Enfield 1983 dated rifle??

Morning all,

On my morning trundle across the internet I came a cross this L1A1 deactivated wall hanger, on the face of it, an average Enfield manufactured example, with typical 1970's/1980's mods, Nylon furniture and three slot flash eliminator.

So far so good....then I noticed the serial number, UE83!!!! This is entirely new to me and places this rifle in a production lot at least 15 years after the end of British production, I always assumed ended in 1966, certainly never seen a rifle dated after that point....

In fact by 1983, most of the L1A1 plant was with Parker Hale and they were manufacturing replacement barrels etc.

It has me quite stumped, I have dealt with many L1A1's and researched the type quite thoroughly, this is new to me, any ideas guys??

An un-issued reserve receiver rebuild perhaps, its clearly factory stamped??

http://www.csmilitaria.co.uk/viewphoto.php?x=3

The body was never made as a spare part per-se as this was what we called the 'master component'. This part was in fact 'the rifle' and was never available via Ordnance. So that puts that theory out. 1983 just seems impossible to me. At that time we could have just purchased directly from Australia. We regularly used to see Lithgow L1A1's dated '73 and 74 and those that we'd inherited from SEATO/pooled stockpiles in the Far East.

I wonder what the actual serial number part was?

Maybe Kev the Kiwi can come up with some explanation as by '83 we already knew that the L1A1 was due for the chop

Hmmm, just looked more carefully at the serial number picture, you can clearly see machining marks below the serial number, that indicates a Lithgow to me, Enfield and BSA made rifles are better finished cosmetically, with these markings smoothed off (not starting a Antipodean quality argument here guys), its just these markings are always evident on Lithgows I have seen and they are not typically present on UK manufacture rifles.

The mystery deepens, don't know what it is about that rifle, but it just doesn't look quite right to me, just cant put my finger on it.

I wonder if its a civilian US made 922r compliant receiver, (minus Auto sear) L1A1, that somehow arrived over here and was deactivated, these have faux UK military type serials applied sometimes ??

Got me stumped.

All US 922r compliant components - even the small bits, are clearly marked "MADE IN USA". They do not have faux markings, and are usually stamped with something to the effect of "922r COMPLIANT" as well as a maker's indentity.

The more I think about it, the more it don't sound right to me either! Did Enfield make civillian compliant/less auto sear L1A1's as you suggest in para 3? If I was a betting man, I'd venture to suggest that someone was cooking the books there.............

Im not 'Happy' with the engraving on this one either!..............Check it against a REAL L1A1!.....................;)

Just MY, thought's about this particular 'Rifle'.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul S.

All US 922r compliant components - even the small bits, are clearly marked "MADE IN USA". They do not have faux markings, and are usually stamped with something to the effect of "922r COMPLIANT" as well as a maker's indentity.

---

I have seen US rifles marked up to replicate the number on the TMH before Paul (by the owner I would assume).

To be fair, you cant really see what other markings are present, something is stamped ahead of the magwell.

Easy way to tell...does it have an auto sear fitted, if it does, then its got to be Military in origin...if not then a Civvy.

I might ask the vendor to have a peek, as the carrier is welded solid he would need to pop out the pivot and see if its sear cut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tankhunter

Im not 'Happy' with the engraving on this one either!..............Check it against a REAL L1A1!.....................;)

Just MY, thought's about this particular 'Rifle'.........

---

My thought too...shouldn't those markings be filled with the finish paint from the factory, instead of looking like they were pantograph-engraved on after the paint was applied?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

Hmmm, just looked more carefully at the serial number picture, you can clearly see machining marks below the serial number, that indicates a Lithgow to me, Enfield and BSA made rifles are better finished cosmetically, with these markings smoothed off (not starting a Antipodean quality argument here guys), its just these markings are always evident on Lithgows I have seen and they are not typically present on UK manufacture rifles.

The mystery deepens, don't know what it is about that rifle, but it just doesn't look quite right to me, just cant put my finger on it.

I wonder if its a civilian US made 922r compliant receiver, (minus Auto sear) L1A1, that somehow arrived over here and was deactivated, these have faux UK military type serials applied sometimes ??

Got me stumped.

---

That receiver was manufactured by Lithgow, you can tell by the contour of the lightening cut through the magazine well and the contour following lightening cuts where the lower and upper receivers join.

