"...actively sought out and destroyed..." 'A' Suffix No.4 Rifles

This is for all of you who have No.4 rifles of whatever Mk. to record, discuss and display your "non-standard" rifles.

Just to stir the pudding a bit, I speculate that the title phrase may be a bit inaccurate, except in certain situations. I'm thinking that "actively searched out and 'removed from service'" may be a more accurate statement. (more later)

Comments, references, and, especially, photos are welcomed! Likely supsects are pre-WWII trials rifles and WWII Fazackerlys, but any No.4 (or No.5) is fine.

Let's see where this goes.:)



ETA: Link below to the instigating thread for this one:

Help on Serial Number - Military Surplus Collectors Forums

May post some more links to other older threads if there's interest. -NB:Work in progress- I don't get long breaks!

Peter Laidler's most useful thread on "A" suffix origins:

Mysteries of the 'A' Suffix - Military Surplus Collectors Forums

Spinecracker's thread on "what to look for" (haven't reviewed it, yet):

A suffix on serial number - what parts were typically non-interchangeable? - Military Surplus Collectors Forums

A late ETA: Adding link to newer thread:

Odd No4 number?

In which Peter Laidler adds the possibility that some Fazackerlys may have been suffixed due to non standard rear sight cuts, requiring shims to positively position the sight from side to side.

To start, This is the only rifle of which I have an online image. It's ugly, but originally it was purchased just for the early forestock and "waisted" SM fore sight protector. However, it shoots well, so it may just stay together, mismatched (Savage) bolt and all.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...une12021-1.jpg

The butt socket reads(best as I can figure):
ROF
12/42
T29988A

(Too much Christmas cheer? or was it done during a Junkers 88 raid? or both?)

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...une12005-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...une12006-1.jpg

Example number two:

Aside from what appears to be a light scrubbing of the woodwork, a crispy fresh Fazackerly. The engraved information is still mostly shiney where the bare steel is exposed.

Sorry for the bad camera work, this isn't the good one that I get to borrow sometimes.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../Lees031-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../Lees030-1.jpg

Oh, this one has a dated forestock, as mentioned in another thread.

And for the last of my photo'd Fazackerys today, a painted and import marked Fazackerly that seems to have all the "right" parts, and a dated forestock as well.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../Lees026-1.jpg

Note the small importer's mark at the very bottom of the butt socket- unfortunately, they aren't usually this discrete.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../Lees028-1.jpg

Interesting that the striker and striker retaining screw were not painted- not the usual Bubba job, and the paint is pretty darn tough, don't know exactly what to think of it.

I wonder if the weld on the first one's charger bridge was a field repair? I sure like the front sight base, you don't see them much...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

I wonder if the weld on the first one's charger bridge was a field repair? I sure like the front sight base, you don't see them much...

---

If you look carefully, they all were welded, apparently from the factory, so I'm guesing that the top one just never had the weld "prettied up". The 6/43 is a little nicer, and the 10/43 only shows as a heat affected zone (localized hardening) in the finish.

The sight protector's quite nifty, but is likely a completely random installation at some point well past the rifle's mfg. date.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmoore

Just to stir the pudding a bit, I speculate that the title phrase may be a bit inaccurate, except in certain situations. I'm thinking that "actively searched out and 'removed from service'" may be a more accurate statement. (more later)

---

I have to say that I am coming around to your view. As I said on other threads I was quoting someone else. Judging by the numbers that appear to have turned up in the US an even more accurate phrase might be: "actively sought out and sold to Sam Cummins/exported to the US"." :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beerhunter

I have to say that I am coming around to your view. As I said on other trheads I was quoting someone else. Judging by the numbers that appear to have turned up in the US an even more accurate phrase might be: "actively sought out and sold to Sam Cummins/exported to the US"." :D

---

Beat me to the punchline, you did!:) I reckon they were turned into cash or favors across the globe.

However, Trials Rifles may have been largely destroyed ---except for the No.4 Mk.I(T)s--- When was the last time anyone saw one of those in original --or even early WWII configuration, VERY few, methinks, are floating about. (Yah, there's some...)

Trials rifle pics are, as always, welcome!

(Like this, but "modded" so that the "A" is a Suffix, not the Prefix-or both suffix AND prefix-that would be Most Special...)

