Was the re-inforce lug on the rhs of the receiver of a no4 mk1 machined off in FTR?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ssj

Was the re-inforce lug on the rhs of the receiver of a no4 mk1 machined off in FTR? Further could it have been "cleaned up" on the lhs where the no4 mk1 would have been and re-stamped no4 mk2? Or is it a no4 mk2? yet stamped like a no4 mk1?

---

Now that I understand the "re-inforce lug" portion: "No" to all of the above. You should be able to easily discern if further machining was done in the area. If it was a No.4 Mk.I converted to the Mk.2 specifications, then it would be marked as No.4 Mk.I/2. And the added plates won't be integral to the receiver body, so that should be easy to tell as well. Your one photo is not helpful to the point of being frustrating! None of the pertinent areas useful for identification are shown.

Hi,

Sorry I can understand the frustration I feel it to, but I suspect the seller was being deliberately obtuse, so I let the auction expire. If that lug wasnt machined off then it must be a mk2, though a messy one.

regards

It should be quite simple: If and only if the bracket for mounting the trigger is an integral part of the rifle body then the body belongs to a No.4 Rifle Mk2. Early bodies had the lug for the magazine cutoff, later ones had it removed as shown in the photo.
Rifles Mk1/2, 1/3 etc have a separate bracket for the trigger attached to the body by brazing and that should be obvious on examination.
I doubt if the magazine cutoff lug was ever removed during FTR, it was easier to modify the forend if a replacement late Mk2 pattern one was being fitted.

Ensci says it all.. There was never a requirement to machine off the former magazine cut-off lug during the FTR

I have a No4 Mk2 with the serial number, N1767 and mag stamped N2190. I bought it 12-15yrs ago from a very well know NZ collector. he knew the history of the rifle, which is that it was the property of an officer in the RNZN. Supposedly a small batch of around 20 were assembled the 1950`s especially for Service Rifle Competition[Not sure if this was in NZ or UK]. The rifle is clearly assembled from an unissued or new Mk2 action with no cutout lump, and fitted with modified Mk1 woodwork, all pieces are numbered!. Also an N in a circle stamped on the butt socket. I know of one other similar rifle, and have spoken to the owner about the markings. Maybe you have a similar one?
Stuart.

This would be consistant with the little I know, its serial number is N22xxx and the No4 mk2 markings are not like Faz serail number markings. It has a no4 mk1 lower forend converted to 1/2. No N mentioned, The guy just came across as to vague for me when I tried to get specific answers, so I'll keep clear without being able to go see it....

Its relisted on Trademe again, Lee Enfield No4 Mk2 .303 rifle Full Wood. | Trade Me

Hi, Yes exactly like the one I have. I make a mistake when I said mine had an N inside a circle,It actually has a C just like TM listing.

It has a broad arrow stamp apparently, so that's accepted for UK mil service a I understand it. I would have thought if it was for NZ army we'd see N^Z stamp and a NZ serial number?

I wonder what the (C) stands for, Ive not seen it before not in brackets anyway but now there are 2, this and yours.

Does yours have any sign of a date stamp?

I have just had a look at mine, it also has a broad arrow stamp on the right hand butt socket. Maybe they were owned privately by members of the armed forces. Don`t really know why they weren`t N^Z stamped! I have assumed the (C) stood for competition, and the N prefix was for Navy. I would be interested in other opinions thought!. I have shot mine in competition and at 300-600 yds it is unusually accurate!!!. No date stamps anywhere on the major parts, but several small parts are dated 1953&1954. Also has a butt disc and serial number stamped on the wrist.

The arrow isn't an ARMY mark as such, but a GOVERNMENT mark. As all (?) rifles made at the Government factories were made for Government contracts, they'll all have the arrow mark.