New No.4 Mk1 owner... what can you tell me about my rifle (pics)

Just acquired a No.4 Mk1 deac from a dealer here in the UK (for my father, actually). The dealer advertised the rifle as being made in 1942 at the Fazakerley factory and being all original except the bolt. Also, he stated the woodwork was beech, but later said it might be ash. On receiving the rifle, there is no date stamp. I contacted the dealer asking him how he established it was a 1942 and he said he got it from the serial number, but he hasn't responded to me asking him how he did this. So, what can you experts out there tell me from the pics I took below...


https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../9Bx2vNJ-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../m2N2pIq-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../0z3n1xB-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../svUd1Ij-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../IC9cvL0-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../c37a75D-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../Jk1f2M1-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../29Cx45o-1.jpg

It has a Canadian Army ownership mark and a mix of wartime and post war woodwork from what I can see in your pics.

It's a total mix and match with a copper plated ex DP bolt to match.

[QUOTE=ianuk1975;309819]Just acquired a No.4 Mk1 deac from a dealer here in the UK (for my father, actually). The dealer advertised the rifle as being made in 1942 at the Fazakerley factory and being all original except the bolt. Also, he stated the woodwork was beech, but later said it might be ash. On receiving the rifle, there is no date stamp. I contacted the dealer asking him how he established it was a 1942 and he said he got it from the serial number, but he hasn't responded to me asking him how he did this. So, what can you experts out there tell me from the pics I took below...


...snip
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../svUd1Ij-1.jpg
...snip
QUOTE]

Those round inspection markings indicate to me that your rifle started life as a Maltby No4MkI

As others have said, I see a mix of markings.

Thanks folks, not good news then.

Here's the original ad from which I purchased the gun (4th rifle down)...

http://www.real-gun.com/lee-enfield.html

If I'm to complain to the dealer, I need specifics. It would be much appreciated if you guys could point out specific markings that indicate the gun is not as described. Also, is there any way the dealer could claim the gun was manufactured in 1942 as he claimed?

As per the OP's original question, and as per Ian D. Skennerton,-

"No.4 and No.5 rifle serial numbers can readily identify manufacturers. British No.4 rifles have five numbers, usually after one or two letter prefixes. The same letter prefix(es) were used by Maltby, Fazakerley & BSA Shirley, A to Z then AA, AB to AZ, then BA to BZ, CA to CZ &c. Maltby rifle serial numbers commence with a number '1', Fazakerley with a '2' and Shirley with a '3', e.g. 1xxxx for Maltby, 2xxxx for Fazakerley and for Shirley, 3xxxx, after the letter prefix. Late Shirley numbers then supposedly ran A4000 to A7999 and with PS prefixes at the very end of production. Post-war Fazakerley No.4 rifles had PF letter prefixes."

So going by your your rifle's serial number it was made by Fazakerley and 1942 sounds about right. The rifle was then at some point put through a post war rebuild which explains the Suncote finish and as was common, the use of serviceable mixed parts from stock to complete the rebuild without thought of making it all matching for later civilian collectors of these rifles, just like Garands were.

It also saw service as was previously noted with the Canadian military. It should be a good collector piece and I would not be too worried about the mix of parts as it shows that it had a useful life which is why it required a rebuild and also most certain war use.

As Lee Enfield says, the circular markings are Maltby although I have seen similar marks on Maltby refurb of a BSA rifle. Maybe some additional photos of any marks on the back action flats or barrel (under the woodwork) might help with a definitive origin.

Ridolpho

The serial number is a new one in my opinion, it would appear the wrist has been scrubbed and a new number added.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ianuk1975

Thanks folks, not good news then.

Here's the original ad from which I purchased the gun (4th rifle down)...

Deactivated Lee-Enfield No.4 | De-activated Guns | no.4

If I'm to complain to the dealer, I need specifics. It would be much appreciated if you guys could point out specific markings that indicate the gun is not as described. Also, is there any way the dealer could claim the gun was manufactured in 1942 as he claimed?

---

Whilst it may not be exactly what you thought it was, does it really matter, it is an assembly of an assortment of parts, but at the end of the day, it will not be fired, it is a wall-hanger, deactivated facsimile of a No4 rifle.