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...SC013671-1.jpg

BTW for you MKL referencing types (a GOOD idea), see the faint "1" just crowding the front of the last "3"? :cool: Didn't know it would show that well, and this is an old pic

Link to The MKL file and another of it's date close-up.:

1933 No.4 Mk1(T) Sniper - Military Surplus Collectors Forums

http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...20_Medium_.JPG

(I'm distracting myself from the intent of this thread, but I hope you enjoy!)

jmoore, A thread who's time is probably long past due, I hope it becomes popular because it seems there's quite a disparity of opinion regarding the Fazakerley A suffix rifles. Time to get factual.

Two things I've read about the A suffix's original intent are a) It's a mark to alert the repair workshop of a rifle being nonstandard in some way and b) a rifle with the A suffix is to be destroyed saving only the reusable, interchangeable pieces. While the two are intertwined I think item a is closer to the intent than item b. Opinions?

Frankly I was surprised by the posters that stated that their experiance had included many WWII manufactured non A suffixed Fazakerleys. My experiance has been quite the opposite with all Fazakerleys I've owned and seen in person having the A suffix. The only non A suffixed WWII production Fazakerley rifles I've seen are a couple of '41 or '42 examples that IIRC were the same as the approved pattern. More non A suffix'd pics would be good.

The question becomes "Why so many A suffix'd Fazakerley rifles?" Perhaps we can shed the blind monks examining an elephant scenario and arrive at some conclusion.

Best of luck to us,
Brad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bradtx

Two things I've read about the A suffix's original intent are a) It's a mark to alert the repair workshop of a rifle being nonstandard in some way and b) a rifle with the A suffix is to be destroyed saving only the reusable, interchangeable pieces. While the two are intertwined I think item a is closer to the intent than item b. Opinions?

The only non A suffixed WWII production Fazakerley rifles I've seen are a couple of '41 or '42 examples that IIRC were the same as the approved pattern. More non A suffix'd pics would be good.

---

I think your item "A" :) makes sense, mostly due to the fact that I don't think it would be economically or manpower prudent to inspect each rifle AS EACH IS BEING TORN DOWN in hopes of catching whatever non-interchangeable components exist in order to prevent getting them mixed in w/ other standard parts, thus making rebuilds ever so much more difficult. Teardowns get much slower, require a higher skill level, and require more personnel. Also, "odd" parts now HAVE to be tied to a particular weapon. There's enough dramas working "tired" weapons already.

Easier just to pull 'em and worry about 'em later.

I won't mind non-suffixed WWII Fazackerly entries! However, I think they'll really be much more likely to be FTR'd. Let's find out.


"A" suffixed No.4 rifles of other manufacturers are also welcome here. Probably scarce?


Come on, gang! Photos 'til we choke!
:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bradtx

The question becomes "Why so many A suffix'd Fazakerley rifles?" Perhaps we can shed the blind monks examining an elephant scenario and arrive at some conclusion.

---

Or: "Why so many A suffix'd Fazakerley rifles in the United States?"

I'd be interested if they are seen at all in the UK.

jmoore, The only non Fazakerley with the A suffix I've had is a '41 Maltby with a 2-groove barrel.

Beerhunter, That these Fazakerley A suffixed rifles were FTR'd and converted to Mk.2 spec is the interesting item. If A suffixed Fazakerleys only were exported to the US that's fine because we got some beauties.

Brad

Plenty of them here too.

But the title of this seems misconceived. Pre-war trials rifles and Mk.VIs were the ones that were culled from the system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mk VII

Plenty of them here too.

But the title of this seems misconceived. Pre-war trials rifles and Mk.VIs were the ones that were culled from the system.

---

Not miconceived at all! As you state, the "likely suspects" for "destuction" are the early rifles. However, somehow, it seems that now any "A" suffix rifle is seen as somehow magically escaping that rendering down.

Just trying to get things sorted at bit, and seeing if anything odd like Bradtx's Maltby surfaces. How about a No.1 Mk.VI or two? A No.5 ?

Again. a WWII ('41-'45 w/ a focus on '42-'43) NON-suffixed Fazackerly photo would be welcome, as well! I've never seen one.

jmoore, Here's a quickie of the '41 Maltby:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ttsocket-1.jpg

Brad

A couple of good posts on the subject by Krinko (post #15) and Peter Laidler (post #16) on the thread below:

Help on Serial Number - Page 2 - Military Surplus Collectors Forums

The "Reader's Digest" version:

Krinko has a picture of a Post War Fazackerly FTR.
Captain Laidler informs us that there was an "in-inspection" step- just how detailed, remains to be seen.

An addition to the collection from member fishn861 , complete with photos.

