Printable View
Picked this up on a trade as a kicker. Needed an ROF 1941, have a Maltby 1942, Savage and LB 1943s, and M.47 1944. Any insight as to whether this is original? I'm assuming it is, very lightly import marked. Bore is mirror new. This one is one of those A prefix non-standard rifles and has no BNP so I assume it came from Pakistan or some place like that.
Regards,
HB
It is almost certainly a Fazakerly made Enfield, made in 1941. It probably followed on from the series assembled from Enfield made components.
I understand that building Faz started in May 1940 and it issued the first fully made No4s in May 1941. In the meantime it assembled Enfield made components under the direction of Enfield staff.
I think the non standard weapons had a A suffix not prefix, so this would be a standard weapon.
Sorry if I misspoke, but if you look at it you see that it has two A's with the serial, one as a prefix and one apparently as a suffix. That "A" directly under the serial doesn't mean that? It would not be possible to stampt that "A" at the end of the serial without stamping it on the wood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brit plumber
Cheers,
HB
Ach, now THAT'S "normal"! A Fazackerly w/o the "A" suffix would be worrisome.
OK, my point was that this particular ROF '41, with the socket depicted, with an "A" SUFFIX, is nonstandard. That is to say it was my understanding that rifles with an A SUFFIX were so marked to indicate that certain parts would not interchange. So, is my presumption that this is one of those rifle's correct, notwithstanding opinions concerning ROF quality control, etc.? So is Brit plumber's assertion that this is a standard rifle correct or incorrect? Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmoore
HB
It's a standard Fazackerly, which is to say that there's some little non-standardness POSSIBLE. Almost all the early Fazackerly rifles have the "A" suffix! CYA, I think, on their part...
Thanks, that was what I was wondering, the reason for the extra "A" if not to indicate noninterchangeability.
If you search the forum, there's been quite a detailed discussion a while back on the subject of Fazackerly's "A" suffix prevalence. Captain Laidler indicated that it could be something as simple as oversized trigger pivot pin holes, or other wee things that rarely need service, but could cause fits if the rifle components were stripped down willy-nilly (as in an FTR scenario).
A personal example -A Maltby trigger guard that won't fit ANY rifle I've tried. Screw hole spacing is a bit off, I think. So, there's a Maltby receiver body somewhere that also has non-standard scew spacing.
Sorry, can't make longer posts- fitting this in as I can. Work, work, work!
Thanks. OK, I understand what nonstandard would be, my question was whether or not the extra "A" suffix was something on all ROFs for some reason or indicated nonstandard, as I thought and as I posted. Whether or not many more ROFs had nonstandard issues or parts interchangeability issues is not really germane to the question of whether the extra "A" suffix means this, or whether it means something else on ROF.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmoore
So, in a nutshell, does the "A" suffix on this ROF serial, and other ROFs, mean that the rifle has nonstandard features / parts interchangeability issues or not. I always understood that to be the reason for the marking, notwithstanding the prevalence in ROF production of such issues.
Thanks!
HB