Need help identifying where my new enfield is from.

So I bought my first military surplus rifle. I went with my favorite and got a Lee Enfield No 4 Mk I... Or so I thought.

Having trouble nailing down the details from it. A friend of mine, who is quite knowledgeable with military surplus stuff, is stumped.

The receiver says:

No 4 Mk I F(FTR)49

So there I believe the right was repaired in 1949. F most likely means the armory in Liverpool.

The serial number (matching both the stock and receiver) is the weird part.

JA21537A

On top of the receiver there are two worn stamps I cannot fully read. One looks like the top of the crown, but mostly worn away. The other is a "B" with a "3" underneath and surrounded by a circle.

Any help would be appreciated!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bongfu

So I bought my first military surplus rifle. I went with my favorite and got a Lee Enfield No 4 Mk I... Or so I thought.

Having trouble nailing down the details from it. A friend of mine, who is quite knowledgeable with military surplus stuff, is stumped.

The receiver says:

No 4 Mk I F(FTR)49

So there I believe the right was repaired in 1949. F most likely means the armory in Liverpool.

The serial number (matching both the stock and receiver) is the weird part.

JA21537A

On top of the receiver there are two worn stamps I cannot fully read. One looks like the top of the crown, but mostly worn away. The other is a "B" with a "3" underneath and surrounded by a circle.

Any help would be appreciated!

---

You indeed have a "Lee Enfield" No4MkI manufactured during WW2 in the UK, Factory Thorough Repaired at Fazakerly in 1949

Sweet!

I just wanted to make sure that serial number made sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bongfu

Sweet!

I just wanted to make sure that serial number made sense.

---

The B-3 inside a circle sounds like a Maltby inspectors marking - likely the rifle was manufactured at Maltby.

Maltby was the only UK maker to stamp their markings deeply on the left side of the receiver. They also used a stylized "M" in various places. The FTR markings etc. will be electro-pencilled, rather than stamped.

It looks like they filed off the original markings when they repaired it.

The A suffix to the serial indicates a non-standard replacement part. Good luck figuring out which one it is though. Could be anything from a screw to the bolt. First number is a 2 which indicates a Faz rifle.

It certainly could be a Maltby rifle reworked by Faz in 1949. The circular stamps sound very Maltby. However, I do have one difficulty with this in that the rifle serial number (ignoring the 'A' suffix which is not relevant to this point) looks to be a WW2 era Faz serial number, not a Maltby number. If Faz renumbered a Maltby rifle at the time of the FTR in 1949 would they not have used a serial from the more typical 'PF' block by then? I ask, as I am not exactly sure when the PF numbers came in, but thought they included the vast majority if not all of post WW2 Faz No4 poroduction (until the UF prefix came in, anyway).

I just raise the possibility that the rifle could be a Faz that went through Maltby as well as going back to Faz for the FTR in 1949. Or the receiver stamps could be a red herring - this is where a photo might help id them for sure.

One way the OP could verify the original manufacturer is to have a look at the underside of the body/receiver. On UK produced rifles the shape of the two draws is symmetrical on BSA & Maltby produced rifles, but asymmetrical on Faz rifles. I enclose a photo to illustrate in the event that the OP wants to have a look for himself, although it will mean removing the forend woodwork, hand guards & furniture. The comparison receiver with symmetrical draws is a BSA 1945, but Maltby rifles are the same in this respect.

Another thought, during WW2 Faz initially stamped their markings into the LHS of the butt socket in a similar fashion to BSA. However, mid-war they switched to engraving them very shallowly onto the receiver side wall underneath the rear sight bed (just in front of the safety lever). They are almost invariably VERY shallow & easily missed, especially after a FTR & refinish, but it might be worth having a close look there, just in case there are traces of 'ROF (F) 5/44' or some such.....

But failing that, checking the draws is probably the best bet.....

Good clear pics might be invaluable here...

I am going to have time to break it down and clean in soon. When I do, I will make sure to take some pictures.

The shallow engraving under the rear sight, hits the mark. It looks like the original stamp on the receiver has been filed away and etched with a newer, shallow engraving (where I got the FTR info from). The serial still matches what looks to be the original serial on the rifle, so whatever they repaired must have been something like the barrel (which looks very good for a rifle this old).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

One way the OP could verify the original manufacturer is to have a look at the underside of the body/receiver. On UK produced rifles the shape of the two draws is symmetrical on BSA & Maltby produced rifles, but asymmetrical on Faz rifles. I enclose a photo to illustrate in the event that the OP wants to have a look for himself, although it will mean removing the forend woodwork, hand guards & furniture. The comparison receiver with symmetrical draws is a BSA 1945, but Maltby rifles are the same in this respect.

---

Roger, thank you for that information. I've never noticed that about the draws areas before. That's fantastic info.

Hi Bear43. Thanks. It's a little thing that can help with identification & was one of the first tips that Peter L taught me over thirty years ago when we first got to know each other. He sent me a short paper that he had prepared on variations in the No4 rifle body, & it was in there. I still have it somewhere!

While Long Branch and Savage adopted the "squircle" cutout.

Interesting question whether the smaller cutout/relief of the Mk.2 bodies/receivers had any effect on their flex and "compensation".

Given that the Enforcers and Envoys were built on Mk.2 actions presumably it wasn't a noticeable effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Given that the Enforcers and Envoys were built on Mk.2 actions presumably it wasn't a noticeable effect.

---

Not all Enforcers.

Enfield supplied their own manufactured bodies to PH, but as far as I am aware, Enfield never made the Mk2 bodies.

Enfield did not have sufficient bodies to supply to Parker Hale for them to build up the Enforcers, and were either unable to, or not prepared to, tool-up for a small quantity so later in the contract (around the last 150 or so rifles) they went out into the market and purchased 'used' rifles, they even ended up with both Savage and Long Branch bodies.
Whilst the Enforcer was assembled by PH it was (occasionally) with a bit of an assortment of components.

Examples of both Savage (No767) and Long Branch (No706)

The rifle body I used in the photo's to demonstrate the difference in the draws is actually an Enforcer body, & like most of the Enforcers I have seen, shows signs of originally starting life as a Faz Mk2, although I know bodies of other origins were used on occasions.

Not sure if I understand you correctly Alan, but are you saying that RSAF Enfield did or didn't produced new-made No4 Mk2 bodies specifically for the first lot of Enforcers? As intimated above, I had always assumed that most were (probably) new unissued Faz Mk2 bodies that were just milled out in the mag well & cleaned off of the original manufacturer's markings. But that is an assumption, I admit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

The rifle body I used in the photo's to demonstrate the difference in the draws is actually an Enforcer body, & like most of the Enforcers I have seen, shows signs of originally starting life as a Faz Mk2, although I know bodies of other origins were used on occasions.

Not sure if I understand you correctly Alan, but are you saying that RSAF Enfield did or didn't produced new-made No4 Mk2 bodies specifically for the first lot of Enforcers? As intimated above, I had always assumed that most were (probably) new unissued Faz Mk2 bodies that were just milled out in the mag well & cleaned off of the original manufacturer's markings. But that is an assumption, I admit.

---

My research showed that Enfield initial supply was from their own 'old stock' (Mk1) that they found 'in the back', subsequently they went out to market and bought up 'old stock' from Fazakerley (Mk2), and then when they still failed to souce enough they actually went on the 'open market' and bought up second hand rifles, irrespective of manufacturer or 'mark'.

The rifles were stripped down and the actions rebarrelled and proofed to 19 tons.
They were given their serial number at this stage.

Quite a number of the rifles being re-barrelled were scrapped off (by Mr J Killern who was the foreman of the asembly shop) as being 'unsuitable' (presumably too worn ?)

The barreled action & magazine was then supplied to Parker Hale, who (as Enfield had closed the wood workshop) sourced forends & handguards from Colin Moon (Brighton) and the Butts from Sile (Italy)
Scopes (when added to the order) were sourced by PH from Pecar (Germany).
The scope mounts were standard PH models
The bipod was a standard Harris model.
The rear sights were standard PH Mauser PH5E with a modified mounting bracket to suit the No4 action and renamed PH5E/4

PH assembled the complete ensemble and supplied it back to Enfield for despatch to the Police.

Thanks Alan. That's interesting. I'm intrigued by the Enfield 'old stock' Mk1 bodies. Unless they were Trials rifles (& I take it nobody has ever seen an Enforcer with a cut off slot) they must also have been bodies that Enfield had acquired elsewhere, & must presumably have been converted to Mk1/2 at some point, with the brazing on of the boss for the hung trigger. Did your research establish whether the mag well milling to accommodate the new magazine was done at Enfield or by P-H? From the sound of your post, I would guess that it is more likely that EFD did it themselves, if P-H was mainly involved in the woodwork & assembly side of things......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

Did your research establish whether the mag well milling to accommodate the new magazine was done at Enfield or by P-H?

---

It is not something I had really considered - I think I 'assumed' (dangerous !!!) that Enfield would have done it during the action/barrel cleaning, marking, and assembling work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

My research showed that Enfield initial supply was from their own 'old stock' (Mk1) that they found 'in the back', subsequently they went out to market and bought up 'old stock' from Fazakerley (Mk2), and then when they still failed to souce enough they actually went on the 'open market' and bought up second hand rifles, irrespective of manufacturer or 'mark'.

The rifles were stripped down and the actions rebarrelled and proofed to 19 tons.
They were given their serial number at this stage.

Quite a number of the rifles being re-barrelled were scrapped off (by Mr J Killern who was the foreman of the asembly shop) as being 'unsuitable' (presumably too worn ?)

The barreled action & magazine was then supplied to Parker Hale, who (as Enfield had closed the wood workshop) sourced forends & handguards from Colin Moon (Brighton) and the Butts from Sile (Italy)
Scopes (when added to the order) were sourced by PH from Pecar (Germany).
The scope mounts were standard PH models
The bipod was a standard Harris model.
The rear sights were standard PH Mauser PH5E with a modified mounting bracket to suit the No4 action and renamed PH5E/4

PH assembled the complete ensemble and supplied it back to Enfield for despatch to the Police.

---

Interesting that the same practice wasn't followed with the No4(T) to L42 conversions, if only because near-new No4(T)s were plentiful enough on the civilian market, and unlike whatever regular No4 rifles were purchased for the Enforcer program, their accuracy was already proven.

Presumably it was felt there were enough on hand?