1941 Faz (MkVI Body)

Attached are some pics of a 1941 Faz on a MkVI body. Some of you may recognize this rifle from a post several years ago, it spent some time under water in New Orleans.

Including this rifle, I was only able to find pictures of two 1941 Faz rifles on a MkVI body. The other one was marked with the serial number, ROF, and 41 on the butt socket, while this one is marked with the serial number and No1 MKV1. Is the "No1 MKV1" marking legit or did someone try to make this rifle something it is not? The serial numbers on the butt socket, barrel, stock, and bolt handle match. The bolt handle has been restamped; however, the font on the bolt handle matches the other fonts (barrel and butt socket).

Thoughts and/or opinions?

I have looked at these pictures against a couple of genuine No1 Mk6's and to be honest, it er.............., how do I say this diplomatically? I'll cut to the quick and say that it looks like someone's made it up from an old No4. I could be wrong of course but........ Any other genuine Mk6 owners like to compare and comment

I would tend to agree, just based on the machining marks on the butt socket and charger bridge area. Otherwise, without a No.1 Mk.VI in hand, it seems best to refrain from further speculation.

I rec'd an e-mail from a forum member with a link attached to some additional info. One of the post was from Brian Dick in 2008 stating that he imported one from England with the serial number 27808A, only 169 from this one. How good is your memory Brian?

The "1's" look like the same size and font on this 1941 Fazakerley

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC00443-1.jpg

I remember 27808A! It was made up with early beech wood, forend cut for magazine cut off and heavy thick bands! Action markings identical to 27693 above!

I would feel much better about the whole thing of it was marked as a No.4 Mk.I. Then one could suppose that it was an unfinished receiver later assembled and finshed in '41. Too rough for a real No.1 Mk.VI that got "reconstituted".

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC01551-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC01539-1.jpg

The scalloped area under the sight and the charger bridge on this "Trails" No.4 both are much smoother than the rifle above. Which indicates to me it started life as a production No.4, OR was never finished...

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...C0136711-1.jpg
1931 vintage workmanship. Very few milling, filing, or broaching marks to be found on anything resembling an exterior surface. ALso, IF it WAs a No.1 Mk.VI where's the old markings? Why remove them only to redesignate the rifle as what it already was?

Any "in process" inspector's marks on the underside that might help? One thing that seems to work in it's favor IS the Fazackerly numbering. Why would someone go to all the trouble to re-create(?) such an odd combination?

But you cant put No4Mk1 Markings on a No1Mk6 no matter when it was assembled, surely at that time early in the war any spare action of any make would of just been assembled to the latest specification! I guessing the original marking would of been removed as Enfield did not assemble them!

If you observe tlvaughn 's RH photo closely, it appears that there never were previous markings on the butt socket. So an unfinished action or a humped No.4 made to look like a...Hmmm. Ummm... Well, OK then, it seems "unfinished" No.1 Mk.VI later assembled is my new probably shaky opinion.

:madsmile:

Is that a witness/scribe line I can see at the right hand edge of the body lightening cut, just below the sear?

Troy, My memory stinks but i looked it up in my import book. I imported it in December 2007. I do remember it as a genuine Enfield No.1Mk.VI but had seen some upgrades to No.4Mk.1 specification early on during the war years. Brian

---------- Post added at 02:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:47 PM ----------

Something that strikes me is the "under water in New Orleans" statement. Hmmm, just long enough to blend the new machining into the old maybe?? I hate to be a skeptic but.....

After reading all of the posts again, I realized I forgot to mention that I do not think this was ever a real MkVI rifle, I was assuming it was an unfinished MkVI receiver that was shipped to Faz in 1940-41 to be completed to No4 MkI specifications. What I was not sure about is the marking on the butt socket - No1 MKVI. Below are a few pictures from a thread on this forum from a few years ago.

Note the markings on the butt socket are different, but the font looks to be the same. It is also interesting that the s/n is 27899A, the one Brian imported is 27808A, and mine is 27639A (all within 260 rifles).

I'm leaning toward an unfinished receiver shipped to Faz for completion.

If anybody would like additional pictures, let me know what you want to see and I will get them posted.

BTW, the seller was not trying to pass it off as a MkVI nor sell it at the going price for a MkVI. I was able to get it for the price of an above average No4 MkI.

If I had to guess I would say that it was left over or reject body; probably for that nasty grinding job on the charger bridge, that was dug out and recycled. What else would explain such an "ugly"? If someone were making a fake, why would they leave such a defect or use an action that had such?

' Don't make no sense to me, guvnor!

As for the "No1 MkVI" stamping, since plenty of those bodies had come through Fazackerly to be finished, some obviously already stamped with their markings (are such not known?) my guess would be the bloke with the stamps did the logical thing and stamped it as he'd seen the others, until told to do otherwise, perhaps somewhat later?

And if the mag cutoff screw hole is drilled and tapped that would seal it for me, simple soul that I am!

I'm inclined to agree with Surpmil. It's not an area I can claim to know a lot about but I gather a significant quantity of Enfield parts were sent to Faz when they commenced production, & I would think it highly likely some of these were only partially finished. Indeed I used to own a Faz 1941 marked No4 built on an ex-Trials body which I suspect came about in the same way. (It now belongs to another UK dealer). I very much doubt that this rifle has been intentionally 'faked'.

ATB