L39, L42ish

Hello Fellow Enfield Nuts,
I purchased A sporterized Enfield rifle in almost new condition, with the usual stuff done, and usual stuff missing. No handgaurd, sights etc, the front sight was still on, but the section of barrel where the bayonet lugs should be I thought was missing, and the barrel has been re-crowned, so it appears as the factory did it.
The rifle markings else where have been removed and or obscured, but the ones that are clear show a stamped number of 648, E1 or EI has then been added to the front of it and 7 tagged on to the rear, in electro-pencil to read EI6487 or E16487 now in full, the rest of the rifle is marked the same in electro-pencil. The rifle is a 1955 Fazerkly FTR No4 Mark 1/2, which I found under what looked like that later matt black finish.
All seemed very normal, I grabbed a light colored handgaurd off of ebay and then discovered the thing will not fit as the barrel is to heavy, it's necked down fairly steeply just before the front sight, full length is 23 & 3/4inches. The bottom Fore-stock is cutoff right where an envoy would be, but corners rounded slightly and painted black. The gun is a 303, all other parts are as the shown in the parts list I've just down loaded, thanks.
I purchased this rifle with the idea of just putting a rear sight on it and flipping it, I'm now really interested in fixing it up and seeing how it shoots. I'm not sure what this gun is. The heavy barrel has thrown me, it's all factory marked, this is not added parts. Any info would be greatly appreciated. I've posted this appeal in one other spot about L39, L42's handgaurd's, in the hope someone can let me know what this is. Thanks Ian

Post some decent pictures, and we might be able to deduce what you have there.

Sounds like someone's project target rifle, rather than a factory model.

To be absolutely honest, I read your thread after I'd come back in after a few beers at sons birthday bash and didn't understand it then. In fact I still don't understand the thread (or the son to a lesser extent.........) now that I'm sober so thanks to TBox for slightly enlightening me!

We can help you Harlton but you'll have to try a better description, ask some straight questions and add some descriptive photos

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harlton

I've posted this appeal in one other spot about L39, L42's handgaurd's, in the hope someone can let me know what this is.

---

On the top left corner of the L-E forum index page to the individual threads is a small dark colored box that reads:

"+ Post New Thread"

Click on that box and start your own! Much better than piggy-backing on someone else's thread, especially when it is a new subject that's only related by firearm type.

ETA: Or... Our grand mysterious wizard of the forums will split it off himself!

Hi All,
Sorry for putting it in to many of the wrong places, I am not much of a forum user and could not find out how to delete it.
A bit lost with this, on what, if anything to call it, So I tagged it on to what it resembles the most.
One thing that is for certain it isn't is someone's project, It's all factory and looks very much like the L39,L42, rifles in question. Honestly, I don't think it was cut down as the blueing and muzzle are perfect.
The barrel has no steady rest mark on it, but it isn't as long. Serial # is IE6487, for sure, as I found another spot which is fully stamped, not half electro-pencil added to.
The Barrel other than being shorter has no discernible differences, other than the lacking steady rest guide, compared to the barrels I've seen pictures of.
The receiver end of barrel has same shape and Knox form, the diameter is flush with, equal in dia to that of the receiver. No step down like on a normal No4, where the guard ring sit's.
Front sight and muzzle are as the L42A1, no scope has ever been fitted. It had no rear sights, at all when I bought it for $100.
It has a normal stock wood, No4 mk2. Butt is light walnut with beech inleted pieces. Heavy No4 type, forestock that is fully floated. Shaped just like the one on the envoy rifle, fig 11 page 17, Stratton Vol 2, except the guy has painted the end gloss black.
I got this rifle for nothing basically, I'm probably going to keep it, and shoot the hell out of it. I have a TZ47 sight doing nothing, and have been busy with my die grinder making the wood fit, the envoy/enforcer band I have fits well, so wood work has roughly same the dimensions
I have never heard or read of a 303 like this. the left side of the receiver has been milled flat like it was going to get scope pads or a sight, and then they never bothered.
The safety is marked M47C, original rifle was made in 1948, that has been left on below modified serial #, the rest ground off. The rifle is marked No4 MK1/2 EI6487 F55 FTR nothing out of the ordinary, except that it has a good as new heavy 23&3/4" long heavy factory barrel on it, stamped to match, and other usual stamps.
I have a copy of Skennertons original book, been thru that, and found nothing, I downloaded that free parts manual, thanks, and the parts I have match except for the barrel.
I have 3 other No4's, and a No5, this is not the same, it's much heavier, more like my A3 Springfield barrel, except for the quick narrowing(necking down) of diameter just behind the front sight, so that it can be fitted.
Maybe they made heavy barrel No4's like this, and I have not seen one, that's fine. Some idiot happened along and cut the bayonet lugs section off, and did a really good job reblueing it. Just curious, that's all.
Regards Ian

