Help Identify this Number 4 Mk. 2

About 15 years ago, I had to sell an Enfield (don't even remember if it was a Mk. 1 or a No. 4 now) that my mother had gotten me (bills to pay, etc.), and I was telling number one son this year that I'd like another if I could find one that wasn't pulling a king's ransom. Before asking me, and not knowing anything about RTI's reputation, he had a "A condition" No. 4 Mk. 1 headed to the local gunstore.

I got it in, and RTI had a few things wrong. They said that the guns were WW2 surplus No 4 Mk 1s that were shipped to Ethiopia. However, I had a No 4 Mk 2 (confirmed when I pulled the trigger guard with the trigger attached). As you can see from the pictures, the gun looks like it has had most marking stripped. The "No 4 Mk 2" looks almost handmade. The one stamp I trust the most is the barrel stamp, and as the picture shows, it says "1953". Definitely not WW2 surplus.

Obviously someone reconditioned it enough to re-stamp the serial number onto the magazine. All the serial numbers still on the gun match (including the bolt). I also cleaned a ton of copper and powder out of the barrel, so it's been shot a bunch. The wood is Savage marked. I don't think it's a Khyber Pass clone; if it were I would think it'd have more marks of lower quality.

I have headspaced the bolt, and a SAAMI Field (.072) gauge won't let the bolt close. The barrel has no bulges, signs of cracking or stress, etc. The barrel looks clean and grooving is very good (the bullet throat and barrel end are both a bit deeper than I'd like, but not worn out by any stretch). I'm going to fasten it to a shooting rest and rope-fire a couple of Remington rounds to test it out before putting my head near the bolt.

I have a theory about the origin, but before I pose my uninformed ideas, I'll pose the following questions to the forum:
1> Where do you think this gun came from?
2> Is there a reason to not fire this gun, based on the pictures and evidence above, or the answer to 1 above?

(Sorry to not have pictures of the bolt, but it looks bog-standard, and the serial number matches the "font" and layout of the other serial numbers.)

Attachment 110202Attachment 110203Attachment 110204Attachment 110205Attachment 110206Attachment 110207Attachment 110208Attachment 110209Attachment 110211Attachment 110212Attachment 110213Attachment 110214Attachment 110215

This is the remains of the butt stock mark, but I need to get some tracing paper and charcoal and see if I can trace it:
Attachment 110210

It certainly has had an interesting history and appears to have parts from all the major manufacturers

The barrel was fitted in 1953 by BSA
The action looks to be a Fazakerley
It has Savage (USA) parts
And some other metal parts made by Metal Box Ltd (London)

There have been 100's of posts about these RTI rifles and the vast majority are 'not very complimentary' varying from unsafe, to major parts missing to way, way overpriced for what they are.
Yours doesn't look 'too bad'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

And some other metal parts made by Metal Box Ltd (London)

---

My late mother used to work there.

You might want to unblock the gas release hole, as seen in the first photo. Could this be an FTR to mk2 spec trigger? The side of the receiver appears to have been machined to remove markings at the front lefthand side.

It has all the looks of a post war BSA FTR. It wouldn't have been a Mk.2, but rather a Mk.1/2 or 1/3. Someone other than the arsenal put those marks on it. In photo 3, you can see the remnants of the electro penciled " F.T.R. 19...53 most likely. These are signature BSA FTR markings.

BSA FTR

Thanks for the replies. Sorry about not replying sooner, been fighting a stomach virus (fortunately NOT the beer-named virus...) for the last few days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 30Three

You might want to unblock the gas release hole, as seen in the first photo.

---

Sorry, pictures are from a week or two back, wasn't done cleaning it then. It's open now. Thanks for the warning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maxwell Smart

BSA FTR

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 30Three

Could this be an FTR to mk2 spec trigger? The side of the receiver appears to have been machined to remove markings at the front lefthand side.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpikeDD

It has all the looks of a post war BSA FTR. It wouldn't have been a Mk.2, but rather a Mk.1/2 or 1/3. Someone other than the arsenal put those marks on it. In photo 3, you can see the remnants of the electro penciled " F.T.R. 19...53 most likely. These are signature BSA FTR markings.

---

I thought I had a clear picture of the right side of the receiver, but I didn't put it in (no remains of interesting markings, basically blank). It's got the push-button bolt release, so it's not a 1/3.

Is there an easy way to identify the difference between a Mk 1/2 receiver and a Mk 2 receiver? Looking closer, picture 4 has a decent shot at the left side of the trigger pin and picture 9 has a picture of the right side of the trigger pin. As you can see, it's been re-blacked, so it's hard to tell what materials are involved. If I can do an easy test (that's not too destructive on the finish) to determine materials, I don't mind doing so.

