Questions for Capt. Laidler on late Fazakerley No 4 production:

Sir,

From time to time you have mentioned that Fazakerley had real labor problems in the late 1950’s and that these problems led to its demise. You also mentioned that because of these problems Fazakerley products had some quality control issues. I note in what references I can find that Fazakeley seems to have closed operations no later than early to mid 1961. Just to start: is that basically correct?

Now I note that in Fazakerlay production I have seen the following serial number ranges for what appear to be like new late production rifles.

New production:

UF55 A152 to ~A44000

FTR, but new action bodies used

UF55 none seen by me

UF56 up to ~A10888

UF57 ~A13500 up to ~A24500

On the UF56 and 57 FTR rifles that were using new action bodies, what I have seen (4 rifles total) is that like the new UF 55 rifles, they used the half converted No 4 action bodies, without the front piece on the right side for the cut-off. On all the rifles I have seen, (which again is only 4) I have noted that the action bodies and wood and bolts seem to be new, but the bands, swivels and buttplates seem to be a combination of recycled and new parts. The barrels on the two rifles I took apart were dated 1953 and 1954. To reiterate, other than older bands, buttplates and perhaps swivels that were recycled all other parts seem to be new and the condition on 2 of the 4 rifles I have seen showed very little if any use. Interestingly one of the UF 56 rifles, with what appeared to be new wood had incorrectly fit wood (dated F55) in as much as the front barrel bearing did not have the 2 to 7 pounds of up pressure. All other PF 53, PF 54 UF 55, UF 56, UF 57 rifles I have had a chance to handle seem to pretty much have correctly fitted stocks.

What is the story of the 1956/57 new build FTR marked Fazakerley rifles? Were they marked as FTR because they used some recycled parts? Was the use of older dated barrels using up old stock that was not quite top quality or was they using up spare barrels though to be no longer needed?

Related to that, what sort of quality issues were to be found on these rifles? One thing some shooters have noted is that the barrels seem to be on the tight side, but that seems to be a feature helping accuracy rather then a defect. Most of the rifles I have had a chance to really examine do not seem to have any real defects, other then on the new samples often the triggers are a bit heavier than I might expect on a range tuned rifle.

Any insights or recollections you might have would be of interest.

Thanks in advance

Frederick303

Ah Fred.......... so many questions and so little time....... I'm not a historian by any stretch of the imagination and my knowledge of the 'troubled' Fazakerley factory is all second hand but via a couple of excellent source's and knowledge passed down the old Armourers jungle drums (...... is it still PC to say such things I ask.....) . With regards their manufacture of Sterling sub machine guns, David Howroyd has only contempt for them - but he would I suppose. He's an honest man and told me many time of the labour troubles and dire quality control, but I digress. So on that basis I can't answer some questions

I'm a little perplexed about the notion/idea of FTR rifles using new bodies. As far as I'm aware and concerned, this cannot be because in the UK MIlitary (and the government MoS factory), the body IS the rifle. New body = new rifle.

On the question of correctly fitted stocks or woodwork in general, just remember that they were fitted some 50 years ago and there's a saying about all wood. There is two sorts of wood. Wood that has warped and there's wood that hasn't warped - YET

I know that some of the later bodies used bodies that were partially machined No5 bodies, without the cut-off lug but while these were all from the 1945-46-47 era, they were still new, just as the older dated barrels were. After all, the last barrels in the system - of which I had a few - were all dated 1955. New or what........?

Here's something that you should consider. An FTR rifle and all of the parts used in the programme were gauged to give a further 80% life expectancy.

I know I haven't answered every specific question as it'd take pages and pages. Maybe you could ask specific questions specific to an Armourer. Maybe others could come in on the historical stuff, especially 'new' FTR rifles from 55, 56 and 57. They're new or they're FTR but a new body is a new rifle because unlike Canada, new bodies (or even used ones now that I think about it) were NEVER available as replacements. They were what we called 'the master component'

A reply given in the House of Commons on 29th April 1960 said:

Mr Matthews asked the Secretary of State for War to what extent he can continue to employ the existing capacity of Royal Ordnance Factories for smallarms production; and whether he will make a statement.



Mr. Soames Two Royal Ordnance Factories, one at Enfield and one at Fazakerley, are now engaged on a programme of small arms production for the Services. Requirements for personal weapons have been much curtailed in consequence of the reduction in the size of the Army, and when current orders have been completed there will be no immediate or long-term prospect of enough work to justify retaining more than one factory. One must therefore be closed, and it will not be possible to keep the other continuously at full activity.

Our need in the coming years in the one remaining factory will be for design capacity and varied, comprehensive experience, rather than for long runs of a few lines of production. These considerations point decisively to the retention of Enfield. It is the parent small arms factory with a reputation that is world-wide, and it is fully versatile. The preponderance of skill and the accumulated experience of a century of work in this field are concentrated in this factory, and there is the added advantage that both the small arms development centre and the proof ranges are located there.

I have given careful consideration to the problems of Merseyside, but in this instance I have had to be guided by defence interests. I have therefore reached the reluctant decision that Fazakerley will have to be closed when current orders are finished. The factory will begin to run down in June, and, except for a small force remaining to wind up, all employees will have become redundant by about the end of the year. Further, it will not be possible to maintain Enfield at full capacity and about 120 workers will shortly become redundant there.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, will do his utmost to help displaced workers to find new employment. Established employees will be offered employment in other Government establishments. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I will do all we can to find a suitable firm to make good productive use of the Fazakerley factory.