Link below:
"My First Enfeild(sic) No.4 Mk1"
My First Enfeild No. 4 Mk1

Do please go through this thread again if you don't remember it.

I'm now wondering if the speculation that the charger bridge was welded at the factory might be the reason these rifles were given the "A" suffix!

---------- Post added at 02:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:51 AM ----------

Fazackerly rifles only, not others.

All Armourers knew about 'A' suffixed rifles. I'm sure that I have quoted a couple of times on the forum the exact answer, taken straight from the EMER. The A suffix wasn't only applied to rifles but Brens too.

I have never read in any official documents that these were to be weeded out and returned to Ordnance. They'd be returned to Ordnance if they couldn't be repaired to the laid-down EMER specification the same as anything else but if not, they'd carry on in service along with the rest. If they were actively sought out for destruction, how come so many were still in service when the last ones were finally withdrawn from the Cadet Forces in the 90's? And if they were withdrawn for destruction, how come thousands more were found suitable for conversion to Mk1/2.

Many trials Mk1's also carry an 'A' suffix (as well as the A prefix.....) and we know that that several of these were still in the system until the 90's

That weld by the bridge charger guide has been explained elsewhere too. That was a common repair but usually a bit tidier!

Quite. For some of Peter Laidler's earlier comments see post #1 of this thread for the appropriate links. If needed, more will be linked in!

ETA(2 of 2): BTW, I'm NOT the one who claimed "A" suffix rifles were "sought out and destroyed", hence the quotations. This thread was started in refutation of such claims, but that point may not be so clear if you have jumped in midstream.

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread....ught+destroyed

AND

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=22423&page=2

Both post #13, I think.

Please excuse the interruption and just slightly off topic but as a very curious newcomer to the Enfield world I was wondering just what the non standard parts would be?

Don't remember if I've mentioned it before, but I've got one 'A' suffix Fazakerley rifle that was FTR'd at Maltby, at which time the serial number appears to have been restamped sans 'A'. From the markings, it appeared to have ended up with a Royalist militia in Greece during their civil war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rumpelhardt

Please excuse the interruption and just slightly off topic but as a very curious newcomer to the Enfield world I was wondering just what the non standard parts would be?

---

Yes, that IS the question. No interruption at all! Briefly, if the action body was in some way built where later parts replacement would require further non-standard parts or unusual fitting during maintenance, then the "A" would be added as a suffix. WWII Fazackerlys seem to be quite commonly marked in this manner, but just why, well, that's the reason for this thread.

---------- Post added at 11:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 AM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jrhead75

Don't remember if I've mentioned it before, but I've got one 'A' suffix Fazakerley rifle that was FTR'd at Maltby, at which time the serial number appears to have been restamped sans 'A'. From the markings, it appeared to have ended up with a Royalist militia in Greece during their civil war.

---

Photos are always welcome, especially if you think it'll add to the knowledge base, or is otherwise "cool". If relavent to this thread, add it here, otherwise start a new one of your own! The more details the better.


"Again. a WWII ('41-'45 w/ a focus on '42-'43) NON-suffixed Fazackerly photo would be welcome, as well! I've never seen one. "-From a previous post on this thread- it still applies!

I once tried to get a thread going on this one to see what replies and opinions would be out there. I have a no1mk6 1930 with an A serial number, it was found set up as a stock no4 mk1 with the common old 300/600 two position battle sight. The sight wouldn't flip over, and it took the longest time to learn that early no4's had a lower height at the rear sight pivot pin and that would stop anything but the original 1930 sight from folding and standing up, you get one position or the other.
The question became, would any armorer have released an enfield if the rear sight could only be set in one range position, and out of all of the available choices it would only be set for either 300, 600 or the aperture ring of an adjustable rear sight? I'd be guessing the answer would be no.
So, what were these height deficient rifles used for, if anything? This ones surface finish and bore show little wear. I wonder if they were held for emergencies only like a jerry invasion, when even a muzzle loading shotgun might be useful, and then taken out of the firing line asap because of shortcomings like this?
I wonder if it explains why they were scoped as T's so often, as a rifle that would/could not be using its rear sight at all ...?

There is something tickling the back of my brain about serial number ranges.

Is there a chance that two factories ended up stamping similar sequences of numbers?

If so, a simple solution would be to order ALL of factory "X" units have their numbers "adjusted" when spotted.

