Printable View
can some help me with the following :
what type of wood ie. butt and top and bottom forearms is it suppose to me
I was looking and noticed a savage marking on the upper wooden front forearms
did Maltby used any Savage made parts back then?
also on the magazine dont see any serial numbers?
missing the front sight guard can anyone recommend a good online site to buy replacement Maltby lee enfield parts?
many thx
A 1944 British rifle could have either English walnut or beechwood stock parts. Both types have been observed.
A North American rifles should be American black walnut although Birch was an accepted substitute at Savage and Longbranch.
If it has a Savage part on it, most likely a rebuild or replacement.
Magazines usually but not always have the serial number. Yours may not have been numbered or it is a replacement.
I'm confused. Maltby No4 MkI*? Savage and Long Branch were the only producers of No4 MkI* rifles, weren't they? If so, then you either have a Maltby No4 MkI with Savage bits, or a Savage or Long Branch No4 MkI* with Maltby bits. Either way, I believe the odd bits would have been put on during a repair of some sort.
I wonder if someone at Maltby went nuts in 1944 with an electropencil? I have a '44 Maltby with the bolt release spring that is marked No4 MkI* as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul S.
How do you mark the bolt release spring?
Savage sent spare parts as well as complete rifles to England during WWII so I'd say there's a good chance that the handguards are original. Sure, they may have been replaced in service too but who really knows? I've seen Maltby rifles with scattered Savage metal parts throughout too and they didn't have FTR markings. The woodwork is usually British manufacture but why wouldn't they use new birch handguards made by Savage if that's what came out of the box during production? Food for thought. I know lots of guys who have insisted on changing out Savage parts from mostly Maltby production as well as post 1944 Long Branch rifles and I think it's a mistake. Just my 2 cents.
I agree with Brian that changing out any odd bits on a rifle to make it 'original' makes no sense. My thought is that in all likelyhood the rifle is the condition it left service. After all, all of us who were in the services weren't in the same condition coming out of the services as we were when we went in and we are still 'original', aren't we?
Sorry Peter that came out wrong. The rifle is built to MkI spec with the spring bolt release but the receiver is marked No4 MkI*Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Got that flying pig!