Peter: seen this low axis pin on many No4s?

The rifle is a 1944 Maltby, FTR'd at some stage to Mk1/2. The receiver is in fine condition with almost unmarked suncorite.

The rifle turned up without a rearsight, and when I tried to fit one I understood why:

The rearsight axis pin holes are about 2mm/ 1/12" lower than on a normal No4. Consequently any rearsight fitted not only cannot be folded flat, but also fouls the bolthead when trying to withdraw the bolt. The axis pin itself will actually foul any bolthead in the gap. The axis pin is so low that the base of the rearsight jams the plunger against the receiver; there is insufficient room to allow the square lip of the rearsight to pass when trying to fold it down - same as when you try to use a standard sight on a Trials No4 receiver.

I've tried about a dozen different rearsights (Mks1-VI), pins and boltheads - all with the same result. To get a rearsight to fold and allow bolthead clearance, I had to grind down the bottom to the point that the axis pin is revealed. Even with this, the bolt can only be extracted by working it through the gap.

The axis pin mounts show no sign of damage or repair - the receiver is very tight and unworn. Very strange that the rifle not only has had some sort of service career, but that it also got through FTR without being cast.

??????

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...61851545-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...61851547-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...61851551-1.jpg

Nope! Never seen anything like it in my life before. But, because of many things that occur in service, it's my guess that this rifle has been damaged and made good by building up with weld. I say that because although we wouldn't rebuild one up if an ear was broken off (we'd just scrap it out of hand) although we would and often did, file/ream a distorted/bent over axis pin hole.

One other point was that we utilised this hole as a known datum for 'squareness' when fitting a new barrel. This was because this hole was never 'used' in the sense that it would ever become worn out because the axis pin cannot rotate. My guess is that it has been repaired by bubba (see how I'm learning all these quaint old wild colonial phrases....). You could use it with a PH5 series sight or mill the ears off and start again.

Intersting!

I've looked under a magnifying glass to see any sign of repair, but there is not a trace - all the radii and lines match other Maltbys I have of the same vintage. In fact you can see the same machining marks that run in all directions over the rest of the receiver. The Maltby markings are all quite sharp, so no particular sign that the receiver has been heavily refinished. I've got a crate full of b*ggered & repaired receivers, but this particular one doesn't have the "look" of a repair job.

Like many Maltbys, this one was a bit rough in the charger bridge socket where the wheel of the Mk1 sight lies - so i assume that the rifle was probably one of the many built with a MkII 300/600 flip as standard. Maybe by 1944 there was a lump of swarf lying in the jig where they did the axis pin boring....

I know what you're saying Thunder but take it from me. If the sight wouldn't go down or you couldn't get the bolt in OR out, it wouldn't have got past the first very basic in or out inspection. And the FTR out inspection programme was even more rigorous than the Base Workshop overhaul standard.

Just ask yourself this. How did the Armourers clean and view the bore if they couldn't get the bolt out. And how did they check fire it if they couldn't get the bolt IN? After all, they need the sights to aim at the zeroing screen!

Thunderbox

I hate to disagree with Mr. Laidler but during the war with the manpower shortages, exceptions were made on who would have been eligible to be an Armourer. :rofl:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif

Radius the pin to clear the bolt head and install a British MkIII stamped folding sight. The MkIII probably (almost certainly) would have been the standard sight fitted to your rifle in 1944.

Good idea LE to get out of a hole, BUT......... If the Mk3 or 4 backsights are fitted, they won't flip down unless you radius the legs!

And mathematically (won't go into the maths/formula here), you will never zero it with the range of foresight blades available because the backsight is now 2mm or so LOWER than the datum norm! And 2mm over the sight radius over XX yards is, well.....................................

I think that there's something deeper amiss here. You COULD fit a PH5 series sight but even that will be 2mm lower if it's an axis pin aligned model!

Yeah - already tried all four Mks of sight: although the stamped sights obviously don't foul the bolthead when folded down, they still have the second problem that the spring & plunger can't operate unless you radius off the block on the right hand side. If you do this, then you can end up with "floppy sight syndrome" because you've reduced the surface area held steady by the plunger....

I've now fitted a Mk1 sight - thanks to the wonderful Mr Dremmel (professional armourers should look away..... LOL....):

- Ground the sight base away to expose the axis pin for the width of the bolthead. Not much metal to remove here, as of course the battle sight sits quite close to the edge of the base;

- reduced the diameter of the corresponding section of the axis pin;

- created a shallow socket for the plunger to descend into; polished down the forward edge of the plunger;

- shaved down the side of the Mk1 sight slide, as this edge now of course fouls the top edge of the receiver. Hardly any metal to remove here, as the side of the slide is only two narrow little bars.

A few thou here, a few thou there, and you have a decent bodge. Even managed to keep the sight movement reasonably crisp and positive.

Perhaps I should now add an "A" suffix to the rifle number.....?

Ah, yes.......... But how will you zero it given that mathematically the range of foresight blades is too HIGH now (remember foresight into the error, backsight out of the error etc). And even the 1952 foresight blocks (marked 1H) are higher............. as is the Sten foresight blade +.090"

Keep us informed TB, it's a great thought provoking project. I wish I'd had this for a student project at Shrivenham. Or certainly read the discussion papers.................

Thunderbox, Does this rifle have a Maltby s/n or is it a Maltby action body with a housecleaning A prefix s/n?

I know always and never shouldn't ever be associated with L-Es, but I just don't see how this action body would've made it not once, but twice out the doors of a ROF.

Brad