all matching numbers including the clip but confused about the dte.
I thought that 55 was the last year. Gun is in excellent shape.
Printable View
all matching numbers including the clip but confused about the dte.
I thought that 55 was the last year. Gun is in excellent shape.
F is Fazakerley factory, FTR is Factory Thorough Repair, so it was "refurbished" or what have you in 1956 at Fazakerley, not uncommon.Quote:
Originally Posted by threehundredthree
never seen a matching clip before.
Enfields don't have clips.:banghead:
yes they do. I have 60 of them loaded with ammo in bandoleers but none of mine are matchingQuote:
Originally Posted by Bindi2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr E
I just posted a pic of the clip with the same numbers as the stock
They are trying to get you to say "magazine" which is the correct term.Quote:
Originally Posted by threehundredthree
You pictured a matching magazine. A "clip", or charger in proper English, is a little sheet-metal device used to load 5 cartridges into the magazine rapidly.
They are chargers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr E
Gee Whiz?
anyway it does have matching numbers and it still is in great shape.
thanks for all the input.
I know if I ever go to sell it some one would ask what the FTR stood for.
Faster Than A Rocket! thought I would just add that as a general distraction:madsmile:
A clip is loaded en-bloc, 'goes inside' the action and functions as part of the rifle (Ala Garand) and is ejected when empty.
A Charger holds the rounds in place whilst they are manually 'stripped' out of the charger - the charger then falls away externally to the rifle.
A magazine holds the rounds in place ready for the rifle bolt to pick up and chamber.
Its an Enfield forum - lets use the correct terminology so there is no confusion.
And since you asked, I believe 1957 was the last year of production, or at least assembly, at ROF(F)
When comes the time to "pass it on" and you are quizzed about that marking, you could reply that it was a "special" armourer's mark meaning:
"F....in' Terrific Rifle"
Or, tell them the truth.....
AdeE is dead right in thread 12. It's sooooo confusing when things are being discussed and answered when the question and therefore the answer is miscinstrued and then MIS answered because the wrong terminology is used. It's even worse when you ask '......exactly what part you are referring to is sticking or fouling etc.?' and you get some cleverarse '....ain't it obvious' sort of answer
Guess it gets confusing for some of those with less exposure to others I have always known them as stripper clips for the 303 and well a magazine is a magazine - if this be the case then what of the Carcano system I have never studied the action but I think the clip comes out the bottom of the mag when empty can it then be called an en-bloc system! TIA
Converted to no4 mk2.hung trigger
I stand corrected.
The correct word is magazine according to a Lee Enfield parts catalog.
thankyou for all the input and I don't think I will ever sell it but my son might after I have gone to the great hunting ground.
I bought it years ago along with a 30/40 Krag which I sold about 20 yrs ago.
Threehundredthree.
The rifle is a very nice one and interesting as well. It's a wartime Savage converted to Mk.2 during FTR in 1956. That has to be a very late conversion date for a No.4Mk.1/2. It even appears to sport it's original Savage Mk.1 rear sight as the battle apertures are very distinct looking.
Very good points, Brian. Could it have been converted to a Mk 1/2 first and then later go through a complete FTR?? Chicken or the egg!Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
Your 1956 "Factory Thorough Repair" is very nice, added to the fact that it is a harder to find conversion of a 1942 Savage Mk I. All matching examples are around but do command a bit of a premium over those with a mis-matched mag. Conversions at Fazakerly ended in 1958. You could always sell it to me and not worry about describing what FTR is......:D
And then it becomes more interesting when you consider Mr. Garand's baby, and the inspiration for its "cartridge handling system", the Pederson.
DOUBLE row, en-bloc "clip" that ejected rather musically out through the TOP of the action rather than fall through a dirt-gathering hole in the bottom.
The Garand: the original "Boogie-Wooge Bugle":- "eight to the bar".
Quote:
Originally Posted by threehundredthree
by the way.. welcome to the forum.
mostly a good bunch of blokes here who are more than willing to answer your questions and help you gain enfield knowledge.
Good point Paul. I'm leaning towards that is the conversion date but could be wrong. I've had a few through here over the years marked as it and Lance's. They were excellent shape and I couldn't find any remnants of previous ROF(F) conversion markings. Like you said "chicken or egg"!
Looks in very nice condition. How much did it cost?
I think I got a good deal when I bought it along with a ruger 10/22 and a Ruger mini 14 .223.
I have the receipt somewhere. I don't even know what it is worth-some are way high and some are reasonable.
I don't even think if I was offered a good price that I would sell it.
I always liked the lee enfield, a lot of history.
threehundredthree
That is a beautiful rifle and I would be most interested in it if you decide to sell !!
