ZF markings - again

I'm very sorry to open up this Pandora's Box again but I have a legitimate question to ask, I did PM Peter Laidler and he agreed it was better to ask the question on the open forum.

I wanted to know if a No.4 trials rifle with the letters ZF painted on the butt would have been condemned purely because it has non-standard, non-interchangable, parts?

Perhaps Mr Skennerton would like to offer any information here because I read in his excellent reference work "The Lee Enfield" that these trials rifles were pressed into service after so many small arms were lost at Dunkirk. They were converted to more closely resemble standard No.4 Mk1s but were given an "A" suffix to the serial number to indicate they possessed certain non-interchangeable parts.

After the war, in the 1950's, these emergency weapons were ordered to be withdrawn and scrapped because of the non-standard parts. Would one of these with a completely different action or body have been classed as "ZF" even though it was serviceable?

I wonder...

Curly

Previous thread on same subject for those wanting more background ... ;)

ZF marking on Enfields?

Regards,
Badger

A good and timely reminder here Curly and I'll reiterate. SO far as REAL, properly trained Armourers from across the Commonwealth are concerned, the ZF meand that there is something big/bad wrong with it. That is the significance of the 'Z' marking. It als means that whatever is wrong, then in the examiners (or in an experienced Armourers) opinion, the fault can only be rectified at a Base Workshop or Factory. That's the significance of the 'F'. Hence ZF. If I say to another Armourer, whether he's in Canada, NZ or Aust, is that rifle ZF, he'll immediately understand and answer.

The 'A' serial number suffix doesn't make a weapon ZF. That just indicates that it's got non interchangeable parts. And well it might, but if it can be corrected by selecive fitting, of say, a magazine or backsight or, say, by a bit of good quality hand fitting with a file, then the rifle could go on for years and years. Albion made .38" Enfield revolvers were a good example. We had loads of these with an A serial number suffix. In fact, even if they didn't have an 'A' suffix, most of them could only be corrected by selective of fine fitting by someone who knew what he was doing with them - and that didn't include me!

Peter, thank you for that clear and concise answer regarding any rifles which were faulty or worn and thus marked with 'ZF'.

According to Mr Skennerton: " These ex-trials No.4 rifles which were taken into service during the wartime years, marked with the 'A' suffix to the serial number, were finally ordered to be withdrawn and scrapped in the mid-1950's"

Can you tell us how these presumably fully serviceable rifles would have been marked for scrap - would it not have been with the 'ZF'? Is there another mark which means "perfectly serviceable but scrap"? Unlike the Albion pistols, it was not a case of these will do for years if they are tinkered with, there was a definite order to remove them from service and scrap them.

On another interesting note, can you tell us what would have happened to them? Clearly they were NOT scrapped as they exist to confuse and confound us! Why were dangerously unsafe weapons allowed to be released and sold? (albeit to the American public) Unlike 'DP' marked rifles these 'ZF' marked rifles have no useful training value, why were they not cut?

Puzzled...

Curly

Q1. I can't find any instruction that states that these will be withdran and scrapped. Just suppose they're serviceable......!
Q2. If they were fully serviceable they wouldn't be scrapped
Q2. There isn't a mark, so far as I am aware that indicates perfectly serviceable, but scrap..................
Q3. Scrap rifles guillotined/torched or sold off as such.
Don't know.
ZF rifles can have training value. Convert to DP. Been done since the tear dot!

Bit of advice. Don't invade Russia and don''t use a DP or ZF marked rifle

Q1. I can't find any instruction that states that these will be withdran and scrapped. Just suppose they're serviceable......! - A1. Apparently Mr Skennerton did find an ORDER to withdraw and scrap these presumably serviceable rifles. (see page 212 of the latest edition of "The Lee Enfield")
Q2. If they were fully serviceable they wouldn't be scrapped - A2. See above
Q2. There isn't a mark, so far as I am aware that indicates perfectly serviceable, but scrap.................. - A2. So they would have been marked 'ZF' even though they were serviceable
Q3. Scrap rifles guillotined/torched or sold off as such.
Don't know. - A3. Fair enough, you don't know.
ZF rifles can have training value. Convert to DP. Been done since the tear dot! - A4. I'm referring to a 'ZF' marked 1930's trials rifle with a non-standard body and parts, it has not been converted to 'DP' and thus has no training value.