On the 4th May 1960, a little further information was added:

Mr H Wilson asked the Secretary of State for War for what reason established employees of the Royal Ordnance Factory, Fazakerley, are being officially informed that they must take up work at a private enterprise munitions factory in Birmingham or face dismissal and loss of pension rights; and whether he will offer to workers, for whom no work is available at Fazakerley and who are unable or unwilling to move their households to the Midlands, the right to leave Royal Ordnance factory service with a gratuity equivalent to their accumulated pension rights.

Mr. Soames I believe that the right hon. Member is referring to three men employed as examiners in the Inspectorate of Armaments. They were sent for a month to a factory in Birmingham where rifles are being made for the Army. This work is subject to Government inspection. The posting of the examiners was necessary and part of their normal duties.The wider issue in the second part of the Question is covered by an agreement concluded with the trade unions in 1958. I will send the right hon. Member a copy of it.

Mr. H. Wilson asked the Secretary of State for War if he will transfer to factories in development districts, such as the Royal Ordnance factory, Fazakerley, work at present being placed with private firms and with Royal Ordnance factories in areas of labour shortage, in order to encourage the achievement of full employment and economy in the use of public money.

Mr. Soames Since this Question was put down, I have said, in an Answer last Friday to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Matthews) that the Royal Ordnance Factory, Fazakerley, is. to be closed early next year.

Before coming, with great regret, to this decision, I naturally considered the possibility of transferring work to Fazakerley from other factories, public and private. But, as Hon. Members know, the fall in production of armaments in this country in recent years has already brought about the closure of seven Royal Ordnance factories. It was inevitable that, once the re-equipment of the Army with modern small arms was completed, our remaining small arms production should come to be concentrated in a single factory, at Enfield. One private firm, the Birmingham Small Arms Company, are making rifles for us but they too have been told that no further orders for rifles should be expected to follow the completion of their present contract.

VERY interesting Mk7. Nobody thought to ask exactly why the L1A1 was being already being produced at BSA, starting late 1957 and into full production by the spring of 58 (My 1958 BSA L1A1 UB58A121585 was an original Fazakerley number that was transferred over to BSA when it was clear that progress leading to any sort of production wasn't going to happen) when Fazakerley were STILL producing No4's. They let them have the L2A3 production over Sterling but it was like pulling teeth and thousands of L2 guns were being rejected. That's because the Faz management just couldn't make progress. In fact, out of sheer desperation, 3,000 Fazakerley made L2 guns were shipped to Sterling in order to have them corrected. Sterling 'corrected' them but exacted a high price from the MoS for their trouble..................

The Faz L1A1 tooling and components already commenced, including thousands of unfinished trigger mechanism housings (TMH's) was shipped to Lithgow. I saw TMH's on our Lithgow L1A1's where the original rolled UF markings had been barred out and new AD numbers engraved.

Just a little addition. The Board of Trade who were overseeing the Aid for India agreement regarding the 60,000 Sterling guns for India, were puzzled because the cost of the 60,000 guns was cheaper from the commercial Sterling company than they were from the Governments own Ordnance factory 6, run by the Ministry of Supply, at Fazakerley. How can that have been.............. It's a mystery to me but the Sterling company were pleased.

It just seems to me that everything point to Fazakerley er................. what's the phrase now.........'shooting themselves in the foot!'

Again on the 4th May 1960:-

Mr. Lindsey asked the Secretary of State for War what is the cost of manufacture of a F.N. rifle made in the Royal Ordnance factory at Enfield and by the Birmingham Small Arms Company in Shirley, Solihull, respectively.

Mr. Soames Prices in Government contracts are confidential, but I can say that the current B.S.A. price is about 17 per cent. lower than the Enfield one. The main reason for the difference is that, because of changes in defence policy, a considerable reduction was made in the order to the Royal Ordnance Factories after they had tooled up for manufacture. The B.S.A. contract was not altered in this way.

As you can read from this thread so far Fred; Fazakerley had enough troubles on their plate, of their own making! And while the rest of the UK Arms makers were gearing up to produce the L1A1, Fazakerley were struggling on, still producing No4's that nobody wanted. The last big UK order for the UF55 series were for the RAF/Navy who feared that because of the slow down in L1 production, they wouldn't get them.

Great info Mk7 that seems to fit in with the little bit I knew

Peter, as you mentioned warped wood and straight wood, I have encountered my share of the warped variety. I am fortunate to live near Amish folks who are masters of all sorts of woodworking. One man in particular makes bentwood rocking chairs and he has taught me the process of steaming wood. I'm far from expert at it but have managed to bring 3 stocks back into alignment by steaming them. Usually takes me a full day from start to finish. The bending process must be done very slowly. How the clamps are arranged and where exactly to locate them is key to success. I usually "over bend" them a tad because there is always some springback when they cool and set for a day or two. I enjoy doing this and it adds another dimension to my Enfield hobby.

Capt. Laidler,

I was wondering what your response would be with regards to the FTR rifles, as I too wondered why seeming new action bodies were marked FTR.

Now I have examined 4 of these rifles, and there is now one on Gunbroker that seems to match the description, if you care to look at it. I have examined two of these rifles and taken them apart, noting the markings The action bodies were new when assembled. Here are the reasons I say that:

1) The Action markings Is F56 (or57) FTR Axxxxx.
2) There are no other markings lined out in any way, the actions are the late types without the metal blob for the cutoff on the right side.
3) The small inspection marks all look identical to the late UF55A rifles and UF56 A series rifles.
4) The wood is marked F56 and looks new, not at all like recycles pieces. The 4 I have seen had wood that was not cut for the cutoff metal blob on the right side.
5) The bolts are marked with earlier, F51 on one rifle, other was F54 if my memory serves me correctly.

I will try to post some pictures for you to look at, not sure if I will be successful, as I have never posted pictures before: