Printable View
I have a No4 Mk1 , ROF enfield that has a magazine cut off. On the left side of the stock socket it has a 41 which I believe to be the year, slightly under that is an A, and below that is the serial No. 20***. I have always wondered why it would have a magazine cutoff in 41. Would any of you have a similar type rifle, and is this common.
Sounds like the kind of rifle someone here missed at a show recently: a No4 built on an RSAF(E) made No1 MkVI/No4 MkI trials rifle receiver/body.
I'm sure we'd all like to see photo of such a rare bird. Yours would be the first I've heard of that actually had a cut-off fitted.
Is the grip of the cut off rolled over or joined into a solid loop as on a No1 MkIII?
oldhound,
For photos of the two types of cut-offs Surpmil describes, as well as the correct cut-off original to No. 4 rifles, see the Technical Articles / Research for Milsurp Collectors and Re-loaders section of the Milsurp Knowledge Libraries for the article that is titled, "No.4 Mk I (T), ex Trials Rifle - Cut-off - Off or On?"
(I bet Badger will make things easier for us all by inserting the link to the article.)
Regards,
Terry
Talking of cut offs, does anybody need a No1 Mk5 cut off, the type without the hole? I know where there is one for sale.
With thanks to Advisory Panel member Terry Hawker, check the Technical Articles for Milsurp Collectors and Re-loaders (click here).Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry Hawker
No. 4 Mk I (T), ex-Trials Rifle - Cut-off - Off or On? (click here)
This interesting article is accompanied by an extensive photo montage detailing the use and descriptions of the various of magazine cut-offs on Enfield rifles.
Regards,Quote:
Article Extract .....
Still reluctantly struggling with the concept of letting the "Other Ranks" have the option of firing a second shot at their own discretion, cut-offs were introduced by the War Department upon the demise of the Martini-Henry, then retained in one form or another for over half a century.
A MLM Mk II Skeleton Action illustrates how the cut-off was initially configured to employ the rifle as a single loader until the situation required the use of the magazine held in reserve.
http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...icture-015.jpg(Click PIC to Enlarge)http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...icture-011.jpg
Badger
I would like to thank for the info and pictures. The cut-off is the same as the one in the picture on the right, with the groves on the top. I will get some pictures up Surpmil, will have to get my daughter to help me and she is away at school right now for a few weeks.
Here are "oldhound"'s photos.
I notice the battle sights also been cut off!
It looks like a VERY early Fazakerley, perhaps it used a left over Enfield No4 body, but I really don't think so. Too many differences in machining, etc. that wouldn't be logical as one would think that the cutoff slot and screw hole would have been done fairly late in its "sculpting". Its worthy of some serious investigation!
The cutoff is a "solid" loop type. Looks like regular old SMLE variant.
The MkI sight w/ the battle peep removed sure smells of No4(T).
Very interesting rifle. Thanks, oldhound and Surpmil! More pictures would be extra super!
Looks more like bubba to me....
BSA rearsight looks like its had the battle sight cut off and then cold-blued.
SMLE cut-off, so not a Trials original.
Ishy screw in the forend.
Best thing would be to post some photos of the cut-off screw (ie the underside of the receiver) and slot. I'd suspect its a recent addition....
What, you can smell cold blue through your monitor? The whole thing looks a bit distressed, and it may have been "improved" a little, but how many bog standard No4's have you seen with the mag cutoff slot milled in the body?
Let's see where this goes before throwing the baby out with the bath water...
oldhound, WOW, very interesting! Both Maltby and Fazakerley had start-up (If I read it correctly yours is 908th off the line.) problems that both RSAF-E and BSA were likely trying to help sort out. To me it appears that a left over trials action body from RSAF-E went to Fazakerley for assembly. Why waste it?
I think it's safe to think that your rifle had a backsight with a battle aperature and wasn't equipped with a cut off when it left the assembly line.
Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
Brad
It looks to me like an early Fazakerley rifle made using the original No4 drawings supplied by Enfield and made to that spec that included a cut off slot. Shortly after this feature was deleted and it was probably never fitted with a cut-off. Someone found the slot later under the fore-end and put a No1 cut-off in it, jigging it to fit with a needle file etc etc.