Just curious.......... about what? If you want to know something, you'll have to ask something! No question, no answer. What about a picture..................

Pictures??????

So far I can tell that the receiver was modified in 1955 to hang the trigger from the action rather than the trigger guard and the the safety was made by BSA Shirely. But not much else.

Barrel in no way seems of military origins.

If you have trouble posting photos here, at least see if you can upload them to a dedicated photo hosting site and then provide a link. (I use Photobucket, but there's plenty of others.)

My questions is:- I would of thought obvious, does anybody have any idea, What the hell is it, or what it was. Were there any rifles like this, produced by the factory. If someone knows what it is, What's the Correct barrel length, for whatever the hell it is, great. If you ask for a particular piece of info, I can supply it.
I understood all rifles like this were produced in 308, and that's all I find any mention of. These as I understand it had either stock length barrels, or much longer even heavier barrels with the steady rest groove. My barrel being shorter doesn't need a steady rest, so no groove. I have not seen many L series rifles, but I've come across some DCRA rifles and a couple of those were in 303. So is this a similar instance.
My other 3 No4's have slimmer barrels, none of them have a sudden increase in CSA behind the front sight,and they are all different barrels, types/makers. This barrel is on average 0.1 inches thicker over it's length, my micrometers read to .001mm, and I've been using them for over 30yrs. Behind the sight is 0.5985" , the Dia increases to 0.6455", in the space of a 1/4 of an inch, do you want the trig for the angle, or will that suffice.
I have read about No4 T's having heavier barrels, could this barrel be one of those, left over and used here, this barrel has a production date of 1953. As I've already stated the side of the receiver is milled flat, as if being prepped for pads or a target sight, which means mine will fit nicely.
The serial # seems odd, Even by UK standards of the time,it seems sad, could it be a valid #, or some others concoction. If it's a stock type serial# for a 1955 Faz No4 MK1/2(FTR), then did they have, or were some fitted with these heavier barrels. If any actually existed.
I have heard of other companies modifying these rifles at the time like CAL and EAL, this rifle has no markings like this to give it away, as one of these.
What am I curious about ? the rifle, isn't that the whole point of this website, correct if I'm wrong pls. If you have decided this is not worthy, just say so, I think there's enough info the with make, yr. type serial number, dimensions to form an idea of what it is, a photo isn't going to give you a dimension. I re-read my original post , my question was plain, even though I was not sure what particular rifle I was dealing with, I phrased it as an appeal for information to any one who had an idea. That's the main reason I tagged it on to what seems it's closest relative. I only seek help on forums when stuck, preferring to do my own research, but access is not readily available, is it.
If you have an idea what this rifle is I would appreciate knowing, but if you think I cannot live without knowing, I'll enjoy the rifle just the same, as I said just curious.
If you have some info, I've Got some some pictures. Regards Ian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harlton

If you have some info, I've Got some some pictures.

---

Photos will do more than several pages of text IF they're clear and show good detail! Esp. markings and any other machining peculiar to the barrel and receiver body side wall.

I have never heard of HB No.4 Mk.I(T) s before. The Australian No.1 did have a heavy barrel variant, but obviously that's not what you have.

Curious, but it's doubtful it's a military variant you have.

There were heavy target barrels used towards the end of the 70's, not normal profile.
I recently removed one from a No.4 and restored it to it's correct configuration.
We really need photo's, trying to envisage your rifle is very difficult using only your words.

I think that he's just trying to bamboozle and frustrate us Muffer and others. He's succeeded with me............. Admittedly, I'm not the brightest light in the box......

Well if it's anything other than a target shooter's project rifle, I'd be flummoxed. Or "gobsmacked" to use a term recently employed by Patrick Chadwick. But not frustrated. Maybe bamboozled...

