No 4 Mk 1 markings confusion

Hello all! I just acquired a No4 Mk 1 1942 production. I have been trying to decipher the markings on it and coming up completely lost. I have several very good resources but very little is matching. Hopefully the attached photos will make more sense to you guys than they do me. Right now I'm thinking that I stumbled upon something really good or more likely, got ripped off....
Any help is appreciated
Jason

PS If interested, I found an Enfield No2 Mk1Revolver that I could post a couple of pics of to see if it would be worth picking up...

It is a1942 RoF Maltby (UK) manufactured No4 Mk1 which has a mismatched bolt and should not be fired until the bolt is checked for proper fit and function.

Muzzle markings are the importer markings, most other marks are the 'component' manufacturers / subcontractors.

It looks very much like one of those recovered from a Goat dung heap in Ethiopia by RTI.
Hopefully it is not one of those.

It has a No 2 bolt head also which had given me concern also. The blank right side isn't giving me warm fuzzies either.
This was one of the ones from Classic Firearms. I should have known better.
Someone else chime in with great news to make me feel better :thup:

There should not be any thing stamped on the right side under the bolt handle it is a No4 not a No1. You can feel better about that. What is to worry about a No2 bolt head with correct over turn. As long as the head space is between 0.64 (bolt will close) and 0.74 (bolt wont close ) you are good to go just make sure the bolt lugs are both sitting correctly because it is NOT the original bolt. DO NOT TRY AND TIGHTEN THE HEAD SPACE UP IF IT IS BETWEEN THOSE NUMBERS. Rim sizers vary so much you can damage your rifle. The LE is a battle rifle not a target rifle it head spaces off the rim not the shoulder. The design has a built in operational factor of 0.10 plus oversized chambers. Don't stress correct if needed then enjoy the best battle rifle that can have a mixture of parts and still be correct.

Is this one of those cases where the bolts got separated from the rifles and the importer was too lazy to sort them out?

I see references to making sure the bolt and body (receiver) lugs mate properly, but not how to do it. One way is to remove the bolt head, spring and firing pin etc. (you'll need to buy or make the tool to unscrew the firing pin), put some blue on the rear faces of the lugs on the bolt body, re-insert into the receiver and while pushing as evenly as you can on the front edge of the bolt body, work the bolt handle up and down a few times and then check the contact shown by the wear to the layout blue. If the contact is not good, some lapping will be required.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

I see references to making sure the bolt and body (receiver) lugs mate properly, but not how to do it.

---

In the Library are Peter Laidlers "How To" series of Armourers Instructions. To assist here is an extract from the 'fitting bolts' section.


First things first. Bolts could only be fitted at Field and Base workshops because they were the only ones that had a 'GAUGE, Inspectors, Bolt'. This is a brand new, calibrated bolt. Still in white metal and marked as such. If my memory serves me right, the slot in the long/top locking lug is machined right through to identify it. So that's the reason if you have ever seen one. This bolt is bare. Clean the locking lug surfaces of the rifle and put a smear of 'engineers blue' marking dye onto the corresponding locking surfaces of the inspectors bolt. Insert this bolt RIGHT FORWARD, rotate it closed, then draw it backwards and forwards a couple of times to mark the mating locking surfaces of the rifle. Push it forwards, unlock and remove.
Examine the locking surfaces of the rifle. The blue witness marks should be evident. This ensures that whatever wear that has taken place on the rifle locking surfaces has taken place equally. If its not, then I'm afraid that the rifle is unserviceable.

BUT, that's not quite the end of the story because you won't have this 'Gauge, Inspectors, bolt' but it's only right that I tell you. Now for a little secret. If you have ever bought a rifle that has a sploge of red paint on the left side, adjacent to the internal left side locking lug, then you now know that the rifle was condemned for 'worn locking lugs'.
If you are going to fit a second hand or new bolt, then do the same thing. If the dye pattern is one sided, then stone the high surface of the bolt until BOTH locking lugs bear evenly against the locking surfaces of the corresponding surfaces in the body. BUT DO NOT ATTEMPT to stone the rifle to get a bolt to fit (you can only get to the right hand surface in any case ....). The rifle body is induction hardened at these points to a depth of .004 - .006" but we have found it deeper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

In the Library are Peter Laidlers "How To" series of Armourers Instructions. To assist here is an extract from the 'fitting bolts' section.