But, true to form, it's got the Fazakerley A suffix..............
I'm thinking Captain Laidler's hit it on the head.
The rear sight and fore end screw have no bearing on the rifle itself. They neither add or subtract to the package.
well first of all I'd like to thank Surpmil for posting the pictures for me, and to the other members for their views. The consenus seems to be that the cut-off was added later at some point in time. I have had the rifle for five or six years and can only say that it has not been touched in that time. I wonder why anyone would want to do that. The only thing I can add is while looking carefully at it today, on the bottom of the cut-off it has a crown and under that is the letter E and under that the letters IR. They are quite small. If anyone would want more information I would be happy to try and help. I love the old rifle.
To further advance the study of this VERY early Fazakerly would best be done during a teardown of the forestock and cutoff. The action itself (and whatever other 1941 vintage parts that remain) is the focus of interest.
Fully understand if you don't want to take it apart, however! Whatever detail shots you provide would be most welcome. We really appreciate your efforts.
One interesting feature of this action is the rounded top of the left side of the body between the charger bridge and the gas escape hole. I haven't seen or heard of that on a non-RSAF(E) body before.
Perhaps it is just a weird trick of the lighting or an odd wear pattern, but, the so called, "spotting hole" in the SMLE cut-off looks like it got the attention of someone's drill bit, or countersink. Wonder why anyone would do that?
no it is not the lighting or wear. The same round spot is on the other side of the cut-off as well. Looks like something was attached to it at some point. You can see a imprint right up to the receiver as if something was clamped on to it? I will strip it down and take more pictures. Will be a few weeks since I don't have a camera that will take good closeups. The other pictures were taken a few years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry Hawker
Hold on a minute chaps....., I think we're all fogetting the mnemonic KISS for Keep It Simple Stupid. We are all complicating things with theories when there's a simple answer given the forum answers above.
This rifle is a part-finished or finished body from Enfield, taken to Faz with a lot of skilled staff to help start rifle production. It's finished at Faz and sent out into the world where it has emerged years later.
A cut-off, either a No1 or No4 - but a cut off of some description, has been fitted AT SOME TIME. Either at Faz or afterwards when someone removed the fore-end and noticed the slot. As for the countersunk hole, in the absence of anything to the contrary, someones just countersunk a roughly punched or ragged hole which is normal engineering practice!
A nice find undoubtedly but nothing complicated. Production engineering doesn't either DO nor ENCOURAGE complicated, believe me!
Interesting that the serial number is in the 20,000 range. Does that suggest that at least that many receivers/bodies were forwarded from RSAF(E) to Fazakerly to be completed/built up into rifles?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
We know that No1 MkVI and No4 MkI bodies were both sent. Did RSAF(E) clean out their inventory of rifle parts entirely to Fazakerly when they changed over to Bren production, or did they send some to other start-up factories as well?
One wonders also at what date RSAF(E) ceased to produce No4 bodies and components?
Or did they retain the No1 MkVI and No4 MkI parts until they had finished the conversion of the 1400 odd No4 MkI Trials rifles to No4 MkI(T), and these parts arrived at the other factories after No4 production was already under way and this explains the higher serial numbers?
The serial number ranges were pre-assigned - Fazakerly started theirs with 2s. So is this the 908th rifle or the 10908th? ( Like Bradtx, I think the 908th...)
To address this issue:
"Perhaps it is just a weird trick of the lighting or an odd wear pattern, but, the so called, "spotting hole" in the SMLE cut-off looks like it got the attention of someone's drill bit, or countersink. Wonder why anyone would do that?"
Its a removable part that doesn't belong, so it really doesn't matter with respect to the rifle. What does matter is the fact that it can be fitted!
I'm still not altogether sure that the action/body was of Enfield origin, certain machining operations aren't consistant w/ Enfield and I see no reason why they would have been added later if it was started at one place and finished at another. The manufacturing nerd (mechanical engineering and machinist) in me just won't latch onto that theory, yet. Of course I don't mind being wrong, if we learn something!