Ian

Understanding that your rifle is chambered for 303, I suggest that you Google for images of a Parker Hale T4.
(still have not worked out how to post pics from my ipad)

Parker Hale and Fultons and others built 7.62 heavy barrelled target rifles on No4 receivers.

Perhaps your rifle is a 303 version of this once popular target rifle.

Paul

Hi one and all, Many thanks to J Moore, Paul Seamus and Muffett.2008 for the help and useful comments. I've posted photo's of the troublesome rifle, in my gallery. My apologies if I've done it wrong again, but there they are. I don't particularly care what this is now, that I've bamboozeled and frustrated, I'm happy. I have nothing better to do than to run around buying $100 guns and spending my time writing them up on here, just for the hell of it. Thanks to all who have something realistic to say. to the others, I'll give you my address.
I did my best to get as much detail as poss, and that's it. Receiver ring dia 1.3", barrel dia by receiver, 1.266", My A3 which is a known heavy barrel 1.2085" right at receiver ring. The enfeild barrel has a manufacture date of 1953, serial # EI6487. The muzzle dia is already in previous emails.

Regards Ian

Harlton

who ever modified your rifle did a nice enough job. It looks as if it may be a commercial "sporterised" No 4.

The pictures rule out my suggestion of it being a Parker Hale T4. The barrel in the pictures is not a T4 profile.

For those interested below is a link to the pictures of this mystery rifle.

No4 MK1/2 - Photo 1790

Cheers

Paul

Having viewed your photos, it appears to be a standard No.4 barrel that's been shortened a bit.

Unfortunately, the close ups of the markings are quite out of focus, so no useful info in that area.

Here's a bog standard No.4 barrel front end for comparison:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff039-1.jpg
ETA: And harlton's muzzle end photo:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...5f019c35-1.jpg

The tapered area behind the front sight assembly varies a bit. Yours isn't unusual.

Your rear sight is worth more than the rifle, which is a happy thing if it came with the purchase!

ETA: Your receiver body looks normal, but I would guess that the "48" is an early post-WWII rebuild mark rather than the manufacture date. The serial number could be original to the receiver which the butt socket looks more like E16487 than E"I". If so, it would be Maltby, probably '42. But that serial number after two rebuilds could (and likely is) assigned merely to keep inventory straight, and may have nothing to do with the original! (Note the rough file marks surrounding and under the butt socket S/N.)

have to say I kind of like the faux L42 sporterized stock. Which reminds me I need to get some cash to Tbone for the one he has done for me.

Hi Jim,
Thanks for the info, the No 4's I own, all have a smooth profile and the handgaurd, at the receiver end fits with ease,room to spare. Where as this top handgaurd doesn't fit at all, (see photo) I'm still waiting on the ring or band that fits on just before the receiver and I hope one size fits all.
Now, I am in no way being augmentative, here, but this barrel is roughly 0.1" thicker than all my others all the way up to the receiver, it's has an F on the barrel and a 53, plus the usual test markings, which is what I was trying to show in the photo, but with no luck. It has 5 grooves, but would over + 0.1" be a manufacturing tolerance, or is this an improved profile. The reason for the question is, that I'm building myself a No1 mk 3* special, a sniper/range rifle, and I'm trying to settle on a barrel profile now. This compared to all the others I have, including the two long lee's, this is the heaviest going, quite considerably. If I could find a really good used one, please,or another rifle missing the wood, I could save some cash, or I have a gunsmith who willing to make me one, so he could replicate that profile.
The number is IE as I said, not 1E as could be interpreted from all the other numbers, but not from the stamping on the bottom of the mag, photo included. The receiver is milled perfectly flat, most are not. Which makes sticking my sight on it a breeze.
I don't really get, what people got out of joint about, all the dimensions, I have supplied are accurate. Which to me is far more informative than a picture, which is in all due respect, is dimensionless. I work To .0005mm and .05grams, on 20,000 rpm engines, so a barrel which is .1" o/s and prevents furniture from fitting, is a lot to me. Actually it's a first, in over 20+ yrs of playing with these.
I understood that when they FTR a rifle they scrub off the existing #'s and electro-pencil in a new one, or maybe that's just on the No5's.
This rifle for $100, was a hell of a deal, it's like new, I can shoot it all day without feeling like I'm destroying something, as I do with my No1's. So I will sort out the bedding, which would have been my next question, but I think I'll pass, attach my sight, and enjoy it. The sight didn't come with the rifle, that would have been the steal of the year, it cost the same as the rifle, which I still think is a hell of a deal, at just over $200 trigger pulling ready, for an almost a new Lee, with a target sight.
If anybody does want to throw in their 2cents worth on bedding issues, for a non-L39-42ish rifles I'm interested, as I don't think it will shoot as well now, as with it's full wood. Again thanks for your input.

