Fultons No4 MK1/2

I am not a massive fan of making a post sheerly since I got a new Enfield, but this is one fills a few empty spots in my collection.

At first this rifle and a Savage MKI* stood out at a gunshop to me, having both been fitted with Central No4 rear apertures (This Maltby also having Central front sights fitted). This Maltby had me much more excited as it was a MK1/2, something I have wanted for a while, and a brit made No4 (My only other No4 is a Long Branch). This one is much more marked up than the LB and I understand that is likely since the Maltby's were peddled-scheme rifles.

Its a Maltby made Mk1 which saw an FTR and conversion to MK2 in 1950 at Fazakerley, at which point I believe certain parts such as the sear (Marked 'F49'), magazine, and wood-work were all replaced (The bolt matches the action, and the magazine matches too. Its serial being electro-pencilled and 'F49' on it suggests it was replaced during this FTR). The wood looks like the pale beech I see on a lot of MK2's. I also noted an 'ENGLAND' stamp on the RHS of the reciever ring, which from what I understand means export from the UK before the 60's?

Attachment 97852Attachment 97856

On top of this there is also a 'REGULATED BY FULTON' stamped square on top of the reciever ring, which caught my eye. I had a look at the muzzle end and the barrel was well and truly floated, which honestly made me hesitate since I have seen so many bodgy 'target' jobs done on SMLE's around here with floated barrels.

Attachment 97853

This one I also found had a commercial barrel without bayonet lugs as compared to a standard military barrel. Turned out to be a Sportco "LE303/4T", the 'T' I suspect means this is a No4 (T) rifle :madsmile: ... Probably just means target. Either way it has awesome rifling a tight muzzle and neat crown.

Attachment 97854Attachment 97855

So I obviously bought the rifle.

Now are the pictures of everything which to me seem like Fulton's modifications. First is the fitting of the action to the fore-end:

Attachment 97857

Next is what I assume is Oak, or some other hardwood, blocks as replacement for the draws. This area is a little confusing as there are dowels on the each side of the action inline with the draws but these dowels do not show on the inside. There is also what looks like part of a bolt behind the draws, but it does not show on the outside; almost like magic. Also looks like this rear area has been raised with this same hardwood to bear on the rear of the action better.

Attachment 97858

On the underside of the fore-end is also a large dovetail cut into the Main screw bearing area (Milled out) and a suitably dovetailed hardwood block fitted into it. Additionally there is a flat piece of steel fitted to the underside of the trigger guard at the front to bear on this hardwood block harder I assume?

Attachment 97859

Then there is the relieved fore-end and handguard which have then been packed behind the mid-band and floated forward. The bearing in the fore-end for the knox form has also been filled and fitted.

Attachment 97860Attachment 97861

Honestly these are all modifications I have heard of, but I have never seen them done so well. All the bearings and bedding look even and tight. Only thing which looks out of place is that dovetail in the main screw which looks on the generous side of 'tight', but hey if it is still in there good... AND, its been varnished. I hate varnish, and unless someone tells me its a trademark of a Fulton special rifle I will be removing it ASAP.

Pretty cool rifle, and honestly one I am quite excited to take out shooting. I will be particularly excited to see if all these modifications have made it a target rifle or just made everything a bit more complicated. I am also in need of an unstoned No4 trigger as someone, after Fultons, crudely ground down the nodes on this trigger, and also stuck black tape to the top of the hand-guards.

I also noted an 'ENGLAND' stamp on the RHS of the reciever ring, which from what I understand means export from the UK before the 60's?

ROF Maltby wasn't so much of a peddled scheme, in the WW1 sense, I believe it manufactured its own Action bodies, Bolts, Bolt heads, trigger guards and barrels, but it also took component parts from the other factories to complete rifles.

The fact that the factory was up and running a year after the first builder turned up in a muddy field with a shovel on his shoulder, has always amazed me. It shows what can be done when your back is against the wall!

As I understand it, the England stamp was a Country of origin, US import requirement post 1968 I think?

The bedding mods are quite period standard for a 1960's 'go faster' Futons special.

Actually not: the packed handguard was not allowed until post 1968, when there was a general relaxation in the rules. Prior to 1968 a center bed was allowed, but handguard packing was strictly prohibited on the No 4.

Thanks for clarifying mate. The packing definitely does not have the finesse to it as the centre bedding.

If that stamp is to do with export to the US then how did it get over here? haha.

Also this varnish is coming off pretty soon.