I think we'll have to wait on the new detail pictures of the various action and other '41 vintage bits to make any real progress revealing this rifle's secrets. Can't hardly wait!:thup:
I used to have a Mk1 with exactly the same markings as this one. I've never seen another with the exact same faint markings but my rifle didn't have the cut off hole, however, it did have the lower wood with the low section for the cut out to clear. I never did ID where it was manufactured.
Just found a reference to my old No4s serial No. it was 16873, No prefix or suffix.
Brit plumber, 16873 is a '41 Maltby, 6873'd off the assembly line.
"What does matter is the fact that it (the cutoff) can be fitted!" --jmoore
Exactly! A wonderful early look into the Fazakerley production history not likely to be found in a book or official records.
Brad
Brad
Does it take a normal No4 backsight? If not, then it is made from an RSAF made receiver. Components were made in 1935(ish) and shipped to Faz for assembly. Should have an "A" suffix to the serial number. Quite rare as most were destroyed in the 1950s due to them being non-compatible as regards to spare parts.
I have one.
The cut-off is a special (which we plan to make some day). The cut off screw is unique and does not use an Enfield thread.
So, Enfieldlock, how about detailed pics of yours to compare w/ the subject at hand?
I'll pull apart my No4 trials and a SMLE to get cutoff screw measurements, if someone doesn't know them already.
Oldhound, do you have any calipers and a thread pitch gage? Cheap hardware store ones will do, or I can send you some, if you feel comfy giving me your address by Private Message function. It looks like you'll need to reomve the rear sight as well as the cutoff. (Sounds like a great time for a detail clean.)
Can one be sure that all of the receivers made at Enfield were made for the early ball-detent sight as seen on the trials No4(T)s for example?Quote:
Originally Posted by Enfieldlock
I'm wondering when the standard No4 pattern sight was approved/produced?
Obviously they made at least 57 of the standard pattern in 1935 for the Model C trials No4s. Is it possible that rifles/receivers produced after that pattern was approved were produced or modified to accept the standard pattern backsight?
Do you reckon Enfield had near on a thousand partially finished receivers that had progressed far enough to get the cut-off slot machined? It seems that operation would occur fairly late in the machining progress. Did any of the other manufacturers get old Enfield stock?
I'll be happy to have this issue decided either way, but I just can't help thinking Captain Laidler's first suspicion that this is an early Fazakerly built receiver w/ a quickly dropped feature is most highly probable.
Its going to take a much more detailed look to come to a conclusion.
I couldn't say, and it may be that larger scale production of the No4 trials was begun and later suspended, if I remember my Reynolds correctly, possibly leaving that kind of number of partly finished rifles on hand at Enfield. I'll have a look at Reynolds tomorrow, or someone across the water may want to take that up as it's breakfast time there now!Quote:
Originally Posted by jmoore
On my trials No4 later No4T and later still L42 the cut-off screw thread is BA. And it's got a standard No4T backsight and a rounded top to the bodyside.
I think we're making too much of the rifle in this thread. Nice find and all that but it's an Enfield body shipped up to Fazakerley to be finished when the going was getting decidely tough. And they weren't going to waste it......, that's what the rectification bay was for. And that's presumably why it's got an A suffix
The other alternative is that it was forged and manufactured wholly at Faz to the original drawing spec. Shrivenham have got an identical un-numbered known pre-production rifle there. It DOES have a number, 37, but that is an identification number put on there for project/security/identification purposes.
I wouldn't mind betting that out in the big wide world, un-noticed and unloved are a few more similar rifles with the slot covered up. And it's difficult to notice the slot from the inside and outside when it's covered by the fore-end. I'm a firm believer that the answer is always simple with small arms.
A bit like why some No1's are marked Mk3* when there is a cut-off slot. It's because the EMER's say in as many words '.......fit a high side fore-end and add a star!