Regards Ian

Hi Paul,
The barrel isn't that heavy, it's just heavier than normal, It's 0.1" thicker overall on it's entire length, than my other 3, No4's and heavier still at the receiver end enough to prevent the handgaurd from closing where-as my other handgaurd's go on with ease and room to spare. I own 2 long lee's and it's heavier than those, if I pretend the first 5 or6 inches is missing and start from there. Thanks for the link nice rifles, haven't seen them before.
The main reason, I'm so interested in this barrels origins is, that I love Australian Range rifles, and as I cannot buy one in Canada I'm building one. A Buddy in N.Z, sent me some parts so I have a nice start, but a Barrel in the post would get us into trouble I think. Although I've checked with everyone in Canada and they say I'm OK, but I think your end would be the problem. Anyhow, I'm in need of the barrel now, I have most other parts. I purchased this gun, to either use the barrel, or sell as parts to pay for it.
Seeing as it's caused so much trouble, I kinda like it now, and I agree with you the sporterised parts are well done, and look good. The muzzle is a professional job, not a bubba's garage special. I cut the ring into the handgaurd to match, but I think a company has done the rest. I would like to find another of these barrels in full length for my sniper/range rifle, if I know what it was. Anyway Thanks for the compliment, and the links and info.

Regards Ian

It looks like an aftermarket replacement target barrel, although the Aussie ones are a bit heavier than the Brit. ones, yours is more a Brit. profile, not quite as sharp at the sight taper.
I would love to see a better shot of the stamps around the breech end, they would tell where it came from.
I see what you mean about the frame being flat, I think there are a couple of models with this look, maybe one of the old hands may come in on this when they get over their hissy fits.

Hi Muffett,
That would be good new for me, I'll try and take some better shots, as you can tell I am a crappy photographer, I really had a good go the other day but couldn't get the detail, I'll try tomorrow when I have the best light thanks for the answer.

Regards Ian

I'm still in the "shortened standard military barrel" camp. Comarative breech end photos this time (I added a photo to my previous post),

A '43 Faz bbl:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...tuff0301-1.jpg

And harlton's breech end- image sharpened as much as my feeble skills can muster:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...11f28112-1.jpg

Ian

No 4 barrels are like hens teeth to source in Australia. Too many were swapped out early when they were plentiful and now it appears that there are none left.

Just in the process of having a MAB/TSE barrel fitted to one of my No 4's. It should be a standard profile, in stainless, but without the bayonet lug. TSE make the MAB barrels and they still build Omark M44 target rifles. Total Solutions Engineering

Posting a barrel locally within Australia is easy. Exporting (and importing) is difficult but not impossible.

Given that you are in the "wide, cold, land of plenty", with the US just over the border, I would have thought that sourcing a barrel locally would not be an issue for you.

Hope it all goes well.

Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muffett.2008

about the frame being flat

---

Here's some eliminating photos:

Late Fazackerly:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC01671-1.jpg

Mid WWII Faz.:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff027-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff026-1.jpg

'41 Maltby (with pad-sorry):
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC01472-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC01488-1.jpg

3Lseries Long Branch:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...tuff0011-1.jpg

My guess?: Not BSA, Savage, or Fazackerly. Either Maltby (Post '41) or Long Branch. The small indistinct "dots" just behind the barrel reinforce make me think Maltby.

I hear your observation that it is 0.1" thicker overall than a standard No4 barrel, but from the photos it does still look like a standard Fazakerley .303 barrel that has had the front inch or so cut off.

In particuar, the knox form and chamber area look entirely normal - in proportion to the visible part of the receiver. Is the forend packed or bedded in any way? This often prevents handguards from being fitted, particularly if the reinforce is a bit too high.

