "FR" is some sort of inspection mark related to Pakistan's efforts both the buy No4s and build them. As many of the complete rifles appear never to have left UK, I wonder if "FR" was stamped on surplus rifles offered for sale by dealers (eg Interarms) by inspectors from a Pakistani purchasing commission based in UK. This might also explain why some of the "Pakistani" No4 woodwork appears to be lighter walnut of the type used on UK rifles, rather than the dark "Turkish" walnut used on the majority - perhaps some of the woodwork was produced by UK contractors?