That's the practical side! We're on the collector trivia/anorak side!Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
well I have taken some pictures and am trying to send them to Surpmil, as he will post them for me. Have certainly learned a bit about trials rifles the past week, enough to realize I know nothing. I have calibers jmoore but don't have a thread guage. The screw was hard to get out, likely why it was still there. Anyways I'm sure the pictures will get up soon and every one can see for themselves. It is what it is.
Post 1 of 2 with the latest photos. Interesting that the barrel is dated 1942, although the markings look very much like the RSAF(E) markings.
Whoops, 2 of 3!
And finally:
Dang, won't have access to a good monitor until Friday, but looks like there's something to work with! Any chance of getting pics of the rear sight recess with the sight off? That's one area that was changed when full scale production started.
As for the cutoff screw, Oldhound, just use your calipers to get the OD of the screw shank and also the distance between two thread crests. Easy enough to work out the TPI from that.
Thanks for your efforts, all!
BTW, I'm thinking Bubba didn't add the cutoff slot and screw hole in the action body. The cutoff itself, well... The rear sight is just missing its battle peep, reason unknown - it doesn't really go with the rest, though, regardless.
My money is still on bubba:
- Why isn't the cut-off screw hole counter-sunk, as on all other Enfields?
- Difficult to see, but the cut-off slot does not appear to be milled forward of the edge of the boss, as on most rifles. Is it saw-cut instead?;
- The machining on the body is rough - typical wartime Fazakerly. Enfield Trials bodies tend to be finely machined.
I'm also still undecided on the action body origins. I reckon its time to pull apart the trials rifle for some "guts" pics. Hopefully, will get it done this weekend. Will also pull apart a SMLE w/ cutoff.
Anybody w/ an early Fazakerly (that has not been FTR rebuilt and covered w/ Suncorite) to dissect and take pictures? Feel free to jump in!
If the slot's not original, I'll have to call it something more sinister than "Bubba-ized"!
For comparison, here's a link to an earlier thread on this forum where I showed pictures of my early Fazakerley No.4 Mk1(T).
https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=17275
I think we have to use common sense: the owner has no agenda here except finding out about his rifle. He has had the rifle for at least 10 years(?) Was anyone trying to make early No4's look like trials rifles 10+ years ago? I think not. In fact has anyone ever done so? I doubt it. The 'correct' cutoff is almost impossible to find; what would be the point?
As SpineCracker found out at a large show recently, hardly anyone recognizes these rifles for what they are anyway, even one built on a much more recognizable No1 MkVI body! So where's the motivation for the 'crime'?
The missing battle sight? Just means someone wanted clearance for something, or stuck on a sight from a No4(T) probably. When armourers needed a backsight for a No4(T), I doubt they indented for one, just whacked off the battle sight and on it goes...Most of us have seen No4 backsights with the battle sight ground off that were probably not original H&H conversions. Easy to tell as the H&H ones were done with a milling machine rather than a file or belt sander. Anyway, the backsight is completely irrelevant here.
Much more interesting is the two groove barrel dated 1942, but with markings very similar to the No4 trials rifles IMO. Is it the original and why is the body dated 1941 and the barrel '42?
I have a Faz built on a No.1 MkVI body. It is dated '41 on the butt socket
and '42 on the barrel, along with the serial number. The finish is rough like
the subject rifle and similar to the pictures of several other No.1 MkVI
bodied rifles I have seen on the Lee-Enfield forums. Mine, however, does not
have a magazine cutoff slot. Also, the bottom of the butt socket has the
marking SBN 8. I cannot find any marking as to the rifle type, just R O F.
Some I have seen were roughly marked No 1 MkVI. It has been machined
for the later plunger and spring rear sight.
This is the only example of a Trials body used in a Faz No. 4 Mk I rifle I have
seen reported but there are more out there to be found.
It does take a normal No4 backsight. Also has the A suffix to the receiver and barrel. The barrel is a two-groove which I believe were tested in 41. It is dated 42. The receiver is dated 41. Very confusing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enfieldlock
I have sent Surpmil more pictures of the the cut-off slot. Can not imagine it not being original. Why would anyone put it there, after the fact?Quote:
Originally Posted by jmoore
Here are the photos of the slot.