I agree entirely with Thunderbox here. If the fazakerley barrel, identified in the photo by the F/53 logo were .1" wider (that's a tenth of an inch.....) then it probably wouldn't fit into the fore-end. And the notion that it would slip past the factory examiner that far out of spec is the stuff of wild speculation. I have just glanced at 26 No4 barrels from various manufacturers and they're all within .002" with an oddball .004" oversize at one point in the middle. I'm looking at another 9 on Tuesday but even in my limited experience with No4's generally, I don't think that we'll see much deviation here. If that barrel is a bog standard cut down No4 barrel, then you can take the word of this very limited experienced Armourer, who started his apprenticeship 50 years ago in January next year, that it will be on size and in spec.

Some bodies/barrels do seem to sit deeper into the fore-end and when we encountered these, we'd just recess the fore-end to allow the hanguard retaining ring to sit a little lower and sand the underside of the rear handguard to suit. It was absolutely taboo to slim down the part of the handguard that slipped under the ring because if that was too thinned down, it'd snap off during firing.

I know that it's academic to the subject, but you can eliminate any confusion about the serial number too. We do not use the letter I (as in the letter 'eye') in our serial number formatting. If you see one, then it is a 1 (as in the figure ONE). Your number is E - one two three and so on

I've looked at the pictures and comments a couple times. IMO a Brit MK1/2 has be subjected toL39/ L42 cloning. The barrel has been cut back...like to know if the sight block/base lugs are present? The barrel profile looks like a standard No4 F.

The fitting of the handguard is controlled by the modifications made to the forend. The forend has been inletted for a midband and the the top wood modied to suit. I suspect the alignment is off on the top wood as there's no handguard ring at the knox as a reference point. Should be very easy to fix. Install a ring. A little inletting black to mark the hanguard//barrell interference, scrape out the excess material and it should fit.

But if it is a bog standard .303" barrel RGG, which we think it is - in spite of assurances to the contrary, It's still shortened/cut back, free floating, L39 or 42'd - call it what you will, then any further work to 'improve' it is all academic because the harmonics are already down the pan it ain't going to shoot as accurately anyway. The best thing to do is to re-barrel the rifle and start again. If the old cut down barrel has a good bore, then have it machined down to No5 spec where it'll be marginally more accurate than it is now. That's only my 2c's worth based on nothing more than my observations

For the last time, The barrel is the largest I have, that includes 3 other No4's, 2x 1896 long lee's measured as if they were 25.2 " long and it's heavier than my A3. I don't know about the I, but if you look at the bottom of the mag picture the I is there for all to see, so you did bloody use it. I am really tired of being called a liar when their is no reason for it. For your information your talking to someone who is also an engineer, MIED IEng MSAE, just not an armorer, but I know how to read a mic, when building 20,000rpm engines.
I didn't build this, I just bought it,and please put an I in it.
Regards Ian

Peter...i concurr....it's all academic at this point. If the chap want to make it a shooter then the rifle needs to be rebarrelled to either 303 standard barrel profile or if he's able to luck into an L39/42 7.62 barrel he could go this option. I think the Owner hoping that it's more than just a standard bubb'd No4.

I think it's a standard Fazackerly barrel from the 50's as fitted to the No.4 Mk2 rifles. or to the upgraded No.4 Mk1s which (yours) became No.4 Mk 1/2. looks identical to mine, except yours was cut just before the bayonet lugs. I think Springfield sporters still had them mid last year. You CAN slso if you're lucky get hold of aussie hevay barrels for teh NO.1 mmk3 if you keep your eyes peeled.

If you're thinking of using a heavier No4 barrel for your No1 - and there's no real reason why not - be advised that while you CAN, it's not as simple as a direct replacement

Ian,

You seem irritated by the responses, but it seems as a neutral observer that folks are attempting to be as helpful as they can. The barrel does have all the appearances of a cut down normal No 4 barrel. The F53 or F55 marking that can be made out in the fuzzy pictures on the barrel indicates it is a Fazakerly barrel, and as I am sure Peter Laidler can confirm, there is no known special heavy version of the Fazkerley barrel, they made service weight barrels alone (at least I have never rear of one). Nor was one ever approved fro UK or common wealth competition (though one was approved for the SMLE and the No 4 7.62 conversions)

Now if you say it is .1 wider at some point, I would note that on eth taper in front of the barrel reinforce you might find this, but on the critical fits, i.e. the barrel reinforce, and the parallel portion of the barrel that sits on the front forend seta, the diameters have to be fairly precise, otherwise the rifles would not assemble.

I have always found when you check into a new forum it takes a while to get the feel of it, this one is very friendly and has a number of subject matter experts, such as Capt. Peter Laidler. There is no better site for Enfields; this is the place to be (though gunboards is pretty decent). In any case if you want to pick the brains of these folks, it is incumbent upon you to post clear pictures and precise descriptions. If you are irritated by the responses, please be aware that your pictures are blurry. It is not easy to figure out what story they have to tell about the rifle with such a data set. As an engineer (and I am one too) you will not doubt be aware how difficult it is to troubleshoot one of you designs in the field if folks do not provide you clear and precise data. It is also true with identifying rifle features.

Overall the rifle you show does have all the appearances of someone’s home project. Now if the barrel is good you might well be able to make a good shooter out of it. More than one shooter has found that when you reduce the charge of nitro powder until you get speeds in the 2,100 to 2,250 fps that you can sometimes get better accuracy out of the SMLE at short range (i.e. eliminating the vertical dispersion at close range). You may well find a similar sweet point if you try it.

The sight is a 100 dollar plus sight, so you have done well with this.

Nobody has been called a "liar." Questions have been asked and some information and some speculation has been offered. Let's take a step back before this thread becomes overheated and we end up closing it and everyone ends up with hurt feelings.

What is apparent to me based on the pictures available and the discussion so far, is that we have a rifle barrel that appears to be in a standard military configuration (minus the bayonet lugs), that has a diameter that would not be within acceptable tolerances for a known military barrel. Clear pictures of the markings on the barrel would help in the barrel identification. then it is one of two things - 1) If the markings conform to known military markings, we have a barrel that is not as yet known to us. or 2) The markings do not conform to known military markings and the barrel is a commercial or hobbyist barrel.

I'm wondering if the answer to the "I" question might not be the obvious one:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...6e14ca9d-1.jpg



Note the "1" in No4 Mk"?"/2 is also the same figure used in the serial number immediately following. Now if the rest of the numbers were based on the one on the side wall, the substitution of a vertical stick for a proper "1" about which a bored Fazackerly employee would care not a whit as to it's actual designation would follow naturally. It's marked, let the next fellow decipher it...

And if the receiver was actually a Maltby (and kept it's old S/N during rebuild), the "1" as the first digit makes perfect sense.


BTW: I could not find a magazine photo in harlton's gallery, but I'm tired. Heck the "F '53" marking on the barrel I missed until a few minutes ago!- Which is definitely regular old Fazackerly, so...

Strewth, you blokes had better send me a pair of new glasses, I clean missed that to, maybe just only pay cursory attention to blurred photo's.
There were heavy No.4 target barrels made in OZ as well as No.1's. It was always a bugger adjusting wood for these.

I wouldn't bother with the new glasses, As I've said it's clearly stamped into the bottom of the mag, using a full set of metal stamps, that's the kind that have a 1's and an I's in it. The letters are even separated from the numbers, being on another line, the engraved serial #, is beside it offset by 90degs.
If you read the original question, I wasn't hoping for anything, but a simple answer to a simple question. I have given you sizes I obtained with precise measuring instruments. They are meaningless, a bunch of pictures that you can then argue into madness, being preferred.
I cannot get clear pictures of the barrel, as when I get close enough that the small #'s are readable, the flash goes off and everything disappears, but all of the other pictures are clear.
None of you needed to figure out, any of the stuff you have deduced, I stated all of this upfront, to many times, apparently for pleasure.
The question was simple, I told you I suspected the front had been nipped off , but wasn't sure. The fore-stock, sporterised like an L39, the things, I wondered about, have not been answered, but ignored like the clearly stamped #'s, to argue about sticks. I didn't really want a discussion about picture's of Enfield's, some thicknesses of barrels at the same spots would have been perfect. Then I could have determined more readily what I was going to do next with my gun, get it. After a week of stupidity, I'm no further ahead, than when I started, other than now, I've made the handgaurd fit on it, and fired it. Ian

Mate - the amount of mags which have been restamped to go with a rifle is innumerable - and it will have been restamped with whatever the stamper interprets the serial number to be on the rifle. It certainly doesn't prove one way or the other which is the correct interpretation.

