Very wise post!Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield
Very wise post!Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield
I wasn't aware that the circular stamp is a Maltby mark, but the "No.4. Mk.I." stamp certainly is and seems to be what they went to after dropping the "R.O.F.M. 1941...." mark; also stamped rather than hand engraved (often hand-bodged) as became standard later on. That puts the rifle in 1942 or thereabouts I would guess. It looks like the butt socket has been ground smooth and restamped and the bare metal around the "DA 96 - crossed swords" mark is odd as Canada doesn't use Suncorite or similar and never has AFAIK.
You don't see many C Broad Arrow marked No4s over here.
As above, if it's a deact, I'm glad it's not a rare original.
It has possibly changed ownership from Canada to UK and or others or vice versa as have many Lee Enfields over the course of their time in service. I have seen Canadian Longbranch, American Savage, Australian Lithgow and Indian Ishaphore Lee Enfield's finished in Suncote or Black stoving paint over the years, does that mean anything, not really, those rifles may have been passed through different ownership during the years. I know for a fact that the Australian Military used a version of Suncote post war so why would Canada not as well. It also could have started out as a Faz made rifle with a worn out receiver and when it was rebuilt they used a serviceable Maltby receiver from a scraped Maltby rifle. I know that when I spent time in the Base workshops we never just made up serial numbers as they were accountable so I find it strange that they would give a Faz serial number to a Maltby rifle, but who really knows or cares, it is just a dewalt rifle now which is only good to look at and hold.
Suncorite 259 was the standard baking paint used in British weapons production or FTR from sometime in 1944 onward unill just a few years ago when it finally became obsolete in MoD service.
Is that the deact proof on the left side of the butt socket?
One of the well known gunsmiths who deacts weapons for a living in Essex is visiting at the end of October. I'm going to put him to work removing the front halves of cut SMLE receivers from almost 400 DP SMLE barrels I have here awaiting export to be built into Deact rifles in the UK! I've already done 80 of them. We're trying to make the shipping as painless as possible by removing the dead weight but it's a lot of work. There is no surface shipping anymore and airfreight is horrendous.
No Suncorite or black paint used in Canada to the best of my knowledge, ever. Parco Lubrite 2 was the "parkerizing" finish used at Long Branch I was told by someone who should have known, and having used it I would agree. You can still buy it; owned by Henkel now who also own Suncorite funnily enough. (German company BTW) The Parco Lubrite 2, or something very similar to it, seems to have come into use around 1944. The earlier rifles used some other recipe that resembles more the finish used at Enfield: smoother and and more bluish in colour. I assume it was decided by our people that hand painting was too labour-intensive and that a good phosphate coating was more than adequate. If the solution is properly controlled the crystalline deposit is close-grained and dense and holds oil or paint very well and is very wear resistant. I've seen No4s with very thin and patchy phosphating, but not Long Branches.Quote:
Originally Posted by owengun
Canada settled on the Long Branch No4 MkI* as standard after WWII and from what we know, UK built rifles were either returned or disposed of. Even Long Branch Mk.I rifles were rebuilt as Mk.I*s with new receivers according to a source who was personally involved.
So that rifle was presumably in WWII Canadian service, but why the butt socket was linished is anyone's guess. Odd that the DA 96 mark appears so freshly struck and that over the bare metal left by the linishing..
The bluing used on Long Branch and Savage No.4 rifles and TSMG's during WWII was Dulite. It's no where near as durable as Parkerizing which incidentally, was designed for and used by the U.S. Navy as a pre paint prep finish starting in 1918.
Brian..... I used to export new and used MGB and GT parts to Australia/Tasmania during the 80's/90's as a bit of a lucrative hobby to a pal from my days in the Army there. I used to deal with a freight forwarding agency locally and tell them what I had, rough size/estimate/quantity - you know the sort of thing. They would call me back and say that they or their connected companies had a container going in 3 weeks, would I like pro-rata space. The deals I/we got were tremendous in a shared container. The BEST deals were with heavy medical equipment going from the big electromed places locally. The drawback is that you can't have it by yesterday of course - but what the heck......
Talking of which, I have some MGR-V8 parts waiting 'the call' as we speak. When I said 'lucrative hobby', change that to read VERY lucrative hobby!
Maybe this is an avenue the exporters could look at especially bearing in mind that in the ghreat scheme of things, weapons and parts such as barrels are very small but xxxxxxx heavy. That's where the costs come from!
I appreciate that Peter. The brick wall I'm hitting is because all of the items I ship are controlled/licensable and the shippers simply don't want to deal with them. Things go from bad to worse at the mention of "firearm" or even firearm parts. Even the shipment of DP SMLE barrels which are basically only good as rebar concrete reinforcing to me, have to be licensed on a DDTC DSP-5 export license before they can be shipped legally out of the USA. I guess the deact business is very lucrative in the UK and business is business. I'd much rather see deacts being produced using up barrels that are no good for anything else. It hurts to see new woodwork and other nos parts being used for wall hangers but that's how it is.
Mmmmmmm Would it make any difference at this end of they were partially chopped at the breech? More time, cost though. Theres's no easy way though.
Now back to my MGR-V8 panels for Oz......
That's correct Brian, going from memory think its the Birmingham proof, the London proof is just one curved sword (Scimitar I think)Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick