Printable View
I am interested in adding a Brit mfg. No.4 rifle,to my Lee Enfield collection,..is there a difference between the 3 different mfg of No.4 rifles,..i realize these rifles were produced under wartime condition's,as the arsenal workers had to contend with"bombers,Flying bombs V1,&V2,..blackouts.
Thanks for your input:beerchug:
No functional differences. Many of the small parts, up to barrels, were manufactured by subcontractors, so basically, you're buying the receiver. I think Maltbys have some of the most varied markings, though.
Although not a direct answer to comparing the various different manufacturer's of No.4's, but focusing on the different variations of them, this is is a video that a number of members have found useful.
With thanks to Jollygreenslugg, we have added a new two part video tutorial to the "The Screening Room" (click here).
Comparing the Lee Enfield No.4 Mk1, No.4 Mk1* & No.4 Mk2 Rifles (click here)
My apologies for drifting a little OT .. ;)
Regards,
Badger
x westie, A simple question that could create an answer pages long!
That said, of the three BSA was the only privately owned manufacturer, both Fazakerley and Maltby were government Royal Ordinance Factories.
Fazakerley was designed as a 100% in-house manufacturer. Maltby was designed to make use of subcontractors for the minor parts and made only the action body, barrel, trigger assembly, bolt and bolt head. BSA was also a 100% in-house manufacturer. Fazakerley and BSA small parts were also in part augmented by the subcontractors.
From an old poll I conducted, Maltby was the first to manufacture 2-groove barrels, starting in 1941 and sometime in '43 became 100% 2-groove. Fazakerley started 2-groove production in '42, but continued 5-groove production through out the war years. BSA doesn't look to have manufactured any 2-groove barrels.
Maltby apparently was up and running first as 1941 production included a D prefix by one report, Fazakerley second and BSA last. BSA may've been last to commence production due to helping the ROFs during start-up.
Only Maltby and BSA were officially involved in the (T) rifle program, tho' Fazakerley certainly could've been included quality wise. As more and more Maltby's production became 2-groove, BSA became the dominant (T) rifle.
Only Fazakerley and BSA were involved in No.5 production.
All three were very equal quality wise. Cosmetically BSA ranks number 1 and Maltby generally last. Part of Maltby's plan to speed production was to reduce finishing work. Through perhaps mid '42 all three were at their best and quite equal cosmetically.
Brad
PS I've tried to keep my unreasonable fondness for Maltbys at bay throughout this post. ;)
I have several faz's and they are all very similar as far as parts. The Maltbys seem to have the biggest variation as they out sourced the small parts. I have seen a few Maltbys with the No5 style hollow bolt handle. These have been numbers matching but I have no idea if original to the rifle. Can anyone shed any light on that?
Here's my Maltby, it is a early 1942 production "A" suffix gun, I believe these where recalled for disposal in the early 50's, not many around.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...19803500-1.jpg
Just wanted to let you know, my 1944 Maltby has the 5 groove barrel.Quote:
From an old poll I conducted, Maltby was the first to manufacture 2-groove barrels, starting in 1941 and sometime in '43 became 100% 2-groove. Fazakerley started 2-groove production in '42, but continued 5-groove production through out the war years. BSA doesn't look to have manufactured any 2-groove barrels.
:rofl: :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by bradtx
And an outstanding job of it you did sir!
madcratebuilder, The A suffix doesn't seem to mean the same for wartime production No.4s as it did for the trials rifles as Fazakerley used the suffix throughout that period with only the early rifles not so stamped. My theory is when wartime expediant changes from the 'final pattern' were implemented, the suffix was used. Maltby stopped stamping the suffix in '42.
jojoevo, Does the barrel have two serial numbers? Some, actually very few, '43 and later 5-groove Maltbys seem to have been assembled with 'take off' barrels from perhaps rifles that had failed an inspection.
Brad
I'm not quite sure I'd agree with that 'A' explanation Brad. If that was the case, then something as important as this, especially for hard pressed Armourers, would have been mentioned early on. As it was, the announcement (regarding A suffix rifles) first appeared in SAI's..., small arms instructions and was then carried over to the EMER's.
You could usually spot why an A suffix rifle was marked. The most common fault that I saw was oversize sear axis pin holes, ring punched to 'correct' it. Being a common one, it always featured in trade tests of course. Another was barrel thread indexing meaning that while the factory could usually breech up and index the barrels with the thousands they had, down at lowly Field workshops, with about 20 or so in the breeching-up bay, we were pretty well stuffed.
Trials Rifles originally were "A" PREfixed. Many later had the "A" SUFfix added.
Additional information on the above Maltby, the wrist (is that the correct term) is marked M1942 and H4098A. The bolt matches with a 0 and M mark on the head.
This has been noted before and the most probable explanation was that this was done AFTER production, in service. And was a case of the left hand didn't quite know what the right hand was doing.
Or to coin a phrase of an old quartermaster that I knew, he used to say that in the quartermaster business, even the left hand never knew what the left hand was doing
No, it has 1 serial number, BL189XXQuote:
jojoevo, Does the barrel have two serial numbers? Some, actually very few, '43 and later 5-groove Maltbys seem to have been assembled with 'take off' barrels from perhaps rifles that had failed an inspection.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...2040a111-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...92040111-1.jpg