Unless you are an Enfiled 'anorak' you wouldn't know it wasn't 'all correct'

You could buy another de-act tommorrow and you will not get anything any better - generally if a rifle is good quality, or a rare, model or collectable for any reason it will be sold as a 'live' firearm. Second or 3rd quality rifles that would otherwise be scrapped go for De-acts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

Whilst it may not be exactly what you thought it was, does it really matter, it is an assembly of an assortment of parts, but at the end of the day, it will not be fired, it is a wall-hanger, deactivated facsimile of a No4 rifle.

Unless you are an Enfiled 'anorak' you wouldn't know it wasn't 'all correct'

You could buy another de-act tommorrow and you will not get anything any better - generally if a rifle is good quality, or a rare, model or collectable for any reason it will be sold as a 'live' firearm. Second or 3rd quality rifles that would otherwise be scrapped go for De-acts

---

Very wise post!

I wasn't aware that the circular stamp is a Maltby mark, but the "No.4. Mk.I." stamp certainly is and seems to be what they went to after dropping the "R.O.F.M. 1941...." mark; also stamped rather than hand engraved (often hand-bodged) as became standard later on. That puts the rifle in 1942 or thereabouts I would guess. It looks like the butt socket has been ground smooth and restamped and the bare metal around the "DA 96 - crossed swords" mark is odd as Canada doesn't use Suncorite or similar and never has AFAIK.

You don't see many C Broad Arrow marked No4s over here.

As above, if it's a deact, I'm glad it's not a rare original.

It has possibly changed ownership from Canada to UK and or others or vice versa as have many Lee Enfields over the course of their time in service. I have seen Canadian Longbranch, American Savage, Australian Lithgow and Indian Ishaphore Lee Enfield's finished in Suncote or Black stoving paint over the years, does that mean anything, not really, those rifles may have been passed through different ownership during the years. I know for a fact that the Australian Military used a version of Suncote post war so why would Canada not as well. It also could have started out as a Faz made rifle with a worn out receiver and when it was rebuilt they used a serviceable Maltby receiver from a scraped Maltby rifle. I know that when I spent time in the Base workshops we never just made up serial numbers as they were accountable so I find it strange that they would give a Faz serial number to a Maltby rifle, but who really knows or cares, it is just a dewalt rifle now which is only good to look at and hold.

Suncorite 259 was the standard baking paint used in British weapons production or FTR from sometime in 1944 onward unill just a few years ago when it finally became obsolete in MoD service.

Is that the deact proof on the left side of the butt socket?

One of the well known gunsmiths who deacts weapons for a living in Essex is visiting at the end of October. I'm going to put him to work removing the front halves of cut SMLE receivers from almost 400 DP SMLE barrels I have here awaiting export to be built into Deact rifles in the UK! I've already done 80 of them. We're trying to make the shipping as painless as possible by removing the dead weight but it's a lot of work. There is no surface shipping anymore and airfreight is horrendous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by owengun

It has possibly changed ownership from Canada to UK and or others or vice versa as have many Lee Enfields over the course of their time in service. I have seen Canadian Longbranch, American Savage, Australian Lithgow and Indian Ishaphore Lee Enfield's finished in Suncote or Black stoving paint over the years, does that mean anything, not really, those rifles may have been passed through different ownership during the years. I know for a fact that the Australian Military used a version of Suncote post war so why would Canada not as well. It also could have started out as a Faz made rifle with a worn out receiver and when it was rebuilt they used a serviceable Maltby receiver from a scraped Maltby rifle. I know that when I spent time in the Base workshops we never just made up serial numbers as they were accountable so I find it strange that they would give a Faz serial number to a Maltby rifle, but who really knows or cares, it is just a dewalt rifle now which is only good to look at and hold.

---

No Suncorite or black paint used in Canada to the best of my knowledge, ever. Parco Lubrite 2 was the "parkerizing" finish used at Long Branch I was told by someone who should have known, and having used it I would agree. You can still buy it; owned by Henkel now who also own Suncorite funnily enough. (German company BTW) The Parco Lubrite 2, or something very similar to it, seems to have come into use around 1944. The earlier rifles used some other recipe that resembles more the finish used at Enfield: smoother and and more bluish in colour. I assume it was decided by our people that hand painting was too labour-intensive and that a good phosphate coating was more than adequate. If the solution is properly controlled the crystalline deposit is close-grained and dense and holds oil or paint very well and is very wear resistant. I've seen No4s with very thin and patchy phosphating, but not Long Branches.

Canada settled on the Long Branch No4 MkI* as standard after WWII and from what we know, UK built rifles were either returned or disposed of. Even Long Branch Mk.I rifles were rebuilt as Mk.I*s with new receivers according to a source who was personally involved.