Can we trust the serial number to be a factory number? So far, I'm only seeing 2 manufacturers who used Axxxx as a standalone range. One is the POF for their parts guns, but Axxxx appears to be a 1952 range, so that doesn't seem to fit. If Axxxx is a BSA Shirley number, then that would point to my rifle as being an early Shirley Mk.1 that was then converted (probably in 53) to a 1/2.

Still leaves how the markings got stripped (and the gun re-blacked) and how the rifle got to Ethiopia a mystery. I'm leaning towards a Pakistan -> India -> Ethiopia path myself, but did India ever strip No. 4 markings and then not come back and remark them themselves?

Can we learn anything from the "No. 4 Mk 2" label? It looks hand-lettered to me, but if it matches some other known agents' stamps, that would be interesting.

Thanks,
David

To answer directly: I can't see any reason it wouldn't be safe to shoot from what you have told and shown us.

There may be stamps on the rear face of the action that would tell us conclusively who made the receiver ("body" in British parlance.) Speaking of terminology, is "bog-standard" a phrase used down KY way; I always thought that was another British term?

I don't ever remember seeing the Mk2 designation stamped into the receiver wall like that but, maybe others here have?

I thought at first that the SN was probably changed, but I think I can see traces of two "8"s there just to the left of the stamps, so probably just a case of electro-pencilled markings being over-struck to make them more durable, as was done in service at times.

If the original SN is A1848 that suggests a very early receiver. There are some folks here who could say more about that.

The fact that it was found in good enough condition for conversion in 195_ suggests it didn't have too hard a war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Speaking of terminology, is "bog-standard" a phrase used down KY way; I always thought that was another British term?

---

I am Kentucky born and bred, but I have loved British TV shows since I was old enough to find Mystery on PBS myself. (Last of the Summer Wine is getting copied from legal Region 2 DVDs to my media server as we speak.) I accidentally catch myself using British English slang and spelling without meaning to.

Milady was also from Eastern Kentucky, they occasionally kept older English sayings going (and she was also a British TV junkie, more than I am), so might have picked it up from her too.

Back to the gun. I decided that, rather than post more pictures, I'd throw together a quick YouTube tear-down and video of every marking still on the gun. I've posted it at https://youtu.be/CVlGqR0HKe8 , and we'll see if I can embed it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVlG...ature=youtu.be

The video makes it a lot clearer that someone went to a lot of effort to clear off all the obvious armory markings. Hopefully what is left is enough to hazard a guess, at least.

I have to admit, No. 1 Son's RTI purchase has been interesting, at the very least. I still think he overpaid for the condition this gun was in (and the amount of crap (literal and figurative) I cleaned off it....), but trying to solve this mystery has been fun.

It also inspired me to order a "pigsticker", Aussie stripper clips, and WW1/WW2 surplus ammo pouches to make up a collection.

In my opinion the S.N. was changed in India. I have an Indian sniper with a S.N. replaced completely similar to this.

Tha stamp on the butt-stock (508 in the circle) identifies an Indian depot.

Do you think it was changed or just over-struck?

So the "FTR --" electro-pencilled we take to be BSA and the banged-in "No4 Mk2" Indian or Pakistani ?

Would be worth checking the fit of the butt in the socket BTW.

The OP is having trouble posting his video and has asked if I can try and post it for him - so, here goes, lets see if the link works :

Well it looks like it is working, but starts at 6 minutes - maybe you'll have to 're-wind' back to the start.

My RTI No. 4 Mk1/2, or is it a Mk 2? - YouTube

And to add to the confusion, the fore-end and band are from an Indian grenade launching rifle. Like this one.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...17f550ce-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...21b03722-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...366ac12e-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...317247ce-1.jpg
The markings have also been linished off the body and buttsocket.

Insufficient data. Photo of whole rifle, and then all numbers and markings on metal and wood possibly remaining, eg on bolt, butt, fore end, would help to answer the question. They couldn't have removed every single one hopefully, especially on the wood.

From the two photos there is only one conclusion, a grenade launching LE modernised in India.

Surpmil, thank you for your input.

I think the action is a BSA FTR'd by BSA, with the S.N. changed as it was typical of BSA FTR.

I don't know if the S.N. A1818 comes from BSA and India just kept it, or if the S.N. was replaced in India.