Bit of advice. Don't invade Russia and don''t use a DP or ZF marked rifle - Thanks for the very useful advice.

Curly

Mr Skennerton care to interject?

Curly, I have an immaculate Longbranch No4 that I will never fire or sell. It has ZF marked on the butt. No end of inspection by anyone will convince me to tempt fate and pull the trigger on a live round.

Son i presume you have been over that LB with a fine tooth comb. What is out of spec.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bindi2

Son i presume you have been over that LB with a fine tooth comb. What is out of spec.

---

Nothing! I was about to declare the butt had been fitted from another rifle (sand the marks off and go fire it) when I spotted something that sealed it's fate. There are corresponding marks on the butt and the receiver (pictured below) which I cannot find any reference to anywhere... What I do know is that it tells me the butt belongs to the receiver, the ZF mark on the butt stands as the classification of the rifle.

It last belonged to a mate of ours at gunboards who didn't shoot it- I bought it from the shop he'd traded it to. He had contacted the previous owner who was a re-enactor who'd had it for donkey's years and never fired it either.

As I said, I'm afraid- never to be fired, never to be sold.

Put it in a rest or lead sled a long piece of string on the trigger an oiled proof round in the chamber cock take the loose end of string go for a long walk to the end of the length of string then pull to fire reinspect then repeat several times if nothing found. Report findings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bindi2

Put it in a rest or lead sled a long piece of string on the trigger an oiled proof round in the chamber cock take the loose end of string go for a long walk to the end of the length of string then pull to fire reinspect then repeat several times if nothing found. Report findings.

---

Very tempted... I thought about doing something like that but then I thought... "what if the last test round I fired was the one that weakened it's fault (whatever it is) beyond safe limits". I'd never be sure the next round wasn't going to be my last.

With all due respect to the board experts, I personally remain unconvinced that there isn't another "ZF" out there with an unrelated meaning to the accepted British/Commonwealth "scrap" designation:

- why are there so many marked rifles out there? Why weren't most of them scrapped in the usual manner as they passed back up the depot system?
- why do many/most of the these rifles have no apparent defects, even under inspection, gauging & proof testing? Some even appear to be little used since an FTR or similar, or even from initial production.

One aspect that intrigues me is that the "stamped" ZF mark on butts I've examined appears to be an identical font to the "FR" that appears on NIW and fitted wood associated with Pakistani production.

I think it's odd too.

I'm trying to ascertain if the 'ZF' mark was applied to fully serviceable rifles which happened to have an 'A' suffix to their serial number.

In Mr Skennerton's research he has found EME Regulations dated january 1951 announced that "Rifles No.4 Mk1 which bear the suffix letter 'A' to the serial number e.g. 444A, are fitted with components which are not generally interchangeable, 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."

However, Mr Skennerton goes on to tell us that in the mid 1950's rifles with an 'A' suffix to the serial were ordered to be withdrawn and scrapped. I can only presume that most of these rifles were perfectly serviceable but must have been stamped or painted with the 'ZF' mark. What is also baffling is why they still exist if they were ordered to be scrapped...

Curly

Hey, the usually so methodical and sensible Bindi........., you're not really, truly serious are you, to suggest that to another Armourer

Will somebody PLEASE get out of the archive and re-print the long article about DP and ZF rifles. Thunderbox, please, please, take it from me, an Armourer for a couple of years who has ZF'd one or two weapons in his short inexperienced life. ZF means only one thing. It's got a BIG fault that can't be fixed at a Unit or Field workshops. That's the opinion of the senior examiner and the reason for the Z. The F indicates that it's even worse than that, because it's a Base or Factory repair only.

You see, most of us enthusiastic amateurs on the forum or your expert Gunsmiths don't have all of the necessary tooling, gauges and, dare I say it, expertise that these old time, long in the tooth examining Armourers have. Do you know that your ZF marked rifle hasn't been in an blazing inferno or that the rear locking lugs are worn out or the induction hardening has failed, measured by using the special inspectors calibrated bolt.....................