So that rifle was presumably in WWII Canadian service, but why the butt socket was linished is anyone's guess. Odd that the DA 96 mark appears so freshly struck and that over the bare metal left by the linishing..

The bluing used on Long Branch and Savage No.4 rifles and TSMG's during WWII was Dulite. It's no where near as durable as Parkerizing which incidentally, was designed for and used by the U.S. Navy as a pre paint prep finish starting in 1918.

Brian..... I used to export new and used MGB and GT parts to Australia/Tasmania during the 80's/90's as a bit of a lucrative hobby to a pal from my days in the Army there. I used to deal with a freight forwarding agency locally and tell them what I had, rough size/estimate/quantity - you know the sort of thing. They would call me back and say that they or their connected companies had a container going in 3 weeks, would I like pro-rata space. The deals I/we got were tremendous in a shared container. The BEST deals were with heavy medical equipment going from the big electromed places locally. The drawback is that you can't have it by yesterday of course - but what the heck......

Talking of which, I have some MGR-V8 parts waiting 'the call' as we speak. When I said 'lucrative hobby', change that to read VERY lucrative hobby!

Maybe this is an avenue the exporters could look at especially bearing in mind that in the ghreat scheme of things, weapons and parts such as barrels are very small but xxxxxxx heavy. That's where the costs come from!

I appreciate that Peter. The brick wall I'm hitting is because all of the items I ship are controlled/licensable and the shippers simply don't want to deal with them. Things go from bad to worse at the mention of "firearm" or even firearm parts. Even the shipment of DP SMLE barrels which are basically only good as rebar concrete reinforcing to me, have to be licensed on a DDTC DSP-5 export license before they can be shipped legally out of the USA. I guess the deact business is very lucrative in the UK and business is business. I'd much rather see deacts being produced using up barrels that are no good for anything else. It hurts to see new woodwork and other nos parts being used for wall hangers but that's how it is.

Mmmmmmm Would it make any difference at this end of they were partially chopped at the breech? More time, cost though. Theres's no easy way though.

Now back to my MGR-V8 panels for Oz......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

Is that the deact proof on the left side of the butt socket?

---

That's correct Brian, going from memory think its the Birmingham proof, the London proof is just one curved sword (Scimitar I think)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigduke6

That's correct Brian, going from memory think its the Birmingham proof, the London proof is just one curved sword (Scimitar I think)

---

You are thinking of the "Seax" (ancient Anglo Saxon term for the sword, and from where the name 'Saxon' comes from)

The proof mark is actually an 'armoured arm holding a Seax', and yes - it is one of the London Proof House markings.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...1c5f43f6-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

The bluing used on Long Branch and Savage No.4 rifles and TSMG's during WWII was Dulite. It's no where near as durable as Parkerizing which incidentally, was designed for and used by the U.S. Navy as a pre paint prep finish starting in 1918.

---

Interesting, do you know when parkerizing was introduced here Brian? Well under way by 1949 would you agree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

You are thinking of the "Seax" (ancient Anglo Saxon term for the sword, and from where the name 'Saxon' comes from)

The proof mark is actually an 'armoured arm holding a Seax', and yes - it is one of the London Proof House markings.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...1c5f43f6-1.jpg

---

The above is proof and Nitro proof marks Alan, not Deact proof marks.

Seeing as we are on my pet subject, that is NOT a Proof mark. It was indeed applied by the Birmingham Proof House but that does not make it a Proof mark.

It is "a mark which has been approved by the Secretary of State" denoting "that a firearm has been rendered incapable of discharging any shot, bullet or other missile, and has consequently ceased to be a firearm". [1997 Firearms (Amendment) Act] That is not Proof which is reserved for the sale of live firearms. (Gun Barrels Proof Act(s).

I'm guessing that Parkerizing was introduced in certain Canadian production in 1943-44. Inglis Parked Brens and BHP pistols starting about that time. Long Branch Stens were Parked too at that time, maybe even a bit earlier. LB No.4 rifles were Parkerized as the standard factory finish at some point in 1950 in the 93L serial range. You'll still see a mixture of blued small parts on them. I've seen many CAL/LB FTR rifles and would guess that they were Parkerized during rebuild up through the 1960's and possibly later. One of my own favorites is a 1942 with a Canadian ownership mark present. It sports the lovely manganese Park finish that Long Branch and Inglis were famous for.