The rifle was certainly issued in India as can be seen from the screw, from the asterisk on the action ring and from the slots for the grenade launcher (as well as the stamp with the Indian depot).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Speaking of terminology, is "bog-standard" a phrase used down KY way; I always thought that was another British term?

---

I am Kentucky born and bred, but I watched a LOT of British shows on PBS growing up, and we still watch a lot of British TV. (I am currently loading my newly-purchased region 2 box set of ALL of Last of the Summer Wine to the media server for binging...) I catch myself using British slang unintentionally quite a bit.

Back to the gun:

Thanks everyone for the posting. As I mentioned to Alan in a PM, if I wanted to let this be a wall hanger and wanted to refinish the gun, I'd be tempted to try to etch out the markings (CSI-like). However, I don't want to ruin the finish that is still on the gun, and I'd be a bit afraid that removing more metal might weaken the body/receiver.

One thing I do want to finish pinning down: can we tell visually this is a Mk 2? If not, how can we tell without markings the difference between a Mk 1/2 and a Mk 2? This is the first Enfield I've ever seen disassembled, so I just don't know enough to tell.

There could be an England -> Pakistan -> India path for the gun, and India scrubbed the gun to clean Pakistani proof marks. I don't think a gun seller cleaned it, because they would have no incentive to remark the serial number correctly in all four spots. A forger would have wanted to add factory marks and make it look more authentic. As it is, either BSA or a different Enfield-aware armorer restamped the Mk 2 locations with the A1848 serial number intentionally and correctly.

Did BSA use Savage parts for their FTRs, or could it have picked up the furniture in India as part of an armorer swap or FTR there? The buttstock has a slightly different finish color than the front furniture, so I suspect that it picked the buttstock up as an armorer's swap or during the grenade refit in India.

I suspect that most of the history of "A1828" is going to be a mystery, but I'm OK with that. What we do know about the gun points to a remarkable 70+ year history already, and I want to make sure it can stay in serviceable condition for at least that much longer.

Aha, PBS gets the blame around here too, least for Pythonisms, but that day is done. The later stuff just doesn't ring true to me, or if it does, who wants to know?

Kentucky I thought was Scots-Irish territory, but I see on looking it was over 50% English; speaking of which you must have enjoyed "The Story of English" on PBS.

Alright "back to the gun" if we must.:D

Yes, a Mk2 is easy to spot from the cross bolt rather than the cross strap on the back of the forend.

I doubt the Pakistanis proofed anything, unless it was made at Pakistan Ordnance Factories (where all the Fazackerly machinery reportedly went)

The mixture of makers means nothing; as Peter Laidler has said many times, whatever parts met spec and fitted were used once in service.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

I doubt the Pakistanis proofed anything, unless it was made at Pakistan Ordnance Factories (where all the Fazackerly machinery reportedly went)

---

From an old post of Peter's :

"It came from BSA. They were required to retain and maintain the old No4 manufacturing capacity on a care and maintenance basis for 10 years after the last rifle production - so in 1955 it was sold on".

I suggested to David that it was 'originally' a Fazakerley and your confirmation that it is a No4 Mk2, rather than a No4 Mk1/2 it confirms its parentage.

If it is a Mk2 then it would be an early 50's rifle (but the serial number does not stack up with that date) and it must have had a very hard life to require an FTR in '53

Fazakerley
BSA (FTR in 1953)
Sold to India and scrubbed & new number during re-fit to make it a grenade rifle, eventually sold out of service
Arrived in the USA

I took A1828 apart again to confirm it's a Mk 2 (more on that next post), and I tried to use a crayon to fill in the engravings. I suspect there's too much oil on the gun for the wax crayon to stick, so I started cleaning the finish off. I don't know if it was the denatured alcohol or the scrubbing, the following marking appeared in the remains of the painted finish:

Attachment 110392

I can't tell if it's anything at all, but it vaguely looks like 4 numbers or letters. Not sure if it means anything, but I tried to enhance the photo to pull them out a little more.

If it's just marks, feel free to ignore. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davidwrankin

I took A1828 apart again to confirm it's a Mk 2 (more on that next post), and I tried to use a crayon to fill in the engravings. I suspect there's too much oil on the gun for the wax crayon to stick, so I started cleaning the finish off. I don't know if it was the denatured alcohol or the scrubbing, the following marking appeared in the remains of the painted finish:

Attachment 110392

I can't tell if it's anything at all, but it vaguely looks like 4 numbers or letters. Not sure if it means anything, but I tried to enhance the photo to pull them out a little more.

If it's just marks, feel free to ignore. :)

---

It says "FTR 195?"