Certainly the Body is Australian as Lee Enfield said.

What peeks my interest is a marking that you can't see very well and one that might answer the question as to whats going on. if you look closely there is a stamping on the left hand side just below the cocking handle on the magazine well.

I think its possible this is a replacement body, sourced from Australia and used to rebuild rifle A20xxx in 1983

I think you will find whoever did it engraved the typical British markings on the lefthand side including the original Serial number. If we can get some decent close up photos of the left and right hand sides of the Body and of the markings in front of the magazine well I might be able to give a better explanation.

The third rifle that company has for sale with the L1A2 BFA attached to it looks to be one of the 1970's rifles Lithgow sold to the UK without furniture that Peter mentioned.

Well there we go, always something new to learn:), I noticed the difference in finish, but not the different machining cuts between inch patterns. I cant say I have ever compared British and Lithgow L1A1's directly side by side, always worked on one or the other, I will grab my Lithgow, BSA and Enfield L1's.....contrast and compare, this weekend.

Are there differences between Enfield and BSA production I wonder, lets see??

What about C1's....different again?

This is an interesting rifle, did Lithgow produce spare receivers ........ if so, why would the UK bother doing this in 1983 ..... some trial perhaps???

Well, there we go, I never noticed the difference in machining cuts between the Lithgow and British rifles, only ever noticed the finishing.... Thinking on it, I have never had them out side by side, always worked on them individually.....Never too old to learn:lol:

I will fetch out my Lithgow, Enfied and BSA L1A1's this weekend and compare and contrast!

So, the C1A1, different again chaps???

Did Lithgow produce un-numbered bodies as parts ???, I do know you can find "in the white" unissued Lithgow gas blocks, so perhaps they did...

Just can't see why Enfield would bother doing this in 1983 though, unless it was as part of some sort of components compatibility trail perhaps, but in 1983, just can't see it.

All very odd...

Sorry guys....my post vanished...so I did another one...then it reappeared as if by magic:madsmile:

We didn't have spare bodies in the Ordnance system in Australia, even at our big Base workshops at Bandiana. Body worn (No1 was locking shoulder recess) then the rifle was ZF

Body's were available in Australia, but were highly restricted according to my source they had to be accounted for each week to ensure none had gone missing.

Body's were available in New Zealand as well and its not uncommon to find rifles with replaced bodies, done at New Zealand Base Workshops. There are some that even have a variation of the Serial Number e.g.
NB AD6001234

NB of course standing for New Body.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nzl1a1collector

Body's were available in Australia, but were highly restricted according to my source they had to be accounted for each week to ensure none had gone missing.

Body's were available in New Zealand as well and its not uncommon to find rifles with replaced bodies, done at New Zealand Base Workshops. There are some that even have a variation of the Serial Number e.g.
NB AD6001234

NB of course standing for New Body.

---

I have pictures of an ex-New Zealand rifle with a replaced body...the serial number is upright and centered below the ejection port (as for an early rifle), but below the forward end of the ejection port is an inverted "AD", as for a post-1971 serial. Really had me stumped for a while.

Nope......... The body was 'the rifle' or 'the classified master component' was not available as a replacement part from Ordnance stores in Australia. Rifle body damaged, then it was ZF. You don't put new uppers on a good sole and heel! Saw loads of damaged ones too. Even on active service in SVn, damaged bodies (and therefore ZF rifle) were what was called RHE'd (don't know what that stood for) but were deemed as 'classified scrap'. New rifle issued.

I was at the huge Northern Dist Ord Depot in NZ doing major Base Workshop repairs for the whole of the North. I realise that it was a long time ago, but we didn't have replacement bodies. The parts list does LIST them but a parts list is a list of parts and not a list of AVAILABLE parts.

As I always say.... I stand to be corrected. But if there is any serious dispute about this I will quuote the big guns - if you'll excuse the phrase

Peter you are right for the early days of the rifles service. The body's weren't avilable. NZ had a batch of early 1959/1960 rifles FTR at lithgow in 1971 and this seems to been the only time we got rifles done. Personally I think the cost put the defence force off from getting any more done. We had the ability at 1 Base Workshops to rebuild the rifles to D118 standards. Its common to find replaced bodys on early NZ Rifles, this is why finding an original N/|\Z marked rifle is so hard to do. The body replacement/rebuild program was going on in the late 70's and till the rifles were withdrawn. The spare bodies I have seen dste from the 70's.