Interesting hand done crows foot either SOOS or Acceptance near the top near the charger bridge Pic #1

The varnish is a standard Fultons finish (it's like a Shalac). I have many no4s and an smle with this finish applied. It would be a shame to remove it given that its collectability is as a Fultons regulated no4 target rifle and not as a milsurp. Here in NZ they are not uncommon but tended to be purchased by those gentleman who had a "few bob" and not the standard shooter who typically purchased No4s direct from the army or from one of the many gunsmiths who tuned them Many paid to ship their rifles back to Fultons (surface freight) at the end of each shooting season for re-barreling etc.
Fultons of Bisley were (and still are) highly regarded for their precision & craftsmanship as gunsmiths

Cinders I noticed that too, and the upside down "D" in a circle beside it. Any ideas?

Omark, the varnish is off now. It was on pretty thick and did not look like it was applied the best. Stock was dry as chips underneath it and is taking linseed like there is no tomorrow. With the extra packing in the handguard and new barrel, done post-fultons, it is not in perfect Fultons shape either. Getting that varnish off and oiling the stock can only do good for it in my eyes and that shiny orange is not as appealing as the blonde without the varnish. This rifle and that savage would have come from the same person but I wonder who they were and how long it has been since they were taken to the range or even looked after.

Ill look that up tomorrow afternoon Nijal I also noticed in pic#1 just under the ejector screw on the flat appears to be 69 its pretty faint but if you blow the pic up you can see it pretty easily.

Whoever did that engraving wants pulling through with a christmas tree..........

Cinders, you have better eyes than me I did not even see that. There are marks like that all over the action and the various parts, reminds me of my old SMLE's as compared to my Long Branch, and on the other side of the action are plenty that look to be post and pre-refinishing.

Mr Laidler, do you mean the inletting for the main screw block? It is pretty bad honestly, but if need be I could cut it out and replace it with some Iron bark wood and hand fit it.

No, Peter's referring to the engraving of the markings on the receiver side wall as applied at ROF(F) when it was FTR'ed. Look carefully at the letters. I think they had the YTS trainee doing this one on a Friday afternoon. He obviously didn't know you have to keep the engraving point moving all the time or it grinds bloody great craters in the steel.

No, I mean the poor quality of the engraved numbers and letters on the body. If one of our Armourers had turned out that sort of work, he have his ars......., er........., his bottom kicked severely

Peter did Armourers have a template for engraving you know like the Jewelers of today that use a tool like a pantograph with letters of the required sizes so they only have to trace and no free hand.

Nijal the only reference I could find on the circle with a D in it was from Skennerton's Broad Arrow = Draw Lapped Barrel (So do not know if that is correct for the No.4, probably for a MkIII besides the location is wrong as well) anyway worth a try.

Thanks anyway Cinders, its just another one to add to the every growing pile of things they did with these rifles we can't yet explain.

Peter it seems I have a special one then! Not some super neat you-beaut but special haha.

Its basically ready to shoot as soon as I get the chance, but in time I'll get another bolthead to fit up and new trigger. Someone has also ground down the extractor screw. I suppose to make it more of a single shot rifle. Looks excellent now anyway.

Nope......., sorry, the D within a circle indicates the method of manufacture of the barrel. Being threaded first to eliminate the problems of indexing the thread AFTER the other parts have been machined. Thread first and THEN machine the bayonet and foresight lugs and nocks form/breecxhing up flat. This prevented a LOT of waste

P{ersonally I don't think that is a D within a circle on your rifle. The mark is usually on the barrel as an indicator

It's difficult to be sure from photo's but I'd agree about the D/circle. I think it might even be a ground off spot weld where the charger bridge insert has been 'tacked in' with weld to stop it from coming loose.
It seems to have been a common practice at times of refurbishment as you see it a lot on rifles that have been 'through the system' post war, including L42's.

I think RP has it right it now fits the pic, Roger gets the cheese, Peter gets the wrapper......!

Well there you go, that is quite interesting. Was it common practice to replace your worn charger bridges in refurbishments and so on?

Even so, thank you very much for the insight as this is somewhat outside of my usual scope of old SMLE's. I'll make some loads and run some shots through it sooner or later. Merry Christmas.

I don't know if it was standard practice at FTR or whether it was just done in cases of perceived need, although it seems to be quite a common finding. Peter or one of the other ex-armourers might be able to give us more info here.

It was done on an 'as needed' basis at Base workshops and as standard practice at FTR. If the bridge was missing the rifle was chopped.