Need help to identify an Enfield No4 MKI

Hi. In the first place, sorry for my bad English.

Secondly,
Im looking to buy an Enfield model N04 MK1 as I fell in love with this firearm and this particular model. In my search for a weapon that is still in great shape, I came across one that let me perplex.
The owner claim that the weapon was made by Maltby and has all the original pieces, but the marking is quite strange. The link below lead to the ad in question and has a picture of the marking.

The link is safe, no worries to have.

Lee Enfield No4Mk1 Match Number Usagé Ã* vendre Ã* Saguenay (Chicoutimi) - LesPac.com Sport Saguenay (Chicoutimi)

What I find quite odd is the serial number starting with a ''G''. As I have read this mean this weapon has probably some manufacture errors or has exceed the 9999 serial.
There is no Maltby brand ''M'' but a B instead and the year seems to be 1940 or 49.

I find that the price is good for here in Canada and the condition but I don,t want to be tricked in buying a false Enfield or a MKIII hidden has a MKI.
So I came here to have some advices by people with more knowledges than me as for why I ask you what do you think ?

There is no pictures of the upper markings too, just a serial number : G1446 and a big B.
So, should I buy it or pass turn and wait for the next one?

Your link doesn't seem to work, on my computer at least. Are you able to get hold of more photographs, please, because the one posted doesn't give people much to go on. I think that it has been refinished as I understood the correct finish, for a U.K. produced No4, is painted. I was under the impression that the "B" would normally indicate BSA manufacture but I stand to be corrected by others with more knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

Your link doesn't seem to work, on my computer at least.

---

Try this one, maybe it will work better...

Lee Enfield No4Mk1 Match Number Usagé Ã* vendre Ã* Saguenay (Chicoutimi) - LesPac.com Sport Saguenay (Chicoutimi)

Thanks Jim, unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work any better. It maybe something to do with my computer/internet provider/server; it has been a bit "temperamental" the last few days.

The link does not work with me either so Flying10uk it's not your computer/ISP that's at fault

Looks like an early BSA. My guess is on the date is 1942.

Link works on mine pretty nice looking piece of kit ungrooved top H/guards info from the seller says it is a Maltby

It's just an early production BSA made No4 Mk1 body. Nobody really knows what the rest is, such as the barrel, bolt, wood etc etc is. VERY probably been around the block a few times and rebuilt a few times too

It was imported into the United States prior to 1968. The stamp 'England' is the then required mark of country of origin for import to the USA. Back then many rifles were stamped with the country of origin in the wood of the small of the stock. :rolleyes:

How much is that in U.S. dollars? I bought a No4 Mk1 a few months ago. Needed and ejector spring and a good cleaning along with a new coat of boiled linseed oil. Came up really well. Best 250.00 I ever spent

Dampherb,

The large "B" stamped into the root of the bolt handle, as in your photo:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...12872566-1.jpg

---is a BSA maker's mark from their early production of the No 4 rifle.
So, that and the matching serial number indicate you've got the rifle's original bolt.
-----krinko

Did they use bolts with the hollow bolt knob on No.4 rifles when originally made or just the No.5? Just a question so I'll know what I'm looking at when I come across something I might be interested in. I figure they probably used either one on a rebuild.

The bolts were all interchangeable in theory and in world wide practice. It made absolutely no difference to Armourers. Indeed, later the supposedly different parts, such as lightweight trigger guards and sears all morphed into a unified single number.

Thanks, I just wasn't sure if they made the hollow ones before they designed the No.5 rifle.

So its probably have been rebuilt from unknown parts and made by BSA even though the owner claim its an original Maltby.

But what does the ''G'' in the serial number mean ?
Do you think its a great purchase for hunting and fun shooting or it might be a risk considering I don't know where the other parts came from ?

And if it is a BSA rifle, why does the serial start with a 1 ?

It depends on what you are looking for as to whether or not not you should consider this rifle. If you are looking for a "highly original collectors piece" this item is probably not for you. As I've already stated as far as I'm aware all British produced No4s had a paint finish but some/all Canadian produced examples were blued. I stand to be corrected on this, as previously stated, and I'm not sure what finish U.S. Savage examples had.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dampherb

But what does the ''G'' in the serial number mean ?

---

It means this serial range comes after the series that starts with "F".

It's been cleaned up: polished buttplate and screws, no dirt around the butt socket, very crisp edges to the forend at the butt end. Probably a sporterized rifle that has been restored. The handguard edges do not appear to match the forend profile well, they also look more worn. Yes, that is sometimes seen on unaltered rifles, especially ex-Indian ones, but here it says something else, to me anyway. The finish on the metal is probably original from what I can see.

Now, when does the bad English start? ;)

"And if it is a BSA rifle, why does the serial start with a 1 ?"

BSA did not start using the regular number pattern, as in "A 35620" until sometime in 1944, or maybe later 1943. Up until then, the serial numbers ran through the single letter prefixes and into double letter prefixes. My 1941 BSA is "A2111" for instance.

"...as far as I'm aware all British produced No4s had a paint finish..."

As far as WW2 British No4 rifles are concerned, my 1941 BSA is blued, 1944 BSAs were still being blued and so were my 1943 Fazakerleys. I never got onto a Maltby that wasn't altered post war, so I don't know there.
Savage rifles were Dulite blued, just like Long Branch rifles.
-----krinko

Same with Maltbys.

My very original U.K. produced No4 MK2 (U.K. deactivated) has a painted finish and it hasn't been refinished or refurbished.

A No4 Mk2 should be painted.

Here's a 1954 Fazakerley above a 1944 BSA. The FAZ is painted, the Beezer is blued.


https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...43013302-1.jpg

-----krinko

The use of phosphate, (Parkerizing), and baked paint became the norm at some point in 1944 in British service. The Sten Mk.V being the first factory produced weapon to sport that finish if memory serves. Subsequent new production and FTR weapons received the phosphate and Suncorite "rustproofing" from that point on as it was phased into production facilities. I've seen a very few '45 BSA No.4Mk.1 rifles that were still blued so it wasn't an immediate process.

It was very definitely a phased in process during manufacture in 1944. Far better and more durable than the old controlled corrosion process of before and a zillion times better than the commercial blueing process generally continued by BSA and the other commercial manufacturers.

The old controlled corrosion or browning that Armourers used to do ceased post war when the large workshops became equipped with the 'new' phosphating facilities. The old blued No4's that were still sploshing around in the system had to be thoroughly bead blasted and cleaned prior to the hot phosphate dip as it would never take if there was a trace of the old blueing. This was highlighted in the immediate post war Armourers Instructions that dealt with the introduction of the 'new' phosphate and paint regime.

I knew old Armourers that could still do the Browning/blacking process but it was a long old job and even by the 60's some of the chemicals were highly controlled. My boss in NZ was a master at it and all of his tools were done too. Jock was one of those bosses who still rolled his sleeves up and worked on the bench!

My No4 MK1* Long Branch is blued but with a Parked mag; I'm inclined to think that the blue on this rifle is original but not certain. Did Long Branch stick to blueing No4s for all of the production or did they too switch to phosphate/paint?

Thanks Brian and Peter for your clarification and input into this topic.

Long Branch used the Dulite blue process into the 1950's when the finish was changed to phosphate at some point in the 93L serial number range. A mixture of blue and Parkerized parts is not uncommon throughout production after 1950 but the major assemblies will all be phosphate. Many wartime rifles were Parkerized during later FTR programs too so you'll find those rifles in the mix too. Canada never adopted the Suncorite paint finish.