Here's some pics of the rifle I mentioned earlier. If it's not a 1960 rifle with a post-1971 body, what else could it be?

(For the record, the rifle and these pics are not mine; it's owned by somebody in NZ. I downloaded the pics as references of what a real Lithgow would look like, and only later did I notice anything odd about the markings.)

[IMG]http://i1356.photobucket.com/albums/...ps442797d9.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i1356.photobucket.com/albums/...psb0191d7b.jpg[/IMG]

Armourer's Note: Hinge Pin screw incorrectly assembled!.........it SHOULD be 180 Degrees the other way!...........;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tankhunter

Armourer's Note: Hinge Pin screw incorrectly assembled!.........it SHOULD be 180 Degrees the other way!...........;)

---

Yes. And when the split portion is the long kind, you can find out real quickly why this is so, just by pulling the charging handle! SSSSCRAPE!

(My builder invariably puts 'em in wrong...first thing I do is put 'em back in right!)

Thats one of the NZ rebuilt rifles IF there are no FTR71 markings on the TMH. If the owner can supply the Steel Batch Marking from in front of the mag well we can then tell what year the body was made. It won't be 1959/1960 production. It's most likely this rifle use to have the N/|\Z marking on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nzl1a1collector

Thats one of the NZ rebuilt rifles IF there are no FTR71 markings on the TMH. If the owner can supply the Steel Batch Marking from in front of the mag well we can then tell what year the body was made. It won't be 1959/1960 production. It's most likely this rifle use to have the N/|\Z marking on it.

---

I have another picture showing the TMH...as I recall it's the original non-inverted serial with no FTR 71 markings.

Lithgow Factory FTR Marking
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...zps019f1-1.jpg

Base Workshops Rebuild
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...fe77c20b-1.jpg

I can't remember where these NB's were done, but I know someone who knew the guy that decided they would add the 'NB' to show it was a New Body.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...4109b468-1.jpg

and now the offending replacement part, direct supplied spare from Lithgow.... BODY
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...53ca930f-1.jpg

Last four pictures first. If that is the same body, then that looks suspiciously like an OLD body, refurbished. It might be my old eyes but the old marking have beeen linished clear under the new phosphate and paint

Top rifle. A previously ZF rifle number that has been reallocated at the factory. This is done and was done when a licensing agreement regarding quantities/royalties is in being. Bren bodies being a good example

Just ask yourselves this simple and very basic question.............

But first a parable about the bleedin' obvious. When your old Austin Allegro is 40 years old and done 200,000 miles, it's not just the body shell that is worn out, but the steering, brakes, suspension, moving electrical components and engine. The garage look at it , put an arm around your shoulder, sniff ruefully into a snotty handkerchief and tell you that it's shagged - and, if you have any financial or basic mathematical acumen, MUST be destined for the chop. Not just the bodyshell or chassis, but the whole car. I know about this as I totally restored a 1969 Mini Copper at VAST expense due to my lack of financial scholastic achievement. I also know about this because in my time, I have sentenced many weapons, both large and small, from old clapped revolvers to stonking great GPMG's ZF/BER. It's not because the body will have an elongated locking shoulder guide or body locking lug or ovoid axis pin hole, both of which make the body and TMH shake around like a bulldogs balls, but, just like your knackered Allegro and the knackered L1A1, the whole thing is worn out.

You COULD rebuild it with new, well......, everything - but we don't. It's bleedin obvious isn't it. And in the great scheme of national defence, doing that with a shagged £300 rifle (as was) that is diminishing in true value EVERY year is a textbook example of financial stupidity AND diminishing returns.

I could go into the FTR programmes as I know them (but first hand only relates to the GPMG......, so hold on a bit.....) but you get my drift. And ask yourselves this. If that WAS the case, why didn't they supply the REALLY expensive spare Bren bodies - or GPMG bodies. I'll tell you this. The factories weren't even allowed under the terms of the license to. I wouldn't mind betting the FN had some say in the supply of new rifle bodies outside the factory.