Here's another Fazakerley A-suffix, crudely stamped and all! This rifle has matching serials on barrel and bolt as well(with A-suffix of course) It also appears to have been in Canadian service at some point as it's C-arrow marked.

Adding a link to husk's thread that contains some useful photos, but not quite what was expected:

Fazakerley No. 4

If I had to hazard a guess, it would be that the "A" suffix was intended to mark rifles inspected to a lower standard, or to be more precise, rifles whose defects while noted were not thought critical enough at that point in the war to warrant their being rejected for service. If that was the case, the later destruction policy would make perfect sense.

It may also have been that the "A" suffix was ALSO applied to rifles that were simply non-standard in the sense of having for example bodies from the No1 MkVI or No4 MkI trials rifles. Perhaps bodies that were rejected for some non-functional defect during their original production, but were not destroyed as they might "come in handy" later. Which of course they did.

Or perhaps bodies that were not out of spec at all, but simply left overs or pre-production pieces.

It seems to me as this 'A' suffix serial number querie has been covered many times to my knowledge. I'll repeat what the bible says about the subject. EMER C-509, Micellaneous instruction 3, dated June 1952 and amended later to add more stuff

Rifles No4 Mk1 which bear the suffix letter A to the serial number, eg 444A ase fitted with components which are not generally interchangeable (more later.....) and care must be taken when changing such components. When a replacement is required and a spare component will not fit, the rifle will be exchanged (by returning to Ordnance for disposal and or destruction)
Rifles that bear a plain serial number or a number with a PREfix letter have component parts that are interchangeable.

There you have it, from the bible.......... unless someone out there in forumland has another bible that supercedes the EMER
Later an added nots goes on to say that Armourers will always selectively fit parts and this order does not bar the use of hand fitting blah blah blah. The sort of thing we'd do anyway.

These rifles were not actively sought out and destroyed. At least, I have never seen that instruction. I'd ask the question '...why would we when a bit of hand or selective fitting could solve, say 90 percent of the problems' And that brings us back to the next question '......... if they WERE sought out and destroyed, why did many make it through the Ordnance system, through the FTR system and even get through the later Mk1/2FTR system?

I was quoting beerhunter's 25 June 2010 posts when I started this thread. Mostly to refute it!

See post #1 of this thread for the link to the thread that started this one. Someother links as well are scattered throughout for further reference.


But it has the secondary function of trying to investigate why WWII Fazackerly rifles esp. 1942 and '43 dated more often than not ARE "A" suffixed. So far, a common easily identified non-standard feature has been a "never pinned/no pins" welded on charger bridge. I do understand it's not really a part found in the spares inventory, but it COULD be one reason for the "A" suffix, yes? Peter Laidler has discussed repairs to this area, so why not a "CYA" heads-up at original mfg.?

ETRemove: Extraneous comment

explanatory PM sent JM

The picture of DC27118A caught my eye. When I was a cadet in south London in 1959/60, "my" issued No.4 Mk 1 rifle was DC25091A. But it had a Mk 1 backsight and was one of our shooting (as opposed to drill use) rifles.
Don't ask me why, after 52 years, I can still remember the number!

Link to another thread in which Amatikulu has photos of a very early Fazackerly with NO 'A' suffix.

Just a little more data.

Faz No. 4 Mk 1?

Anzac15 has a nice photo collection of a June 1943 Fazackerly.

Link below:

Mystery No4 MkI.

Almost forgot about this thread... Here's the Greek militia rifle that I mentioned earlier. A 6/43 dated Faz, FTR'd at Maltby.

Haven't thought to update this thread in a while, but Patrick Chadwick referenced an auction which seemed an appropriate addition. Also Peter Laidler brought up non-standard rear sight cuts (see Post #7 in Patrick's thread), so it's good reference material.

Link:

Odd No4 number?

And photos of the rifle in discussion:

Attachment 49991

Attachment 49988

Attachment 49990

https://www.milsurps.com/images/tact...isc/pencil.png

I seem to remember all of my odd Army issue numbers Ross. Obviously my two Army numbers, my pistol YC258 (or it could have been Y6258 it was so illegible, rifle UB58A121585 and the No4 before that 53P10385...... My Wristwatch Y22683 which I eventuially liberated...... As you do!

I bought an Enfield a few weeks ago. I think its a Fazakerley but not sure. Also lots of markings that I don't know since this is my first one like the serial number, T24163A. Also what year was it made. Thanks in advance.

Devizes Gunsmith has a nice FTR'd 1931 trials T on his site for sale.