Ian ,

No offense meant, but I really think you are off on your comment about "pompous prats". You also made a comment about " not just an Armourer" or something like that prior. If my standard dictionary is correct, the word pompous refers to a person with an overly important view of themselves in a specific setting. I respectfully suggest that you reconsider your point of view. There are fellows here who are the acknowledged authorities in this field, one former senior NCO who has written the "Book" as it were on the Bren, No 4 T, No 32 scope, Sten, and Sterling SMG. Ian Skennerton as posted on this site as well, if my memory serves me correctly. There are others who have not written books, but who can claim to have studied some area in depth to the point of being a subject matter expert. All answers questions for free. Because of this it is the site to be at if you like enfield rifles.

With all due respect, the questions and debate have to do with getting the answer right, not pomposity. As an engineer you must have some appreciation for that. The reason for clear pictures is that, for example a Charnwood conversion can be determined a lot more easily by looking at a picture of the left hand side of the action body, whereas a description of the same side could be argued for , say 4 pages on this forum without a clear answer if it is a legit 7.62 conversion or not. It is similar with your rifle.

Give it a think, I respectfully suggest an apology is in order.

I wouldn't mind Fred and others, but he didn't just jump in and ask specific questions, 1,2,3,4 and so on, - it was just bits and pieces, all over the place!!! And I don't think that he's any more qualified than any of the other University mechanical engineering graduates on this forum. I gave up after the first page or so!

To be honest, nobody in the whole world owes me an apology of any sort. Having been in the Army system for so long, you just take the rough with the smooth and move on. Anyway all you forumers out there, it's nice and bright here in Oxfordshire, there's no rain forecast so things are looking up

Well it's big hammer time. I spent a while (~2hrs) of my own time doing photos this morning- before the recent ugliness was read, if that makes a difference.

BTW, harlton, don't get close to the object to make details when your camera won't focus. Stand off a bit and then use the camera's cropping or trimming feature to zoom in. With 10 megapixels there's buckets of detail in those further away shots.

[ETA: Like this:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff007-1.jpg
And after "trimming" in the camera:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff008-1.jpg
Not a great shot, but it was handheld and not carefully set up.

End ETA]

I'm going to dump a bunch of photos on you in a bit.


But if this is a fishing expedition to get L42 barrel dimensions (and mind you, this wouldn't be the first time), well, you are only getting one.

Here's what we need from you, harlton. A photo like this showing a "regular" barrel next to your "fat barrel". You did indicate you had more barrels. I am absolutely sure that 0.100" will show clearly, as there's not that much between a No.I and a No.4:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff047-1.jpg

Then we will have proof. Be nice and do the shot straight on...

But here's the start of the deluge:

L42a1:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff038-1.jpg
~0.790"

'55 Faz No.4 Mk.I:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff029-1.jpg
~0.635"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harlton

Behind the sight is 0.5985" , the Dia increases to 0.6455", in the space of a 1/4 of an inch

---

Note that there's MUCH more than 0.100" difference here between the L42 and the No. 4. Harlton's barrel is more like 0.010" different. ONLY 0.090" off...

And random SMLE barrel at the same location:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff003-1.jpg
~0.590"

(Only about 0.045" difference, but clearly noticable even without measuring tools!)

Breech end, No.4:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff011-1.jpg

Front edge of reinforce, No.4:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff012-1.jpg

Just forward of reinforce, No.4:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff025-1.jpg

And SMLE:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff022-1.jpg

~10" in front of receiver face, No.4:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff017-1.jpg

And SMLE, same location:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff019-1.jpg


Want more? Be polite! (Which I'm fixing to fail to do myself:)

BTW: Very few folk on this forum are impressed with titles, degrees and fancy jobs. Even less with rudeness.

But, if you insist, here's your 20,000 rpm:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...tuff0131-1.jpg

There's no need for any more photos JM. It IS a bog standard Fazakerley made 1953 (or 58) No4 barrel. Fazakerley only made standard No4 format barrels. Likewise, regardless of what the bolt or magazine or fore-end reads, the serial number is the number marked on the master component which is the body side. It's like pulling teeth, but there it is

Well, he made me start! Curiousity and a night's sleep after a 25 hr day got the ball rolling. Besides it was just some old barreled actions piled up. No disassembly required.