Then just think of the unlawfully 'made-up' rifles that could emerge if they were supplied to a workshop with access to the remainder of the parts. Tight control doesn't even enhter the equation chaps, believe me as I've been there, done that and, yep, even acquired the illicit T shirt in the past.

Nope, I have to politely say that the supply of replacement bodies outside the factory didn't exist in the environments that I was and am still fairly familiar with. I don't want to be contrary but here to tell it like it really is.

PS. The same applies to all/most of what we call Valuable and Attractive (V&A) stores such as night vision, optical etc etc

Morning all,

Well I contacted the owner of the militaria company yesterday, I pointed out it is an interesting piece worthy of further study and asked for his kind assistance. I have asked him to pass on any markings on the receiver (the one on the mag well inparticualr) and the steel batch code, these might yield some interesting answers, the batch code at least allows us to date the receiver.

I will pass on any info he provides me with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Last four pictures first. If that is the same body, then that looks suspiciously like an OLD body, refurbished. It might be my old eyes but the old marking have beeen linished clear under the new phosphate and paint

---

I see what you mean Peter, it does look like the makings have been burnished off the left wall (marked there on the early Lithgows) and a new inverted AD stamp (as per the later Lithgows) on the other side.

Perhaps a batch of early production rifles that failed inspection, used for trials etc, then stripped for reusable spares???

Just an idea.

The Body in the combined photo is of a brand new unissued Lithgow made Body. The Steel Batch Marking at the front of the magazine well indicates the Body was made in 1970. Its not a reworked old Body, the reason its missing the L1A1 desination is Australia produced both L1A1 and L2A1 rifles and the Body is the same for both.

It was expected that the Base Workshop was to stamp/engrave the correct designation onto it, but this didn't happen. They were left blank. There are tons of examples in New Zealand of the bodies being replaced on the early L1A1 rifles due to 'stretching'. The cost of a new Body in 1981 was $132 AUD.

In the UK you might of not replaced the Bodies, but in Australia and especially New Zealand we did.

Yes you're correct it would cause issues with illegal rifles being assembled, I've seen them as well as a L7A2. This is why in Australia there was a massive witch hunt at one of their supply bases over 'missing' 'unaccounted for' bodies, which in the end turned into a storm in a tea cup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nzl1a1collector

Yes you're correct it would cause issues with illegal rifles being assembled, I've seen them as well as a L7A2. This is why in Australia there was a massive witch hunt at one of their supply bases over 'missing' 'unaccounted for' bodies, which in the end turned into a storm in a tea cup.

---

Didn't that mess in Australia come to light during the 1996-97 buy-back of civilian semiautomatic arms? I seem to remember mention of a sizable number of L1A1s with bogus serial numbers (or none at all) that were turned in.

An apology to KtK:

During this thread, it veered over to the fact that new L1A1 bodies were supplied by Lithgow to New Zealand. I expressed the gravest disbelief that this could happen for several reasons. One being that the body is the 'master component' and if you supplied 'spares', then you could -and some definately WOULD - make up a rifle (or in this case, a machine gun) from spares. Scary, but true. Another reason was that the serially numbering of the master component is the method by which the £7/15/- licensing royalties per gun could be assured. (It varied a bit between EFD/LB/MA depending on agreed/forecase output).

In total disbelief that this could happen, I contacted a Senior Army Officer in NZ and while the answer didn't come from him for roundabout reasons that have to remain restricted, the answer has come from another impeccable source.......

The short answer is yes, the NZ Army Base Workshops at Trentham did replace L1A1 bodies. The early Lithgow L1A1’s had soft bodies and these were progressively replaced as the rifles passed through the workshops, from un-numbered replacement bodies supplied by Lithgow. These bodies were then pantograph renumbered to match the original number. Some bodies were also replaced if any looseness could be detected in the fit of the locking shoulder *(a practice that was often done to get a spare body to finish up to a complete rifle for personal use ‘outside the system’). Hand stamped numbers would indicate such a shonky replacement, where the officially replaced bodies were always pantographed in the original style. The odd rifle has turned with no numbers at all, particularly after the L1A1 was declared obsolete but plenty of spares were still in store. The RNZAF Workshops at Woodburn near Blenheim were fairly prolific in turning out ‘new’ privately owned L1A1’s. When a body was scrapped for destruction there was no real physical check to make sure that actually occurred, just an Amourer’s report that the body was written off. Things are much different today where all destruction is carried out under supervision.