First things first. Bolts could only be fitted at Field and Base workshops because they were the only ones that had a 'GAUGE, Inspectors, Bolt'. This is a brand new, calibrated bolt. Still in white metal and marked as such. If my memory serves me right, the slot in the long/top locking lug is machined right through to identify it. So that's the reason if you have ever seen one. This bolt is bare. Clean the locking lug surfaces of the rifle and put a smear of 'engineers blue' marking dye onto the corresponding locking surfaces of the inspectors bolt. Insert this bolt RIGHT FORWARD, rotate it closed, then draw it backwards and forwards a couple of times to mark the mating locking surfaces of the rifle. Push it forwards, unlock and remove.
Examine the locking surfaces of the rifle. The blue witness marks should be evident. This ensures that whatever wear that has taken place on the rifle locking surfaces has taken place equally. If its not, then I'm afraid that the rifle is unserviceable.

BUT, that's not quite the end of the story because you won't have this 'Gauge, Inspectors, bolt' but it's only right that I tell you. Now for a little secret. If you have ever bought a rifle that has a sploge of red paint on the left side, adjacent to the internal left side locking lug, then you now know that the rifle was condemned for 'worn locking lugs'.
If you are going to fit a second hand or new bolt, then do the same thing. If the dye pattern is one sided, then stone the high surface of the bolt until BOTH locking lugs bear evenly against the locking surfaces of the corresponding surfaces in the body. BUT DO NOT ATTEMPT to stone the rifle to get a bolt to fit (you can only get to the right hand surface in any case ....). The rifle body is induction hardened at these points to a depth of .004 - .006" but we have found it deeper.

---

Interesting. A couple of questions: we all know the bolts can be quite loose in the boltways of some bodies, particularly without the bolthead fitted. The reason I suggested applying backward pressure to the end of the bolt was because it seemed logical to try to duplicate the alignment and pressures which the bolt would have on firing.

If one was to simply apply rearward pressure with the bolt handle, would not the leverage of the handle tend to pull the bolt body to the right and therefore slightly out of its typical firing alignment, particularly without a bolt head fitted?

And as for using the Gauge, Inspector's, Bolt, perhaps there is something missing from that text as surely the critical question is whether the two pairs of lugs are each bearing evenly, not the relative position of each pair to the other?

Presumably somewhere there is a drawing the Gauge, Inspector's Bolt was patterned after, but I can't see why it would matter whether the body lugs bore evenly against that gauge as long as they bore evenly against the bolt fitted to the rifle!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Presumably somewhere there is a drawing the Gauge, Inspector's Bolt was patterned after, but I can't see why it would matter whether the body lugs bore evenly against that gauge as long as they bore evenly against the bolt fitted to the rifle!?

---

That makes sense.

The Inspectors bolt was primarily used to check that the body / locking lugs were not worn to such an extent that it couldn't be headspaced :

From another 'lecture' by PL

GAUGE, inspectors, selected breech bolt......... Haven't seen one of these for a few years. Yes....! Only used by the most senior examiner, this bolt was a calibrated bolt made to the EXACT size. It was kept in an oily drawer along with the other gauges. It's main use was as the final arbiter as to whether a body was worn out. I seem to recall that the No1 gauges came with a matched bolt head which your are missing (oh no they're not, I've just looked properly......!) The locking shoulders were specially hardened so NEVER use one of these bolts as a true bolt and the distance between them and the face of the bolt was the datum. When it was impossible to get CHS, using the old bolt and boltheads then a new bolt, you'd use the gauge bolt do the final check. If this failed then the rifle was scrapped as this calibrated bolt had deemed that the body locking lugs were worn through.

The No4 bolt didn't come with a bolt head as a matched set BUT there was a special bolt head to be used with it that was a special measurement that I forget at the moment. This did the same thing.

This gauge bolt also dictated wear in the boltway. For example, the smaller left locking lug MUST clear the nose of the sear when loading and unloading. If it does foul, then the gauge bolt is used to verify that the body is worn and not the new bolt. This test should be carried out with the bolt lightly pressed down towards the sear nose to give an accurate assessment of the condition of the body. Obviously, it could also be used as a gauge to test other worn bolts too but in those cases, we had the 'inspection standards' specifications to refer to.


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...
I would suggest, short of panic, anyone who has a No3 bolt head in a No4 or No5 rifle should own a .074" headspace gauge and check the rifle every couple of hundred rounds. If the hardness has gone (or becomes too thin from ongoing use) from the locking shoulders, the headspace will increase as the softer metal is extruded by the forces of firing. Checking and finding it failing with a No3 bolthead that passed a hundred rounds ago will tell you things are not right.. time to retire the rifle. NOT REPLACE THE BOLT BODY!

I have had my say elsewhere about these matters so won't duplicate that here, except to repeat that I assume we can all agree that without measuring each bolt head to see if it was within specs for its size number, the process becomes somewhat random and arbitrary?

As I have access to about 50 stripped, clean and well-used bodies I shall have a look at the rear lugs to see if I can see any signs of extrusion of the metal.