I did suggest this to you and I think the missing number will be 3
BSA did their big FTR programme in 1953

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

It says "FTR 195?"

---

Sorry, should have made a circle:

Attachment 110394

There is some kind of mark in the finish in that area. It's clearer in person, but still not enough to tell anything definite. I may just be seeing things at this point...


In the same private message, you also asked me about the markings out at the muzzle. Those are the IO Inc importer marks; the only thing interesting is that the importer calls the gun a No 4 Mk 1, which it obviously is not.

To catch up on some other replies I was going to make last night, but wasn't able to hit send on before bed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Kentucky I thought was Scots-Irish territory, but I see on looking it was over 50% English; speaking of which you must have enjoyed "The Story of English" on PBS.

---

My family can trace the Rankins to the Mairns Parish in the Paisley area of Scotland back to at least 1754; my ancestor was the first born and "son natural" (a polite way of saying "out of wedlock"... oops) of Arthur and Elspah/Elizabeth Bryson (records are gone before that). It was Milady who was of general English stock (albeit lower-class English stock) from eastern Kentucky.

I need to watch The Story of English still. I personally like the analogy that each major change in English arises when English meets another new language and takes it into a back alley to beat it up for its lunch money and some favorite trinket or piece of clothing. And let's not even start trying to figure out the Great Vowel Shift....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Would be worth checking the fit of the butt in the socket BTW.

---

I'm lucky I don't have to replace the stock to shoot the gun. When the bolt is the least bit loose, the stock wobbles. When you're tightening the bolt, the stock thrashes from side to side like a drunken sailor. The fit is acceptable only when the bolt is 100% tight; the stock is straight, true, and only a small gap (paper thickness to knife blade width) remains between the receiver and the stock. I also need to acquire a bolt washer and lock washer for the buttstock bolt (and see if I can find the leather bottle protector, not sure where I put it....).

The butt is also a Short, and I need a Long. I'll look to buy a Long for shooting purposes, and put the Short in the closet for storage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

If it is a Mk2 then it would be an early 50's rifle (but the serial number does not stack up with that date) and it must have had a very hard life to require an FTR in '53

Fazakerley
BSA (FTR in 1953)
Sold to India and scrubbed & new number during re-fit to make it a grenade rifle, eventually sold out of service
Arrived in the USA

---

You forgot the side-trip to Ethiopia, if RTI can be trusted at all.

I just got Stratton's book on No 4s and No 5s, and the pictures in it helped me a lot to identify the various variations on the receivers/bodies. I even called in the resident expert: my daughter is a metal sculpture
student at the University of Kentucky, and a really good welder/forger/metal worker. The trigger mounting bracket is a solid piece with the rest of the receiver, and not brazed or welded on. The gun is a Mk. 2.

Could BSA have built A1828 in the 1953s FTR? Perhaps they grabbed a spare Fazakerley 51 body, a new barrel, and random furniture parts laying around, and put Frankenstein's monster together. I was going to even speculate that the bolt might be the original part, but it would seem silly that a 1942 Shirley bolt could survive if the receiver did not. Alternately, BSA could have picked the serial number A1828 because they had just parted the original A1828 out.

If that's not likely, then it was built in 51, and needed an FTR by 53 (or BSA wanted the money for an FTR, and did it anway...).

Either way, the rest of the history is :

• It heads to India post-FTR
• India has it some time, then FTRs it again and converts it to support the Rifle Grenade
• They eventually muster it out of service, and it gets shipped to Ethiopia
• It definitely gets shot in Ethiopia (I cleaned a LOT of fouling and copper out of that barrel)
• Eventually RTI rescues it from the warehouse in Ethiopia
• Number One Son pays too much money, and I have it now....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davidwrankin

I need to watch The Story of English still. I personally like the analogy that each major change in English arises when English meets another new language and takes it into a back alley to beat it up for its lunch money and some favorite trinket or piece of clothing. And let's not even start trying to figure out the Great Vowel Shift....

---

And I always thought it was more a process of peaceful assimilation! Not in Appalachia eh? :D

As for that old gun, the wood needs to come off and have a bath in linseed oil, "whether it needs it or not" as our ancestors used to say about bathing! ;)

I'm rather late to the party but have enjoyed reading this thread very much. I have read all of the posts systematically & was busting to mention that if it was a Mk1/2 conversion you would almost certainly see evidence of braze on the trigger mounting block where it fits up against the front of the butt socket.........but you figured that out already! If it is all in one piece, then you have a Mk2 body, 'from new'.