Here's a word of advice. Don't shoot a DP or ZF rifle

Hi Peter, I did warn you that this would get very boring for a lot of people which is why I PM'd you with the initial question but you suggested asking the question on the open forum. I sincerely apologise for going over old ground.

All I want to know is what identifying mark would an Armourer give to a fully serviceable rifle which was ordered to be withdrawn and scrapped because of non-standard or non-interchangeable parts?

Thanks very much,

Curly

To be honest Curly, there isn't a mark because since the early 60's to date, I can't (unless any other REME RA/RNZ/RCEME Armourer out there can, offhand..... Tankie or Son help here?) I can't think of anything that fits into this category. If something is declared obsolescent, and plenty is, then we keep it going until it's finally worn out. If it's obsolete, then it's usually withdrawn reasonably soon/quick. But in this case, there's no mark as such, it's just, well, withdrawn as obsolete!

As I explained, if something didn't have interchangeable parts, like a lot of Fazakerley No4's (Magazines were always a bit of a pain as was breeching up.....) and the trials type No4's, then they would still soldier on until they couldn't be fixed. As simple as that. Then they'd be classified as Y (for an examiner at a larger Field workshop to certify. Then he'd certify it as Z BER. That means that it would never even get close to a Base workshop or factory facility as the Z meant major fault and BER was that it was beyone economic repair.

I could(?) be wrong(?) but in spite of much searching, I can find NO reference whatsoever of ANY notification that rifles, pistols or sub machine guns bearing the A prefix, either Fazakerley, Enfield or even Albion will be withdrawn simply because they carry the A suffix.

If your rifle has those magic initials ZF written, indited, carved, marked, engraved, or in any other way deliniated OR any of those letters, characters or the least trace of any such letter or character is visible, then avoid it like the plague. It means that there something wrong with it. I know some disagree, but I wouldn't just spout off a load of old tripe about this.

Hi Peter,

that all makes sense, I don't think there would have been a "make do and mend" issue if an order was made to withdraw and scrap the trials rifles - they mostly had very different bodies to the standard No.4 Mk1 so no amount of adding parts or tinkering would have brought them within spec.

I would have liked Mr Skennerton to have added any information as it's his book which quotes the order, but perhaps another day.

Thank you very much for taking the time to help with these clear answers.

Curly

You're not quite correct there Curly and nor is Mr Skenneron, and with the greatest of respect, I don't think that even the good Lord will find an order withdrawing the trials No4's. I know this for a fact because during the early 70's, some of these rifles were in the system. But better still, when the very last No4's and derivatives were being withdrawn in the late 80's/90's, there were STILL No4 trials rifles sloshing around in the system. Not many I agree but if there WAS (but there wasn't.....) a 1950's order to withdraw them, why were they still in the Ordnance system in the 70's, 80's and 90's............................

I hope that that has closed the matter.

Now, for a bit of advice................. DON'T SHOOT A ZF OR A DP RIFLE

We repair to Y level, but there are some Y level tasks we cannot do- these we send up the line. I can and do sentence equipment Z, which gets it all the way almost to the factory door. Once there, some specific faults are repaired or the equipment is judged as scrap (BER) or fit for FTR and sent on to the factory.

I know blasted colonials. The intention of my last post was as a test to uncover the fault that Son with his training and experience has not found. Not for normal use.

I worked 38 years at a military depot in the U.S. and was a Quality Control Inspector for over 25 years. My inspectors stamp and signature was on the equipment I inspected on a condition code tag placed on these parts and equipment.

Below a yellow condition code "A" tag for new and overhauled parts and equipment.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif

A green condition code "F" tag for repairable parts and equipment that need to be sent to the appropriate overhaul facility.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif

A red condition code "H" tag for items that are unserviceable, if the item contained serviceable parts or components the item was sent to the appropriate depot for disassembly and the serviceable parts removed for disposition. (the entire item was not disposed of if serviceable-repairable parts were part of the assembly)

https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif

Now to the British system, if the rifle receiver was scrap or "ZF" was the entire rifle disposed of or were the serviceable parts removed for further use?