I have a distant cousin to your rifle. They may have even been in the same room together at some point :)
Attachment 60811
OK I will keep you in mind.
??Jersey is tough on guns.
Nice guns. Fazakerley must have had a penchant for some of the late model Savage-Stevens Enfields.
Cadet Enfield with the Mysterious Red "X"
Ironically, I own one of the family -- a brother Savage produced March 1944 and FTR'd in 1956. Matching Receiver & Mag, but during the FTR it got another Savage bolt.
What makes this one particularly interesting (to me) is that it retains the label from the days when it was a training rifle for the Combined Cadet Force. I'll bet there are a few stories about training cadets associated with this gun. And on the other side of the butt is the import label from Interarms (c 1989 -- something that was undoubtedly on all their guns, but most were peeled off by the first owner).
Also, the muzzle has a "Mysterious Red X." Does anyone know what this means or how it got there?
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ncextjpg-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...fbddvsjp-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...zpstwfpl-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...emh3x7lj-1.jpg
Thanks for any additional info you can add.
If memory serves, the red paint denotes that the bolt hasn't been proofed. I had an L42 here that had a red splotch of paint on the barrel and sure enough, the bolt was an in service replacement, numbered to match but didn't sport the 19T proof mark. Maybe Captain Laidler can elaborate at some point.
A red band at the muzzle usually meany Z-UF as Z= Base workshop repair only and UF= Unfit to Fire. Many reasons for this, the common one in the 80's/90's was severe barrel crazing that was borescoped and examined by an experienced examiner. It was then condemned as Z-BER, barrel replaced or certified as fit to fire.
Seaspriter, that's the school my sons went to: Merchant Taylors, Sandy Lodge etc.
Both were in the CCF, but they only shoot .22s these days.
The school fees nearly killed me but that's another story...
Thanks Rob. I'm a historical writer as well as a collector of Enfields (and lots of other things historic). If you have any stories, insights, anecdotes, observations, etc. you could share, please expound. I'm thinking of writing a short historic novelette about the Enfields in my collection, attaching real personalities (even if fictional but based on fact) to each of the Enfields as they evolved over time. Thus my Savage No.4 Mk1/3 starts in Britain as a design which is then taken to America, becomes a Lend-Lease gun, fights in battle, is FTR'd, then brought to your son's school, then sold back to America thorough an importer ......... each of these stages of evolution has a story. Multiply this story for each of the production facilities and across WWI, WWII, and the Korean War, as well as Middle Eastern and Malaysian conflicts and you can see the kaleidoscope of stories that are possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobD
(If you'd feel more comfortable using a PM, please do).
Anyone else with stories about the CCF, please chime in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
Thank you Brian and Peter for helping demystify the "Mysterious Red X."Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
I did sleuth the entire gun for any stampings that would have been placed on the gun after the Red X was painted on -- and found nothing other than standard marks (i.e. no Z or DP stamps). Most people who would own a gun like this would remove the Red X for aesthetic reasons (I won't -- it's an integral part of the "story"). My visual examination of the barrel shows 5 grooves bright and clean -- but I didn't do a microscopic examination for crazing (beyond my capacity).
Question: If other guns have been so designated but lost their Red X and have been put into the public's hands, is there any danger of firing these weapons?
(Recall the recent thread of the Saga of Old Joe who bought the DP'd No1MkIII-- different conditions with the hole drilled in the barrel, but nevertheless....caution!)
IOW, does the Red X mean:
1) the gun is unsafe and should be DP'd or
2) that it falls into that "grey area"s where its not suited for strenuous warfare conditions but where it may be shot occasionally for target range purposes or
3) that the gun has not been tested/examined carefully and proofed to British Quality Standards, which means it has unknown factors/conditions?
In every respect the gun looks A-1, but as we know, looks can be deceiving (an oft-ill-fated lesson).
Q1. When the red band is there it indicates Z-UF. That is UNFIT to fire. We say do not shoot it until it's been borescoped and examined. That is only ONE of the possibilities
2. There are no grey areas or Sub Standard now. The rifle is serviceable or it ain't. If it ain't, there is a separate category entirely and that is downgrtaded for training and as such, these are classified as DP and CANNOT be fired. We have vehicles earmarked like this too. Used for recovery and training tasks etc etc
3.; After examination it'll be scrapped, repaired or sent back as serviceable without the red indicator. I would say that yours was sent back for certification/examination and only made it back to Ordnance where it stayed and was then disposed of. After 1987-ish No4 rifles that were sentenced Z were not GENERALLY replaced unless a replacement was requested, because the new Cadet GP rifle was sort of imminent (they had to wait a few more years I hasten to add.....) so money was not spent on replacing No4's from Ordnance stocks