I thought that the Number 4 mk2 was being made then? 1949,must be very late made. On the bottom of the grip it's stamped F 49,she is suncorite painted. 5 groove,site marked F,magazine matching numbers,Nice rifle, very clean!
Printable View
I thought that the Number 4 mk2 was being made then? 1949,must be very late made. On the bottom of the grip it's stamped F 49,she is suncorite painted. 5 groove,site marked F,magazine matching numbers,Nice rifle, very clean!
The Mk.2 didn't start until sometime in April 1949.
I didn't think there was any new British No4 mk1 manufacturing post 1945?
Is it a wartime Faz that's been FTR'ed in 1949?
There was some new production, possibly makework to keep the workforce intact.
I drew the following figures from Ministry of Supply statistical publications.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...08/large-1.jpg
Not ftr in 1949, New made 1/49.
Well, I never knew that ... Lesson for the day, thanks guys
That's wierd. My No4 Mk1/2 is dated 10/49 and has a much earlier number than that, PF 34672. I wonder if mine was initially made around the same time as yours as a Mk1, but then converted to Mk1/2 configuration in October, with the original serial number retained?Quote:
Originally Posted by jeep
Harry, I do believe your query regarding ball burnished barrels and this thread are connected.
Parker Hale scrubbed receivers and put their own number block on, mine is an example dated 1949 with a much lower number than the year.
I'm just off out for the day but will post more about this later.
Mine 1-49 ,I have heard April 49 mk1/2 started.
Funny you should mention renumbering Mick. The serial number has been struck out on the butt socket ("X" stamped over each digit), but then the same number has been re-applied just below it. The left side of the action body has the typical Fazackerly "engraving" No4 Mk1/2 (F), 10/49 PF34672Quote:
Originally Posted by Strangely Brown
One thing I have never understood was the allocation of serial numbers to the likes of Parker-Hale for rifles which had already been allocated a serial number.
These numbers are not included in Stratton's book and I wonder if anybody on here has an example with a much later date indicating a scrubbed receiver.
circa 1951/1954
PF405813 - PF405848 FULTONS BISLEY
PF411229 - PF411264 FULTONS BISLEY
PF361160 - PF361259 PARKER HALE
PF404157 - PF404206 PARKER HALE
My own No.4 with a ball burnished barrel, so far we have identified about 4 rifles with very similar serial numbers but varying dates amongst them.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...standard-2.jpg
Perhaps it's like the army. If you try to apply logic to it, it doesn't workQuote:
Originally Posted by Strangely Brown
If I understabnd this correctly Stangely Brown, and Harry's answer, are you saying that serial numbers were duplicated by Fazakerley?
No Peter, Parker-Hale having been given a serial number block to use then scrub receivers which are already numbered and then apply the numbers of the block assigned to them.
Does this make sense?
I wouldn't even pretend to know, Peter. I'm perfectly prepared to remain mystified as to why mine's been re-stamped with exactly the same serial number as was struck out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
To be really truly honest Strangely......... and in a word...... No! I cannot imagine in a hundred years a Govt Ordnance Factory supplying a batch of unissued serial numbers to a private company so that they could linish the original numnber OFF the body - and then re-engrave a new serial number on it - so that it looks like it';s........... Nope it's what I'd call following a sharp intake of breath '.....toooooooo dodgy'. Supply new registered bodies, already numbered as the registered and accountable 'master component' that was NEVER supplied or available to Ordnance and NEVER available as a spare part, well, that's another matter but to be wide open to chicanery or dishonest practice.
Re the body 406534, to be honest, that looks like it was engraved by a first week apprentice
There were instances of duplicated numbers, one of them beinbg the V series of Bren guns and when this was picked up, it was circulated in the Information to Quartermasters briefing reports that no one ever read or took any notice of if my experience with No2 pistols and No2 revolvers is anything to go by
A few of these early dated No.4's with much later serial numbers have been recorded at Bisley competitions, the common factor being they all have ball burnished barrels and have the same (bad) style of electric pencil writing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
How does a No.4 MkII end up with a serial number as late as 406534 on a 10/49 dated rifle??
Chicanery I'd say.......... But a dealer can put whatever number he likes onto a rifle.
Look at Post 11 again, Parker Hale along with Fultons were allocated serial number blocks:Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
PF405513 - PF405712 ADMIRALTY
PF405813 - PF405848 FULTONS BISLEY
PF411229 - PF411264 FULTONS BISLEY
PF361160 - PF361259 PARKER HALE
PF404157 - PF404206 PARKER HALE
Unknown contracts
PF401496 - PF404156 2661 RIFLES
PF404207 - PF405392 1186 RIFLES
PF405413 - PF405512 100 RIFLES
PF405713 - PF405812 100 RIFLES
PF405849 - PF407448 1600 RIFLES
PF407729 - PF411228 3500 RIFLES
PF411472 - PF412789 1318 RIFLES
so #11 falls into this little lot thenQuote:
Originally Posted by Strangely Brown
:lol: Even PH employees couldn't understand the logic attributed to the serial numbers and lettering used by its own company!!!
Yes it does cinders,Quote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS
A number of them all with very close serial numbers and the same type of electric pencil writing all have Parker Hale ball burnished barrels.
My query which nobody seems to know the answer for is why they, (PH) appear to have been given serial number blocks and then use those serial numbers on already built arsenal receivers which (we assume) left Fazackerley with a serial number already in place.
Did Fultons also renumber No.4 receivers?? (I'll ask my mate next time I see him!)
Why do we assume that the action bodies supplied by Faz were already serial numbered? Could they not have been supplied un-numbered for PH, Fultons etc. to apply a number from the allocated block, once they'd built rifles on them?
Possibly Harry, hence the early date.Quote:
Originally Posted by harry mac
I think where I am at odds with this one; would ROF Fazackerley have just put a date on and no serial number?
My example in post 11 clearly shows the date and number being put on by the same hand, which incidentally all of these examples have much larger numerals.
Which I think confirms a date must have been put on a receiver before leaving the ROF. I guess we might not ever know the answer to this!
Even in the days of Yore, numbers were for counting, and thats the form we are all used to as human beings, especially when it comes to weapons of any type..................so it follows, numbers at the very least would have been there to be able to statistically record how many were produced IMHO.
Mick, I'd say it makes more sense to keep action bodies un-numbered until they are complete rifles. If you were to number them first, and part way through assembly a rifle was found to be defective, or a machining process was messed up and ruined it, you'd end up with a gap in the serial number run. If you only number them once they are complete rifles, a run of 50 sequential serial numbers equals fifty rifles. It makes accounting easier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strangely Brown