Printable View
I bought it real cheap. Receiver, sawed off barrel, matching bolt and a bag of parts. Love a challenge. I now own most of parts including wood. Problem is now where did he come from and where has he been. I dont have much to go by. Any help on where to loop up. Doesn't say much on plate other other than SHTLE and 1913 km iii no asterisk. Thanks
Welcome to the world of LE's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay2020
The main thing to remember is that these were the last of the Victorian era 'hand built' rifles. Do not expect parts from one rifle to fit another (particularly the woodwork) without 'work' being needed.
If you are changing the barrel, then you will need new bolt components to get the correct headspace.
Very few parts will actually 'plug & play'.
Posting pictures of any and all markings will allow you to get as much information from the experts as you can handle.
And we don't have even that without pics...then we can start.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay2020
Today is first day. How do I upload pics thanks
Found help page
Found help page
If it still escapes you let me know and I'll send you an email address to send me pics. I'll put them up if need be.
Finally trying to teach an old dog new tricks. not sure if these are helpful
thank you
Manufactured at the Enfield factory.
Served in South Africa (arrow in the U = SA ownership mark)
The Z on the barrel means it has been condemmed at base workshops.
Thanks. I guess people all wish theirs could more exciting. Still it has become my obsession. Thanks again
That's an Old Soldier Sahib!
I've got one the same from the same year that had an FTR in '32 IIRC.
The "Z" on the Nock's Form is probably a sentencing mark; I forget whether it's "BLR" or "BER": "Beyond Local Repair/Beyond Economic Repair". In other words, repair or disposal.
(The use of "economic" might throw some of us North Americans: "economical" is more our usage.) ;)
Edit: I see that had already been mentioned by Alan d'Enfield. ;)
Amazing how it made it's way here
It is a paper weight as is.
If you do build it into a complete rifle render it innocuous/inoperable then hang it on the wall.
Sentenced for what though? That is what separates the wall hangers from the "restorables".
I took a deep breath, emptied my pocket and have enjoyed the search for cheaper parts and now that I ordered my last part (protector nut) life is good. New barrel soon and I will have brought life to a neglected piece of history......too dramatic?
You don't know and very few people have the required gauges to measure with. Your face not mine your kids or friends not mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
Soon it will breath back to life and do what it was made for. Throw lead down range
Please reconsider for your own safety and the safety of those on the range around you. A "Z" marked rifle should be treated like a DP rifle if you do not have the gauges and experience to check every part of the firearm. The rifle was marked that way by an armorer because it was going to require extensive repair to be functional and safe. If the repair was done the Z would have been struck. You say it had a cut barrel - is the Z marked barrel a replacement? If it is the action should be good and you just need to obtain a barrel. If it is the original barrel then the entire arm is suspect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay2020
i have replaced many parts to include a valid barrel. fear not my gunsmith has been with me and will have the final go or no go after replacing it
Before removing the existing and original barrel, you or your gunsmith could check the headspace; that might provide a clue.
I expect if the rifle was actually unsafe it would have been scrapped rather than sold off, but practices probably varied in different times and places.
It appears to me to have been civilian proofed AFTER being sentenced "Z", so it stood the proofing and the Z didn't cause the Proof House to condemn the rifle. We can draw our own conclusions from that.
From the rounding over of the Nock's Form etc. it appears to have had a polish and reblue after leaving military service as well, and that long ago.
Might have been done in South Africa when these rifles were refurbished. We have experts for the SA refurbishment that might be able to provide more information.
Yes,Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
ZF is condemmed but repairable by the original factory.
BER is another 'mark' meaning 'Beyond Economical repair' (financially cheaper to scrap and issue a new rifle.
Z is condemmed and not repairable by even the original factory, It should not be rebuilt and made into a live firearm as people better qualified that we have declared it unsafe & unrepairable.
An old post from 2008 by Peter Laidler
The short answer to this is that the ZF marking to an Armourer means that this is the end of the line.
The Z means that it has been condemned at a Base workshop (that's the Z bit) as suitable only for a Factory Repair (that's the F part). This will indicate something to do with a part that cannot be rectified at Base Workshop and that is inevitably a damaged body. On a No4 rifle, this is what we call 'the master component', a part that is NEVER supplied as a spare part through the Ordnance channels.
There was only one other mark that was more extreme than ZF and that was ZF-BER. Which meant that in addition to the ZF, one of the examiners had decreed it to be beyond economic repair in any case. But effectively, both were the same......................
There was a milder Z-BER which indicated that it wasn't even worth sending to the factory and at workshops, these were torched!
So, the rifle your correspondent is referring to falls into one of three categories
1) scrap
2) very scrap
3) Extremely scrap
And assuming that the marks and associated standards and practices over the years have not changed - as this rifle was probably sentenced just after WWII I would think - then what do we have?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield
A rifle that was reproofed before being sold as surplus and used in a civilian context for a couple more generations.