I'm also not seeing any reference to the hardness or hardening of the lugs on the bolt itself; where these not hardened to the same extent as the lugs in the body?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

I assume we can all agree that without measuring each bolt head to see if it was within specs for its size number, the process becomes somewhat random and arbitrary?

---

Do you have the actual specification for the bolt head sizes ?

I could never find the actual specification showing the required / start size(s) for each number simply the incremental increase by 'number'.

When I did the bolthead survey (many years ago) I posted this :

What Size Should The Bolt Heads Be ?

It seems to be generally accepted that No4 / No5 bolt heads should fall in the following range :
Size 0 = 0.620” – 0.625”
Size 1 = 0.625” – 0.630”
Size 2 = 0.630” – 0.635”
Size 3 = 0.635” – 0.640”

Whilst I don’t question that this information is printed somewhere, I have not been able to find the original source, the only information I have found does not actually state the ‘starting’ dimension, only that the sizes are incrementally larger :

a) From “Parts Identification List Rifle No4 Mk1 and Mk1*” dated 1945
Bolt head 0 part number BB8584
Bolt head 1 part number BB8585
Bolt head 2 part number BB8586
Bolt head 3 part number BB8587

“Number 0 to 3 increase in length by increments of 0.003 inch”

b) From Canadian National Defence Manual “First Line Maintenance Instructions Rifle No4, all marks” dated 28th June 2002

Bolt head size 0 NSN = 1005-21-103-1143
Bolt head size 1 NSN = 1005-21-103-1144
Bolt head size 2 NSN = 1005-21-103-1145
Bolt head size 3 NSN = 1005-21-103-1146

“…….. the sizes being progressively larger in increments of 0.08mm (0.003”)

Obviously the perceived size increases do not meet the requirements of the period literature.
I wonder if different manufacturers started at differing 'start sizes', & then manufactured their bolt heads with a 0.003 incremebtal increase from THEIR start dimension.

This could account for my results in measuring 250 samples.
#0 bolt heads going from 0.624 to 0.636,
#1 bolt heads going from 0.622 to 0.637
#2 bolt heads going from 0.628 to 0.642
#3 bolt heads going from 0.632 to 0.641

One could suggest that 'small' (undersize compared to expectations) could be accounted for by being ground down, but why would that be done when different sizes were available (unlike the No1 Mk3 bolt head) ?
Why / how would a #0 be bigger than a #3 ?

I wonder if anything new or more definitive on sizing has come to light since ?

A d E Lithgow made five different head sizes for the No1Mk3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

Do you have the actual specification for the bolt head sizes ?

I could never find the actual specification showing the required / start size(s) for each number simply the incremental increase by 'number'.

When I did the bolthead survey (many years ago) I posted this....

I wonder if anything new or more definitive on sizing has come to light since ?

---

Your survey of sizes emphasizes the point that without measuring the numbers become largely meaningless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Your survey of sizes emphasizes the point that without measuring the numbers become largely meaningless.

---

Agreed and what I have been trying to 'push' for many years.

I was hopeful that when you said about comparing them to specification, that the specifications had surfaced.

They must exist somewhere! Not in the EMERs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

They must exist somewhere! Not in the EMERs?

---

Never yet found the specific dimensions.
Every document (ancient & modern) simply says there is a 3-thou incremental increase in sizes

Example :-

Instructions To Armourers Rifle No4

1945 No4 Mk1 and Mk1* Parts List


Bolt heads increase by 0.003"

Maybe if someone could locate drawing DD(E)450/26 the answer could be found.

I'll chime in with my ever expanding experience with the Ethiopian owned SMLE and No.4 rifles. Yes, it's one of those imported by Interordnance. Every one that's been sent here so far, (I've lost count of the SMLE's without checking my record book and a half dozen No.4's), have been shot out so worrying about headspace and bolt head size is moot. Besides, unless you have a supply of new old stock bolt heads that have never been fitted, all the charts in the world won't sort you out. Anyhow, from what I've seen so far, they all need barrels and there is no supply of reasonably priced, original No.4 barrels available. The RFI barrels from Sarco for the SMLE are excellent while the supply lasts. MoD spec for throat erosion is a plug gauge measuring .310 entering the breech less than .25". Every one of the Ethiopian rifles I've checked swallow it and in a couple of them, the gauge ran clear through and dropped out the muzzle. So much for the .307 muzzle gauge and .301 bore run gauge. The long story short is that if you buy one of these rifles, be prepared to rebarrel it because it most likely needs it.

Would the rifling still be visible if the barrel was that shot out? Could I measure the throat with calipers? If this thing is unfirable I'm going to be less than thrilled to put it mildly...
Could you be able to tell anything if I got some pictures?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jasonafair

Would the rifling still be visible if the barrel was that shot out? Could I measure the throat with calipers? If this thing is unfirable I'm going to be less than thrilled to put it mildly...
Could you be able to tell anything if I got some pictures?