So there it is, virtually from the horses mouth, that NZ were supplied new bodies to replace the soft original bodies. A totally alien situation to my cloistered world! Apologies Kevin......
* a common fault that would ZF a rifle until oversize locking shoulders were introduced. The oversize was of the actual shaft to take up the wear in the body and not the actual shoulder part. It was THIS that gave rise to the 'stretching bodies' myth. But once the rot had set in, even the different 'oversizes' became a palliative and not a real cure

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Top rifle. A previously ZF rifle number that has been reallocated at the factory. This is done and was done when a licensing agreement regarding quantities/royalties is in being. Bren bodies being a good example

---

How exactly would this work? Say a group of rifles comes to Lithgow for an FTR, and some fail inspection at the factory and are pronounced ZF or Z-BER...those condemned rifles' serials are then applied to new production rifles that are included with the rest of the FTR'd rifles? Is that right?

About the "Enfield 1983" rifle that started this thread, I had a thought. Hypothetical situation...an SLR is stolen and the new bearer, realizing they not only have a stolen firearm but stolen government property, obliterates not only the serial numbers, but all the obvious ID markings visible, including what's on the left side of the body. Rifle is subsequently recovered and returned to Army hands. Assuming the rifle is otherwise serviceable besides all the markings being "wiped", would the rifle be re-marked in a manner similar to what's on this mystery rifle? I vaguely remember word of a process for issuing new serial numbers in a case like this, but what about the rest of the markings?

Whatever the factory does is a matter for the individual factory but as the L1A1 and L7 guns are a 'licence build' and as such, the body is the accountable part up[on which royalties are levied, Lithgow, Enfield could simply scrap rifle AD12345 and rebuiold another rifle as 12345. And everyone is happy! At Enfield, we didn't run a FTR programme for the L1A1 rifles and a rifle, say, UB60A12345 found with a damaged beyond repair body would be certified destroyed at Ordnance. And that would be that! For a GPMG, where we DID run a full Enfield FTR prohramme, then if a GPMG UE69A12345 went in with, say, ovalised body rivet holes of cracked side plate/plates, then it was scrapped and the number never re-issued. The idea that we'd re-body was something totallt alien

You are talking about a rifle with a missing of lost number. A recovered rifle would be sent back through the full workshop system for a full ground-up rebuild. This was because you wouldn't know what'd happened to it while it was 'lost'. It might have been lost in the sea during a beach landing or during a river crossing...., you know the sort of thing. If the number was known, it'd be reinstated otherwise a new number would be allocated from the MoD security people who deal with such stuff

Strangely enough Peter, in NZ we repaired GPMG's with ovalised sideplate holes by redrilling and installing larger rivets, extending their life by a few years. That said, the old L7's have been scrapped and we have now gone to the latest FN produced MAG GPMG which seems to have solved the problem.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Strangely enough Peter, in NZ we repaired GPMG's with ovalised sideplate holes by redrilling and installing larger rivets, extending their life by a few years. That said, the old L7's have been scrapped and we have now gone to the latest FN produced MAG GPMG which seems to have solved the problem.:)

---

Unfortunately the vendor selling the "83 Enfield" hasn't contacted me back, so I guess we will never get to the bottom of this interesting rifle.

I don't think the '83 Enfield was interesting as such except as a way of cooking the books! As it's aroused a degree of interest, maybe that's why it's all gone quiet.

Re the GPMG's. We found that you could only go up one rivet size on some of the rivets. The problems arose when the ovalised rivet holes became ovalised over the next rivet size diameter. Then it was the chop!

Well I for one would love go know how this rifle "came to be", nothing to do with the current owner/dealer, I am sure he bought it in the trade that way, why would he bother, its not a high cost item and a new spec deac Enfield or Lithgow would be worth the same really.

I wonder if someone with access to a significant stock of mixed L1A1 parts is assembling them for deac display??

I don't think that's against the rules is it, providing the paper trail is correct ???

It might explain the delibarete wrong date...

Very limited market for live rifles here.

Love to see who is listed as submitting on the deac cert!