Printable View
Picked this up on a trade as a kicker. Needed an ROF 1941, have a Maltby 1942, Savage and LB 1943s, and M.47 1944. Any insight as to whether this is original? I'm assuming it is, very lightly import marked. Bore is mirror new. This one is one of those A prefix non-standard rifles and has no BNP so I assume it came from Pakistan or some place like that.
Regards,
HB
It is almost certainly a Fazakerly made Enfield, made in 1941. It probably followed on from the series assembled from Enfield made components.
I understand that building Faz started in May 1940 and it issued the first fully made No4s in May 1941. In the meantime it assembled Enfield made components under the direction of Enfield staff.
I think the non standard weapons had a A suffix not prefix, so this would be a standard weapon.
Sorry if I misspoke, but if you look at it you see that it has two A's with the serial, one as a prefix and one apparently as a suffix. That "A" directly under the serial doesn't mean that? It would not be possible to stampt that "A" at the end of the serial without stamping it on the wood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brit plumber
Cheers,
HB
Ach, now THAT'S "normal"! A Fazackerly w/o the "A" suffix would be worrisome.
OK, my point was that this particular ROF '41, with the socket depicted, with an "A" SUFFIX, is nonstandard. That is to say it was my understanding that rifles with an A SUFFIX were so marked to indicate that certain parts would not interchange. So, is my presumption that this is one of those rifle's correct, notwithstanding opinions concerning ROF quality control, etc.? So is Brit plumber's assertion that this is a standard rifle correct or incorrect? Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmoore
HB
It's a standard Fazackerly, which is to say that there's some little non-standardness POSSIBLE. Almost all the early Fazackerly rifles have the "A" suffix! CYA, I think, on their part...
Thanks, that was what I was wondering, the reason for the extra "A" if not to indicate noninterchangeability.
If you search the forum, there's been quite a detailed discussion a while back on the subject of Fazackerly's "A" suffix prevalence. Captain Laidler indicated that it could be something as simple as oversized trigger pivot pin holes, or other wee things that rarely need service, but could cause fits if the rifle components were stripped down willy-nilly (as in an FTR scenario).
A personal example -A Maltby trigger guard that won't fit ANY rifle I've tried. Screw hole spacing is a bit off, I think. So, there's a Maltby receiver body somewhere that also has non-standard scew spacing.
Sorry, can't make longer posts- fitting this in as I can. Work, work, work!
Thanks. OK, I understand what nonstandard would be, my question was whether or not the extra "A" suffix was something on all ROFs for some reason or indicated nonstandard, as I thought and as I posted. Whether or not many more ROFs had nonstandard issues or parts interchangeability issues is not really germane to the question of whether the extra "A" suffix means this, or whether it means something else on ROF.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmoore
So, in a nutshell, does the "A" suffix on this ROF serial, and other ROFs, mean that the rifle has nonstandard features / parts interchangeability issues or not. I always understood that to be the reason for the marking, notwithstanding the prevalence in ROF production of such issues.
Thanks!
HB
These older threads might add value to the discussion ... :thup:Quote:
Originally Posted by jmoore
Mysteries of the 'A' Suffix (by Peter Laidler)
re: Maltby,ROF {Fazakerley},BSA{m47} No.4's
Regards,
Badger
Thanks Badger, that about sums it up. I tend to go with Laidler on that issue. Seems that the explanation is sound, that ROF had a fair amount of out of spec but correctable rifles.
I've read that early production A suffix rifles may contain components from either the No. 1 Mk VI or the No. 4 Trials Rifle (see Skenneton “The Lee-Enfield Story”, p-192).
I've also read that in the early 1950’s all “A” suffix weapons were ordered to be retired and scrapped, making them quite rare. Any truth to this?
A friend has a BSA with the A suffix and I have a 42 Maltby with the A suffix. I have encountered others.
The criteria for telling if it is a non-standard No4 is the back sight. All those assembles from 1935 RSAF made components used an Enfield made backsight that utilised a ball and spring as opposed to a plunger. These were made with an "A-suffux".
W came across hundreds of A suffixed No4's and Stens but Brens too (don't ever remember a No2 pistol though....). They were reworked/repaired and sent out again and again. But if there was something that couldn't be repaired then it was sifted and withdrawn for scrap. There were a few common problems that we'd encounter including the backsights. Another was screw thread's that were the next BA size up as I remember. But by simple good engineering we'd solve most problems. If not, it got the chop. There was no definate cullling process for a particular type/suffix, certainly not in the UK military
All very informative and appreciated. Peter, where did these matching decent shape imports come from? Pakistan? The import marking on this one is on the triggerguard and so light as to be indecipherable.
thanks,
Hambone