The body/receiver is definitely of Faz manufacture. The giveaway is that in your video you give us a nice clear view of both draws (the downward projecting bosses on the underside of the receiver, to which the bolt release catch/mag release/sear are attached). The two draws are always symmetrical EXCEPT on Faz rifles, where one is contoured but the other left 'chunkier'. Long Branch left them both 'chunky' after switching to Mk1* production, & all UK factories except Faz contoured both draws, whereas Faz retained the shaped right hand draw only, to accommodate the bolt release catch plate. Sorry if that sounds a bit wordy, but just look at your draws & you'll see what I mean (sounds like a line from Compo to Nora Batty in 'Last of the Summer Wine', doesn't it?!).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

And I always thought it was more a process of peaceful assimilation! Not in Appalachia eh? :D

---

Finally found the original quote:

Quote:

---

the writer James Nicoll said, “The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a *CENSORED*. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and [rifle] their pockets for new vocabulary”

---

80% of English words originate in other languages. It’s not in our tradition to ask nicely to borrow them.... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

As for that old gun, the wood needs to come off and have a bath in linseed oil, "whether it needs it or not" as our ancestors used to say about bathing! ;)

---

I wanted to follow up with pictures of the old lady post-bath, but Amazon dropped the ball. The first bottle of raw linseed oil disappeared somewhere in Miami FL (I just don’t ask any more), and the second bottle didn’t get here until I was out of town last weekend. However, the furniture (including a New NOS “long” stock off FleaBay) just got done soaking up a third (or maybe fourth, I lose count) coat of oil a few minutes ago, and I intend to hit it again a couple of times tomorrow, and then keep hitting it a couple of times a day until the wood has its fill. Then I’ll come back with photos.

The wood is already looking a lot healthier and richer.

I doubt any language ever did ask permission! The great thing about English is its ability to assimilate and create whatever is required. For power of expression and exactitude our language is unequalled; fortunately we have no equivalent to the Acadamie Francaise trying to hold us to some imaginary level of "purity". That said, the French have far more respect for their own language and take far better care to use it properly than many native English speakers.

Go down to your local recycling depot and you'll probably find people drop linseed oil off there regularly. Many seem to buy it with intentions to use it, but never do, or only a little out of the bottle. I must have 10 gallons by now, so much I've decanted it into 5 gallon jugs.

Imperial gallons if course! :D

I mentioned that I'd post post-oiling pictures of the old lady. I've gotten it down to where most of the wood is barely absorbing oil on each hourly pass, especially on the inside pieces, so I feel comfortable with putting the rifle back together and oiling the outside.

I was looking for a long stock, and I hit FleaBay up for a NOS Long Branch long stock. I took the pictures below with the Indian stock too, and I'm going to keep it handy and put it back on if/when this gets to be less of a shooter.

I admit that I did get a bit buy-happy on Ebay and Amazon for optional accessories...
Attachment 110710Attachment 110711 Attachment 110709Attachment 110708

I'm hoping to go shooting this Sunday or next, and see if it will actually go boom or not.

Love this thread! Can't wait to see your rifle all cleaned up.

Since Fazakerley started production of the No4 Mk2 in 1949 it is possible that yours saw service in Korea and needed an FTR by 1953.

You make mention of a pair of "sevens" on the right side buttsocket...wonder if those could be a pair of broad arrow marks that weren't completely scrubbed at rebuild. My 8/49 Faz non FTR has a broad arrow in that general area.

I recently saw a photo of a No4 Mk1 that was related to India that had been stamped "No4 Mk1" in the same place on the receiver as yours is stamped "No4 Mk2". Can't remember where I saw it but I likely have the site in bookmarks. I'll post the link when I find it.

Pretty rifle! The new buttstock actually looks like it belongs on there. Let us know how she shoots.

Yes, a nice looking old girl. I'd give her house room!

I would also concur with Igor's comments re the re-stamping (generally crudely, by hand, using individual stamps) of the 'No4 Mk1' marking seen on many Indian No4's (but generally not those linished & converted to Mk2 specs). The stamping on the OP's rifle looks just the same in style & size, so I wonder if they did indeed mark up some Mk2's in the same way?

I finally got to take the old lady out to the range, and I even played a little bit with the SloMo on the iPhone:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVpzikDLXw4

The accuracy is incredible, and the chamber/headspacing is excellent too (very little case stretching). I'm going to keep playing with TrailBoss loads, to see if I can get something that I can play with at 100 yards, but I'll also run up a lightweight "full power" load for a couple of hundred yards, just for play.

Thanks for the help everyone.