When did the first Fazakerlys start coming off the line, exactly (month-wise)?
Going to the range in the morning, then will tear down the trials rifle for some comparative pics, as well as my first ever milsurp, a SMLE w/ a mag cutoff.
Another reason for the lack of a battle peep on the rear sight could be it was cut off after it was damaged- not in service but sometime afterwards. I've seen more than one horribly mangled battle peep; some were salvagable others were too crushed to save. In this case I'd just put a "correct" sight on as this part does not reflect a proper in-service configuration.
Club shooters who use a bolt-on telescope bracket are prone to cutting off the battlesight to clear the commercial telescope ocular lens too. Batttlesights used to get a bit of a battering when rolling around on the floor of trucks.
Is it possible to get a clear photo directly side-on to the cut-off boss?Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
If anyone wants to check or certify the originality of the cut-off slot, then the cutoff slot is directly level with the internal floor or ridge of the rifle body as shown on photos 3 and 4 above according to the drawings.
This is to coincide with the step down recess in the right side of the magazine that was never eliminated, even when the cut-off was deleted. Notice that the L42 magazine does not have a step down on the right hand side. The L42 magazine actually SITS in the body on its top edges
I will try to get one up this evening. Going to try and do it myself. Have intruded on Surpmil enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbox
Same cut as the Enfield built No4! Have a looky:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC01538-1.jpg
Note the shape of the front of the cut.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC01537-1.jpg
The rear of the cut is also the same:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC01539-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC01553-1.jpg
No counterbore for the screw head (which is a feature of SMLEs):
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC01527-1.jpg
More if you need 'em! I'm convinced this cutout slot is real!
ETA: You can move Oldhound's pics all the way down and compare them side to side if you work at clicking and dragging enough.
And here's 'the last shot at it', square on.
Ok, Oldhound, I'll call the cutoff slot question answered!:super:
Next, if you want to continue to play along, is to remove the rear sight and take pictures of the recess area also. Plus close ups of any area where machining marks show. Also, just for curiosity, close ups of the left hand side of the butt socket at different angles.
As for whether other parts belong, I'd start with pics of the inletted area of the forestock.
Oh, let's see if I can throw on a pic of the cutoff pivot screw for a SMLE for comparisonon this post.
SMLE cutoff screw- 48tpi roughly Thread OD- 0.118"
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC01563-1.jpg
Trials No4 cutoff screw- hard to nail down ~38tpi Thread OD- 0.140"
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...SC015351-1.jpg
Let us know when you've had enough, its still quite facsinating to me...
Is it a reconstituted Enfield action or is it all Fazakerly is the next question. Many inspectors' marks were applied after the successful execution of a production process, rather than after the whole thing was finished, so even an UNFINISHED Enfield that received final work at Fazakerly would have Enfield stampings.
So far, I don't see any "cross pollination":
Enfield No4 1931/33 action
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...SC013671-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC01547-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC01542-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC01538-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC01551-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...C0152811-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC01543-1.jpg
Anybody catch any detail I've missed?
ESC8 is the English Steel Co steel batch number
Initial Fazakerley production made using the original drawing spec?
well I guess from your picture jmoore, and from what others have said I think the cut-off and screw on my rifle is from a SMLE and not correct for the rifle. I don't know if I should just remove it, look for a correct one, or just leave as is. I would suppose they are not that easy to come by. I don't really like fooling around with the rifle , or any rifle for that matter. It could be original to the rifle for all I know, just not correct. Or at least what is thought to be correct. In war time anything that was available would be correct I would think.
The screw should be correct if you can get it tight! Note that the thread OD is rather smaller on the SMLE (0.118" vs. 0.140") Measure the threaded area to be sure.
Its YOUR rifle, and it doesn't hurt much by leaving it. It's known that it isn't original kit, but if it's functional, enjoy it. (I'd leave it off, myself, just to prevent wear marks like those shown on the Enfield No4.)
Don't bother looking for a "correct" Fazakerly cutoff, they CAN'T exist!:rofl:
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Unless they do!
This was really fun!