In the U.S. the receiver would be removed and cut in half and the remaining "serviceable" parts returned to service or sent for overhaul. A civilian inspector at the highest levels of maintenance was not allowed to condemn serviceable parts or components without a letter from the owning organisations. (Item manager Headquarters)

Bottom line we reused serviceable parts or repairable parts and we were required to place condition code "A" or "F" tags on these items.

Just a thought, Curly... Perhaps we should look at this from the other side. How many No4 trials rifles with the A serials are out there and not ZF marked? If there was such an order, surely they would not have been sold out of service without their final sentence applied?
One with the opposed arrows mark and not ZF'd would prove that.

Bindi, just for $hits and giggles, I'll bring it to Lithgow if you're coming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Son

Just a thought, Curly... Perhaps we should look at this from the other side. How many No4 trials rifles with the A serials are out there and not ZF marked? If there was such an order, surely they would not have been sold out of service without their final sentence applied?
One with the opposed arrows mark and not ZF'd would prove that.

Bindi, just for $hits and giggles, I'll bring it to Lithgow if you're coming.

---

It is in the plan:thup:

Hi from the Gold Coast in Oz,
Regarding the ZF mark, I've only seen it painted or stamped on the buttstock. And way back in my memory, I recall it stencilled in white paint on a fore-end, long before I knew what the ZF indicated. Not being stamped on the action body could be a clue, that it could/might be repaired at the factory, after which the ZF designation would no longer apply. I think PL (Peter) would have the best take on this one. I've only picked the designation up from a list I found at the Pattern Room at Nottingham.
Enfields rule!
Ian

Hi Ian,

thank you very much for the kind reply, can you tell us any more about that mid 1950's order to withdraw and scrap rifles with the 'A' Suffix - and why it seems not to have been carried out?

Curly

Curly. I don't think that you have understood so far.......... The reason why the order wasn't carried out is because there wasn't an order. Look and listen. There were STILL old trials and other A suffix rifles in circulation in the late 70's and there were STILL some trials and A suffix rifles in circulation when the very last vestiges of the No4 were withdrawn in the 90's. How do I know this? It's easy! A) Any order would still be available for Armourers to see, probably incorporated into the EMER's and b), I saw them

Next bit of advice. If you have a rifle marked ZF, then don't use it

Yes Peter, I heard you the first time, why don't you let Mr Skennerton answer my question which was addressed to him? However, I'm sure we all thank you for butting in and offering your excellent advice as usual.

As I am sure you can appreciate only too well yourself (Savage No.4(T)s and Kodak scopes...), if someone publishes a book which is intended to serve as a reference work, and there is something incorrect in that work, then they should be given the opportunity to explain that mistake shouldn't they? ;)



t. t. f. n.

Curly

As one fallible author speaking up for another fallible author, I'm just thinking of something infallible to say...................... But say, I will!

Thread is CLOSED as it's deteriorating and starting to go in circles ….

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

As one fallible author speaking up for another fallible author, I'm just thinking of something infallible to say...................... But say, I will!

---

:rofl: ... my wife says I'm fallible all the time, but I don't believe her .. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by curly

Hi Ian,

thank you very much for the kind reply, can you tell us any more about that mid 1950's order to withdraw and scrap rifles with the 'A' Suffix - and why it seems not to have been carried out?

Curly

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by curly

Yes Peter, I heard you the first time, why don't you let Mr Skennerton answer my question which was addressed to him? However, I'm sure we all thank you for butting in and offering your excellent advice as usual.

---

Hi Curly ... :)

Ian answered your question the best he could and essentially deferred to Peter for additional background, which Peter kindly provided, to the best of his recollections and abilities as well.

Perhaps we don't understand what your asking, but I think both Ian and Peter (plus others) have given you the best answer you're going to get on the subject. If I understood it correctly, Ian said to check with Peter and Peter summed it up by saying there was no order.

As confirmed by Ian, I would also suggest that Peter, given his experience as the most senior armourer in the UK Military (now retired) and currently based as a Technical Officer at the UK Military Small Arms School, would have provided the most accurate answer for you.

If you still need clarity, I'm not sure there's much else this group of Enfield collectors can tell you, so perhaps you should post your question on other Enfield boards on the Internet until you get the answer you're seeking. :thup:

Thanks ....

Regards,
Doug