POF No4 Mk1 sniper ?

* ** Good evening all;

* * Being a collector of mostly Mosin Nagant Snipers I have come seeking input one a recent Enfield No4 Mk1 sniper that I acquired. I bought it for a very reasonable price after being reassured the scope and mount where worth more than I paid for the whole rifle.*
What I have been able to find out so far with the help of a couple of very knowledgeable collectors is as follows;

The stock has been stripped and refinished with to markings to indicate its and original H&H stock

The rifle is marked on the butt socket ring by the POF /Pakistan Ordnance Factories

It appears to have been surplused by the British post WW2*

It is also stamped "TR" as well as "FTR" (factory through repairs)

The barrel is a Canadian Long Branch barrel dated 44/45

The rear sight is a Stevens / Savage

The scope mount is a Rose Bros. (JG) has been re-serialed to this rifle* (the old S/N being AP3754)

The scope is a* N0 32 Mk3

The front sight block appears to have the screws properly staked with no signs of ever having been reused.


There is some thought that the rifle was set up by the Pakistanis, but that is just an idea thrown around with nothing to solidly back it up.

So my question to you Ladies and Gentlemen, Has anyone ever seen one like this, and what are your thoughts on this beast.


Attachment 86587Attachment 86588Attachment 86589Attachment 86590Attachment 86591Attachment 86592Attachment 86593Attachment 86594Attachment 86595Attachment 86596Attachment 86597Attachment 86598Attachment 86599Attachment 86600Attachment 86601Attachment 86602Attachment 86603Attachment 86604Attachment 86605Attachment 86606Attachment 86607Attachment 86608Attachment 86609

I have never seen one but Milsurps Forum would be the place to ask. They have a former British armorer who knows just about everything there is to know about Enfields.

Those in the know will certainly advise you about your rifle the butt has been heavily sanded as where it meets the butt socket the wood should be proud of that, I have no idea why there would be waxed paper shimming the butt unless they did a cruddy job on fitting up and used that to take up slack.
Was there any serial No. on the section of the wrist that goes into the socket as it was often stamped there so the butt stayed with the rifle, also look under the top woods etc they also penciled No.s in there mine has the No.3 penciled in on both top woods and the bottom wood have not taken the butt off to look but it bears all the H&H stamping.

My 1944 AK & S No. is 16684 so pretty close to yours I think they started at 1500 in 1944.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

Those in the know will certainly advise you about your rifle the butt has been heavily sanded as where it meets the butt socket the wood should be proud of that, I have no idea why there would be waxed paper shimming the butt unless they did a cruddy job on fitting up and used that to take up slack.
Was there any serial No. on the section of the wrist that goes into the socket as it was often stamped there so the butt stayed with the rifle, also look under the top woods etc they also penciled No.s in there mine has the No.3 penciled in on both top woods and the bottom wood have not taken the butt off to look but it bears all the H&H stamping.

My 1944 AK & S No. is 16684 so pretty close to yours I think they started at 1500 in 1944.

---

Thanks for the reply Cinders, no numbers under the wood, couple of faint inspector stamps on the hand guard.

FULL STOP!

Your rifle is not marked POF, it is marked ROF 41 !

It is either a Maltby, but more likely one of the extremely RARE Fazakerly No4Ts!

a 1941 Maltby would usually be roll engraved as:
"ROFM No4MkI. 1941"
https://www.milsurps.com/showthread....l=1#post207102


where yours only shows the "No4MkI" and has the date on the butt socket
Deactivated Old Spec WWII British Made Lee Enfield No4 MKI Rifle - Allied Deactivated Guns - Deactivated Guns
1941 Fazakerley made Lee Enfield - Enfield-Rifles.com


Either way you have struck GOLD

It looks like it's slotted for the cut off too??

The "GF" on the scope mount indicates "Gujarat Forces"-India State forces.

They're quite unique stamps on the butt socket.
Is there a S stamp on the cut off block?

Good catch "lee enfield." ROF not POF. The serial number starting with 2 would be consistent with Fazakerley.

None of the No.4 rifles made in WWII should have had the magazine cut-off except for those made from spare receivers of the No.1 Mk.VI assembled circa 1940-1941 after the BEF lost so many weapons in France. The pre-war No.1 Mk.VI and No. 4 Mk.I Trials rifles of course were still in the system and many retained their magazine cut-offs.

Yes, it appears to be a Faz & it appears to look kosher, at least IMHO. In fact, I'd even go as far as to say it has 'the look' of a rifle set up at Enfield rather than H&H - just a feel from the appearance of the pads & their fitting (although I'm presuming there isn't an examiner's mark on the front pad, so I'm not being pedantic about it). I have seen the 'TR' with serif on Trials T's before, as well. It's obviously seen a chequered life & has lots of replacement parts, but the guts of it look correct to me.

One way to help to confirm if it is a Faz rifle would be to remove the fore end & have a look at the draws. AFAIK Faz rifles are the only ones that are asymmetrically shaped; the lightening cuts on the left draw were never made.

Thanks everyone for your valuable input. I will be getting further pics and checking on other markings on my rifle. I have been wanting for some time to collect sniper rifles other Comm.block rifles and it looks like this one will be a good addition to my collection.

What a find! Well done
Envious.