At least there's a mess of new reference photos for later.

Harlton, to to add a little more advice:

Whenever the subject of your photography is going to be close, use the "macro" feature and a tripod. On macro you can get the lens as close as 6 to 10 inches. Your background should be a neutral color and texture such as an old OD green Army blanket. Turn the flash feature off and use natural light is available. If no natural is available you can use florescent and to keep the shadows down, drape a white sheet out of the frame but enough to pick up reflection. The photo below is one I took on a green towel which can be seen in the bottom of the frame but it appears almost white at the top right of the frame. Note to detail. All modern digital cameras have macro setting and the ability to turn the flash feature off. Play with your camera and I think you might just be very pleased with the results. :thup: Now, lets get past this and move on. :beerchug:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...P9080020-1.jpg

What do you Enfield gurus think of this #4???

Talking of good pictures Bill, let's have a big photo of that there Jeep of yours. I'd like it as my new screen saver.

On the same subject Harlon now..... One picture really does describe a thousand words. And as an engineer, this is close to our hearts. After all, if you could just describe something, why do we have or even bother with engineering drawings for heavens sake. And as engineers, remember .... dog don't eat dog!

I'll PM you Peter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Hollinger

What do you Enfield gurus think of this #4???

---

Maltby. 1943 with a '48 rework of some degree.

Never upgraded to No.4 Mk.1/2 configuration. Replacement wood, the buttstock not too distant past.

Post 1968 US import due to the small "IAC" mark just above the trigger. Probably late eighties to mid nineties?

and the serial number, amazingly enough, is AO 14720. Or is that AOI 4720...? :lol:

Can I be a guru now? Please, please, please?

Some good photo work there JM, that second last shot of the Vernier dial was exceptional, crystal clear.
Obviously a good nights sleep steadies your hand.
Pete, it's lousy here, you sent all that **** weather over to us, just so you could have clear blue for the Olympics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muffett.2008

Some good photo work there JM, that second last shot of the Vernier dial was exceptional, crystal clear. Obviously a good nights sleep steadies your hand.

---

The rest might have been better had I really been interested.

Harlton's barrel has been nothing but a Bubba special since the photos came out. But being a factor of ten off in oversize sounds like an inspector's error rather than an engineer's. (That there's sort of a jest, but there's a bit of truth in it. And the folk at work wonder why I didn't take the desk job...)

Dear Everybody,
Thankyou for all your responses, I did get ****ed off and felt attacked, over what I thought would be a fairly simple question, what is it!
Now I have calmed down, and re read everything I can see that I can seem like an arsehole. My comment that I'm an engineer was not intended to put any body down, I've been mis-quoted a bit, and my only interest was to see what this rifle is/was once, maybe nothing.
I purchased it for parts for a $100's seemed cheap to me, for a gun that other than missing a bit off the end, is recrowned and like new. I was told 2boxes of ammo, it is as tight as a drum. There are a lot of these in Canada, all exactly the same, obviously someone made them.
I'm am a crap photographer, read little interest. In trying to get close to show the detail it blured. I gave all the diamensions, there is no bedding, and no packing. The guy who sold it to me keep the parts he liked incase, and gave me the old crap which looked good to me. when I started puting it together it did not seem to fit correctly.
Some relieving of the stock had already been done, I did not get all the parts, I've since got a ring relieved the handgaurds and I'm doing a few other things to it, like fitting a L1A1 flash hider, making some heavy metal rings/sight blocks to try and quell any harmfull harmonics.
I brought the gun cheap, it didnt look right, I took some measurements, and ask some questions, I thought no biggie. I didn't want to cut up something I shouldn't, so I thought I would check. Sorry it got so out of hand. I am now modifying the gun as a shooter and a experimentation platform as I am now happy to modify the hell out of it, no remorse.
I still think the barrel is a bit heavier in places, than normal, if so good, if not I think I'll try the carbon fiber approach, seems like a good candiate. Best wishes to one and all.

Reards Ian

Good on you Ian - welcome to the forum

Hi, Amatikului, and Gnr 527, Thanks, appreciated.

Regards Ian.