Was it just No4s that were assembled in Maltby?
Also, did Maltby do much fabricating, or was it just a big assembly plant?
Printable View
Was it just No4s that were assembled in Maltby?
Also, did Maltby do much fabricating, or was it just a big assembly plant?
Just a small manufactory making bodies and bolts mainly but a megga large assembly plant. There has been talk recently as to whether it actually MADE barrels or whether it got it's barrels from Accles and Pollock
Thanks Peter. A friend of mine is looking into her family history, and one of her relatives worked there for a time in the early 50s.
Mmmmmm It was the first of the wartime Ordnance small-arms factories to cease production after the war in order to get the men back into the mining industry - who they robbed for the skilled the new factory needed. I thought it had finished by the 50's. Maybe you could let us all know what she learns about ROF Maltby. Their code, according to Glen Chapelle (another lurker on this site from 'another' ROF) and old rifle labels was My with a lower case y. This was stamped on the rifles as an intertwined MY capital letter Y
My dad remembers the uproar it caused locally because mining was a reserved occupation, so it wasn't permitted to just pack it in and get a job elsewhere. A face worker down the pit was on about £6 a week at the time, but a GIRL employed at Maltby could earn about twice that.
I remember talking to the dad of the girl who's doing the research, some years ago, and him telling me that shortly after the war piles of rifle stocks appeared outside some local public buildings to be used as firewood in their boilers. Local lads used to pinch them to make cross bows out of.
If yiour friend needs help regarding ROF Maltby, I know someone who has their historical records.
I'll drop her a line Peter. Her main effort at the moment is on her nan, who worked on munitions production in Sheffield during WW1 (as did my nan), but I'm sure the Maltby info will be greatly appreciated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Peter,
My Maltby (1942) has a 2-groove barrel, not an Accles and Pollock. I see no indications of this being a replacement. Did Maltby use N. American barrels?
I'll be pulling it down shortly to give it a greasing, so will look for barrel marks then.....forgot what was under the wood when I re-did the draws.
Are you saying that Accles and Pollock were all 5 grooves?
Peter,
I am saying I Thought Accles & Pollock were all 5 groove!!
I think I may have done the "presuming" thing!
Thanks for your reply. :-)
Richard.
Had my rifle pulled down for the grease job;
No 4 Mk 1. Barrel is serial numbered as well as action. It's a 1942, and marked ser# V11529.
Question;
Barrel is also stamped BE 127. This stamp is in large letters just ahead of the knox form and goes around the barrel. Any ideas on this?
Richard.
I wouldn't mind betting that the BE-127 is the old ORDNANCE part number of the barrel, B1/BE 127 that was superceded by the later MoS type part number of B1/CR xyz A. Do you want the bad news now.......?
Peter.
I have a pal like you in Boroughbridge! LOL.
Yes, I'll take the bad news now. I'm sitting down...
Is it anything to do with me writing" V" in the serial number, when I meant "Y" Peter??
Not serial number. Will explain tomorrow.......
Actually, couldn't read my own writing!
I was right first time on serial number so scrap the "Y" post.
Is there a way to edit instead of adding a new post?
R.
Maltby made rifles were highlighted as those likely to be fitted with barrels made by the earliest form of hammering over a rifled mandrill by Accles and Pollock. These barrels had the nocks form section pressed on and pinned with two taper pins about 2" from the breech end. They were then finally machined as a whole in the usual way. The problem was that during the breeching up, the closeness of the....... blah blah blah of....... breech threads, shoulders........ the pinned reinforce section would come slightly loose and you'd see the pins and the join between the two sections of barrel..
Technical instructions were issued and as a result of several failures, these barrels were deemed to be obsolete and to be withdrawn ASAP. The trouble is that these barrels were all supposedly marked III on the breeching up flat. Alas, they might have been but as. the....... anyway.......... So unless the III mark is present and not obscured, you can't see the joint and can't see see evidence of the pins, you don't know whether it is one!d of identifying them.
Having said that, if none of the features are visible, who really cares. I have only seen a few plus the class room examples
That entire post is a fascinating bit of technical history, but outside of the service based examples, I gather this must not be a widespread issue today? Prior to just reading this I had no idea there were (potential) barrel failure issues on the Lee-Enfield platform, and given the rate that both information and mis-information spread across the internet, it must be a very uncommon occurrence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
This wouldn't be something to add to the checklist of things "Every person should inspect before buying a used Maltby produced Lee-Enfield" would it?
Peter,
Thanks for your reply.
The Accles and Pollock drawn tube barrel with a separate knox -form was tried in 1943, so unlikely to be fitted to a 1942 rifle as is the one in question.
Although they made 100,000 of these barrels, they were declared obsolete soon afterwards.
(Skennerton, P 162)
Skennerton says also that some developed a "slight amount of play", just as you suggest, but doesn't record any failures as such.
I would like to see /inspect one of these barrels, but am afraid mine isn't one of them. :-)
Sentryduty,
I don't think you will find many of these barrels today, as anything going through the workshops would have this obsolete barrel replaced. (If you found one, it might be at a premium these days!!)
Also this type of barrel did not have as bright a bore as usual barrels, so special instructions for cleaning were issued.
If looking at a 1943 or later No 4 , and the bore is dark-ish it Might be good to check for the mark 111 stamp.
Not sure, but I Thought this A&P barrel was 3-groove??? .............Peter??
Spoke to the senior Armourer at SW district earlier this morning about this. They quite often used to identify these barrels but had authority from the RSSD at the Ord Depot at Longmoor to return any such No4's back WITHO9UT the barrel. They would use these barrels for future DP programmes, retaining any perfect barrels for service use (- and my old No4T of course!)
The Tech Instruction was dated 1954 that Maltby was the principal recipient of hammered barrel production. I dare say that if it was a 'blow-up' failure, it'd be described as catastrophic. But in this case the failures were sloppy loose barrels. I have a funny feeling that this subject was aired on this(?) forum a couple of years ago.
Re your thread 19. The real mechanical experts might quote other info but the EMER states that the barrels were identified and declared obsolete in 1954 which is hardly '.....soon afterwards' in my book. As they were still coming to light in the 80's or so could mean that they weren't THAT rare even in service. But it's simple for us to cull them because we ain't paid for them!
Peter,
Thanks again.
The "made obsolete soon afterwards" is Skennerton again, as I have no clue on this myself!
I think this is similar to the way we get in trouble as soon as we say "never" or "Always". LOL.
Do you know if these A & P barrels were two or three groove?
Just found this, regarding the rifling in these A &P barrels;
Woodend, H. 1981 "British Rifles; catalogue of the Enfield Pattern Room", Published by HMSO, London. ISBN 0 11 771930 7.
The reference is on page 53 and covers two rifles in the pattern room collection (apparently now housed at the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds, along with the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield's archives).
RB271
Rifle No.4 Mk.i, .303" with Mk. iii barrel
L 44.3 in B25.2 In, W 8lb 10 oz
The Mk.iii barrel fitted to this specimen was introduced as a temporary measure in 1943. Developed by Accles & Pollock, the well known steel company, this barrel was manufactured from drawn steel tube with the nocksform made as a seperate sleeve, shrunk and pinned to the breech end. Rifling is 5 groove as for the Mk i barrel, but the interior finish of the bore is noticeably dull. This fabricated barrel was unsuccessful due mainly to moovement which often developed between the barrel tube and the breech sleeve. The rifle is marked on the left body: "No.4 Mk.I ROF(F) 7/43".
So apparently these barrels were 5 groove.
Interestingly, this barrel in the Pattern roof is fitted to a Fazakerly action.
R.