As promised I got some more pics of the scope pads, the ROF stamping on the butt socket ( amazing how it shows up with certain lighting angle). I also notice the screws on the mount scope rings are all staked also.

Attachment 86613Attachment 86614Attachment 86615Attachment 86616Attachment 86617Attachment 86618Attachment 86619Attachment 86620Attachment 86621Attachment 86622Attachment 86623

Very nice rifle. Are you going to shoot it some?

Agree with Roger on this. A few minor things missing S and Butt stock number which would explain missing out H&H for final stamps and coming straight out of the Enfield factory. Nice find:thup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tbonesmith

Are you going to shoot it some?

---

If you aren't, send it to me so I can...please?

The Enfield examiner's mark on the top of the front pad is either not there or, if present, is hidden by paint. Unless it is there, we have to assume that this rifle was converted by Holland and Holland in 1942 or later, and that it is NOT one of the 1,403 converted by RSAF Enfield.

It has been reported that it took time for the markings' system to become standardized in the UK (Canada was a different situation). This Fazakerley rifle, apparently being an early conversion, it seems to have pre-standardized markings. This of course makes it much harder to verify.

Think of it like a vintage 1942 Willys MB Car 5 Cwt (1/4 Ton Truck to Americans) ... it has a serial number but Heavens forbid, no Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) tag!

Colin, unless someone turns up any until now 'lost' documents relating to the early conversions I don't think we can say categorically either way who carried out the conversion. It may well be an early H&H from before the standardisation of the marking system, but the rear pad in particular just doesn't look 'right' to me, for an H&H conversion. Of course, it may just have been off & on a few times over the years.

Nobody has ever clarified that 1403 number either.

Valid points. It is indeed an area of uncertainty. In a case like this we need to look at all of the markings and at features such as the shapes of pads. Happily we have many experienced eyes among this forum's members, and each brings different experience to the table. So, I shall modify my statement. "There does not appear to be an Enfield examiner's mark on top of the front scope pad on this rifle. This suggests that this rifle was not one of those 1,403 rifles (apparently) converted at RSAF Enfield."

Colin,
Good points well made, and I have to agree with them.
As a past owner of a 4T, the stampings and marks that we have all been brought up to recognise as lovers of this rifle, and know that they cannot be copied "easily", age a weapon to the factory who built it, the hands that then selected it, and tested it, followed by their unique mark, for its more precise use as a sniper rifle, and the date of manufacture and place of manufacture, stamped clearly on the rifle.

We all know also that additional "unique" stamps, proved without doubt, the authenticity of the development of said rifle. It's history is alikened in some ways to a more recent competitor in Parker Hale, with the often confusing numbering and stamping that went on there in more recent times. So one has to probably accept that in war, and under considerable stress to deliver these "specialist" weapons, things were missed or poorly stamped, wherever they were produced in the Commonwealth.

IMHO I only seem to get twitchy, when I see pads that don't look right, and to be fair, they were put on originally with incredible skill, by those who knew their respective trades, and thereafter by skilled armourers who had been passed these skills on weeks of courses and magical hands.

I think in this particular case, the proof has to be in the shooting of the rifle by someone who knows the characteristics of such a beast, matched with the scope, and see where the lead lands to make a judgement call. I hope it turns out to be a good find and a piece of history that has long dissapeared. That rare breed that can only add value for the buyer if authenticated with some form of provenance!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seaforth72

The Enfield examiner's mark on the top of the front pad is either not there or, if present, is hidden by paint. Unless it is there, we have to assume that this rifle was converted by Holland and Holland in 1942 or later, and that it is NOT one of the 1,403 converted by RSAF Enfield.

---

Thanks everyone for your input on my rifle, after reading everyone's replies several times I have a question to ask;

Would there be any benefit or knowledge gained by trying to remove the paint off the top of the front scope pad to see if there is indeed an Enfield examiner's mark there ?

I don't want to do anything that might alter the way the rifle was received by me unless it would be of some help to understanding these fine rifles.

In my not so humble opinion, it's not really worth removing an original finish to look for a marking which may have been worn away or never there.

The original Enfield inspectors marking is quite faint even when not worn or obscured.

Having said that, your rifle has been upgraded, repaired and rebuilt several times, it would not reduce its value to gently remove the finish...

In my experience, too many people are overly concerned with "correcting" markings and parts components, and in many cases have added "the correct" markings and ruined previously perfect and correct rifles.

This may be a really dumb question but have the rear flats been looked at to see if it has the E6 or similar stamped there as I think H&H inspectors stamped them there both sides thing it was a chap called "Harry" think PL mentioned that name so I may be wrong.

I have one too that I have posted here and that was scrubbed and all the ID moved to the right side of the receiver ring. It has a nice MK II scope . I no longer have a photo account and have lost interest in it.

Thanks everyone, I am going to leave the finish on the front pad alone since there is little if anything to be gained. :beerchug:

Miller, congrats and welcome to the club! I knew you would eventually find one. :thup: I dont know if you have seen mine but its also an early example but made at Maltby. https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=52717

Gurn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gurn

Miller, congrats and welcome to the club! I knew you would eventually find one. :thup: I dont know if you have seen mine but its also an early example but made at Maltby. https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=52717

Gurn

---

That is a great (t) you got there Gurn, and the paperwork that came with it is just killer sir.