Printable View
I just got this rifle and it is my only Enfield at the moment.
I don't know anything about Enfields but when I picked it up I knew I had to have it.
I am curious if anybody knows what the unit disk is. It has BA 135 and the buttplate also has number 135.
It has no import marks and I am wondering if it ever left the country.
Does it look to be all original as it left the factory?
I am here to learn so all of your comments are very welcome.
Thanks
Unit butt marking and discs were obsolete by 1943. The disc looks to be too far forward/low on the butt to be in the opriginal location for a rifle butt marking disc. So in short, it ain't how it left the factory. Others will have other opinions I feel
The butt disk is not an original feature, and is unlikely to have been used by any normal British or Commonwealth unit. Maybe a later foreign country user, or a private entity such as a school, that happened to use this method of rack numbering.
Not really Peter. Wong place, wrong, rifle, wrong time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Having said that, it does look as though it has been there a while and expanding on Thuderbox's post, for example Belfast's Royal Academy.
Discs are common in the NZ Cadet rifles No4s & No9 & the location is similar, some of the NZ No8s also have discs.
A pair of No9s
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...mesno9s1-1.jpg
No8
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...6/no8two-1.jpg
BA doesn't feature in the official UK Military disc marking system in any case
Here in the US of A a number of No 4 rifles that seem to have seen use in SA or Rhodesia have come through with added stock discs. Or so I am told. These arms came into the US of A in the early 1990s and a bunch of them had all the action markings more or less removed. The story I heard at the time, and (I did see a small number of them) was that they came out of Rhodesian police stock, and that the rifles with the marking removed had been given the Rhodesia by SA sometimes in the early in the problems, say around 1965~1972. All of the rifles I saw like that were Fazakerly No 4 MK I and MK II patterns. The action body side markings were removed and a new serial number added. There were no SA property marks. The condition were well used but not abused.
I also seem to recall seeing one US savage rifle like that, except the marking were not removed, including the US property marking, that was present, but the overall condition looked similar.
The only caveat was this was before the internet was around and I have never seen any confirmation about that story. Also the rifles had no evidence of any SA markings, which I have since noted seems to be present on all arms that came out of the 1994 Interarms 40,000 piece import.
I just want to add to this, this rifle came out of an old collection and has a tag of when it was bought which was either in late 60s early 70s...
Aside from the unit disk, does it look like the rifle hasn't been refurbished?
Did they have brass buttplates in WW2?
The buttplate is a replacement. Original Savage rifles had pot metal buttplates. The front sight guard is also a replacement and I'm guessing the lower band with the swivel is too. Savage ones have a different contour.
Thank you,Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
Do you think I should look for a Savage front sight guard and lower band to make it correct?
Are these difficult parts to find?
Should the band be stamped or milled for the 1943
Another question: what do you call the little screw that is on the handguard behind the trigger, mine looks like someone used a regular screwdriver to unscrew it and messed it up.
Would that little screw be different for savage vs other manufacturers?
It is correct as far as I'm concerned. If you change out parts which are plentiful and available, all you do is open a can of worms and alter the history of the rifle. When I was a kid I used to think everything should be bright and shiny and matching like it just came from the factory. Too many grown men who should know better are buying these rifles now and f--king them up in the name of so called "restoration" which is a very misused term. I appreciate the history of each individual rifle as is. If you want to restore one, buy a butchered beater that needs it. I'll put my helmet on now! lol!!
I know exactly what you are saying. I mostly collect k98 all matching correct rifles and leave them as is. what sold me on this rifle was all matching numbers even on the mag and no import mark. If I ever change the parts I will hold on to the ones that were on it to preserve its history.
having said that I think all the "mismatched" were stamped rather than milled.
is it common to have an Enfield not to have an import mark? or the england stamp on it?
"Screw, guard, trigger, back" is the big name for the little screw.
The main reason they get "scruffy" is that people try to remove them before removing the big one at the other end (Screw, guard, trigger, front...oddly enough).
The tension on the front screw causes the "rear" screw to be loaded in "shear" mode and that's why they are a problem to remove in the wrong sequence.
Thread should be 4BA, as opposed to the No1 Mk3 etc type which is 0.144" x 37TPI, Enfield form thread.
Savage bands were all milled. The front sight guard was a stamping and they were easily bent compared to the milled one. That's probably why yours was replaced. The original Savage lower swivel band has a squarer rather than round contour than the one on yours which may well have a little LB on it if you look real close. The front band looks like a big heavy milled Savage mfg one. You can't wear those out except by installing it incorrectly and ruining the screw thread. If the rifle was imported prior to 1968, no import marks were required. The England stamp was a country of origin stamp. Some pre '68 imports have it and some don't.
Those grooved upper hand guards get me every time! Beauty rifle, thanks for sharing.