---

It looks as if, unfortunately, you are just one of the hundreds that have been suckered into the RTI / Ethiopian history story, all of whom are newbies but see an abundance of rifles at prices a bit lower than commonly seen in the 'market' and expect similar price to equal similar quality.

Out of the dozens of postings on various forums not a single person has received what they hoped for or expected they'd get.

I’m trying to find a gunsmith that can give it a look and be able to check the headspace. If this thing turns out to be a turd, my wife will never let me live it down. I’ll try to get a decent picture of the barrel and post it tomorrow. Assuming headspace is good, would the worn out barrel be dangerous or just inaccurate? Any recommendations for a smith near Pensacola FL or Troy/Montgomery AL?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jasonafair

I’m trying to find a gunsmith that can give it a look and be able to check the headspace. If this thing turns out to be a turd, my wife will never let me live it down. I’ll try to get a decent picture of the barrel and post it tomorrow. Assuming headspace is good, would the worn out barrel be dangerous or just inaccurate? Any recommendations for a smith near Pensacola FL or Troy/Montgomery AL?

---

Brian (Brian Dick BDL ltd) is one of the most experienced Enfield gunsmiths in the US and he already has experience of these rifles and has all the testing equipment and gauges to check it over.
His post #17 shows what you might expect.

You can contact him here :

Contact BDL LTD

Thank you Brian and Alan for the help. Yep, looks like I got screwed. I dropped a round into the crown and it went about a 1/3rd down so I had a glimmer of hope, until the breech....maybe a 1/16th between face and cartridge rim. If it’s ok Brian, I’ll PM you my number and you can reach out to me at your convenience to talk about what is possible to do. I will contact Classic tomorrow and see what they say as these things are being advertised as “functional”. Not holding high hopes for a positive outcome but you never know.
Now just to keep all of this fiasco from the boss lady...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jasonafair

I’m trying to find a gunsmith that can give it a look and be able to check the headspace. If this thing turns out to be a turd, my wife will never let me live it down. I’ll try to get a decent picture of the barrel and post it tomorrow. Assuming headspace is good, would the worn out barrel be dangerous or just inaccurate? Any recommendations for a smith near Pensacola FL or Troy/Montgomery AL?

---

Her name's not Miranda is it? :D

You could always say your counsel has advised you to take the 5th... :p

As we age in marriage - them that stay there - I hear that one of the lessons we learn is that "what is said in haste may be regretted at leisure", except there seems to be very little leisure in it at the time! :bitch:

A good many women like to pretend their husbands are fools - in all except their choice of spouse of course - so why help make their case? :lol:

Fantastic bargain you got on that Lee Enfield, you can tell her I said so...or have you taught her the fine points of examining rifle bores?

If so, go and cut your switch now and let's hear no more about it! :nono:

Okay, that's enough ribbing, a fella never knows when he may need a spare.:D

---------- Post added at 06:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:52 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

Never yet found the specific dimensions.
Every document (ancient & modern) simply says there is a 3-thou incremental increase in sizes

Example :-

Instructions To Armourers Rifle No4

---

Pleasantly vague isn't it? So where things start and stop is left up to the makers, so long as they have the right degree of increase in the sizes.

Quote:

---

Owing to the fact that the highest quality steel is not available for these rifles, when firing, a burr is often set up on the resistance shoulder of the body. These should be watched for and removed.

---

Interesting comment.

Call me in the shop tomorrow during business hours. 803-637-5784. I have a few take-off barrels that may be an improvement if necessary and get your rifle running again. They may not be that pretty but gauge up in spec.. I’ve yet to see a matching bolt but I’ve been able to set them up successfully so far swapping out bolt heads from my small supply.

Brian

After 26 years, I guess she is entitled to a good “told you so” every now and then 🤫
I’ll call before noon tomorrow. My vocal chords are still jacked up from throat cancer surgery this summer so I may sound like I swallowed a frog that had a cold 😎

Here are a few more that hopefully shed a little more light on the condition. I couldn't manage to get a good shot of the rifling but to me it looks strong and is 2 groove. A little dark but I'm going to hit it with some of the copper cleaner this weekend. Only done H's #9 so far.
A video I was watching last night said that from the chamber there should be 1/4" gap between the rim and face. That just seems like way too much to me but, it is on the internet so it has to be true. The last photo is just the the parts while cleaning them. Honestly I think it is in fairly good shape, just concerned about the barrel now...
Thanks again all for the expertise and advise. This is an awesome group!

Attachment 113327
Attachment 113328
Attachment 113329
Attachment 113330

They did like sanding the wood down.

Kind of hard to say exactly when that various degrading of the wood took place though. Sure was lots.