Conclusion: probably sentenced for excessive body wear and inability to headspace on whatever the standard was for the No.1 Rifle at the time.
But I'm not sure that makes sense either as from Peter has told us, at least in regard to the No4 Rifle, there was no cure for inability to headspace on a No2 bolthead (of the proper length!), even at "the factory", so why would such a rifle be marked "Z" as though it could be repaired, when it could not even at a "factory"?
We know from Peter IIRC, that relaxation of the headspacing standard was at least considered, which would only have been the case if safety was not an issue. As I recall Peter's remarks were that a rifle that would not headspace on the standard was simply considered not to have sufficient life left to justify the cost of overhaul.
Unsafe? I doubt it.
As I understand it Z (alone) was condemmed as not repairable by base workshops OR the factory, whilst ZF was unable to be repaired at base workshops but could be repaired by the manufacturer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
"Simple" headspace that could be rectified by changing a bolt head could be done at base workshop level ( if not a lower level) so would not warrant Z or ZF.
All bolt heads for the No1 Mk3 were manufactured oversize and had to be ground down to fit.
On the subject of No4 bolt heads, a number 3 bolt head could be fitted if OK'd by a senior armourer.
From Peter :
There is a little more you might need to understand before you can appreciate the whole picture. The No4 rifle was a very precisely made piece of gear. The very fine production tolerances achievable meant that every rifle could be assembled with any parts from production within set tolerances and be correct for headspace with either a No0 or a No1 bolt head fitted. To leave the factory, that was between .064" and .068" headspace. If a rifle failed headspace in service (failed the "field" gauge at .074") Then it was sent back for repair. If it could be headspaced with the next size bolt head (either a 1 to replace a 0, or a 2 to replace a 1) it was deemed good to go. If a rifle did not pass headspace with a No2 bolt head, then it was passed up the line to the senior inspector who would apply the Gauge, Inspectors, Selected Breach Bolt. If the receiver passed the test, it could be fitted with a No3 bolt head and put back into service.
NOTE HERE. A NO3 BOLT HEAD WAS ONLY TO BE USED ON THE SAY SO OF THE SENIOR INSPECTOR.
If it did not pass the test, it would have been sentenced Z for return to the factory, (even if a No3 bolt head would pass headspace)
Interestingly, I wonder how many rifles are out there with No3 bolt heads in them that the owners have fitted to keep them in heasdspace, when actually the receivers may be worn beyond reasonable limits.
Also I wonder about the amount of rabid buying in the past of number3 bolt heads and the owners who have fitted them because their rifles failed the SAAMI spec field gauge at .070", which is a good .004" below the manufacturers spec...
So you would agree that the rifle was proofed after leaving military service and is therefore likely to be safe to shoot?
Getting excited. New barrel will be installed and sent home. Keeping the old barrel as I quest to interpret it. Everything else is ready. Hope to get off first shot before snow gets deep. This will be second gunsmith to give it thumps up.
OK, but they are just gunsmiths' and don't know anything about the original spec. They just look at it and apply a headspace gauge. You might be OK or who knows? That's the thing that keeps most of us away is the unknown of the original BER or ZF as applicable. Specially if we have a background of issue and use of military rifles or machine guns. We know there are "Things"...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay2020
Since the military didn't choose to cut these with a flame axe they remain. Now they are destroyed completely so no issues will arise in years to come.
Penultimate sentence in a long post by Peter Laidler about DP, Z, ZF, BER etc :Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
I’ve been an Armourer for a couple of years and while I or your local gunsmith could examine one and give it a bright clean bill of health, would YOU trust it. NO, I wouldn’t either!
Always wise to be cautious, and wiser to listen to the voices of experience, but one is still free to think for oneself.
Without hearing Peter's opinion on this particular rifle, I wouldn't know what he would say, but was the rifle proofed after leaving military service or not?
See how would you know?
It would not have had a civilian proof whilst in service.Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
Just remember that proof testing is simply the firing of one 'over pressure' cartridge, it does not check for (for example) headspace, it will look to make sure the barrel is not bulged or the action twisted etc. Prooving an 'old' rifle will not show if it will 'explode' at the next firing, the 1000th firing or the 10,000th firing.
The proof round pressure could even have pushed it right to the edge, we just don't know.
To be marked DP, Z, ZF etc it obviously failed whatever gauging was specified, and without those gauges how can WE test it.
To answer your question - Yes it has been fired (at least once) since leaving military service.
Yes, that was my opinion also. And in view of the heavy repolish and worn bluing I suspect it was used for many years, and probably fired a good many rounds in its current state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield
Just as a minor point of information, Birmingham Proof House (I only use them, so can only speak from that experience, though I presume London do the same) do check head space as well as carrying out the Over Service Pressure test firing. Rifles do sometimes fail proof for excessive head space. As I know this to be the case I always check the space on all of my rifles that I submit, & I've had nothing fail in years, other than one rifle I submitted for someone else!