Im hoping to join the Lee Enfield enthusiast ranks and am looking at this rifle, i cant make heads or tails of it. So i could use some advice as to proceed or not? Many tahnks.
Printable View
Im hoping to join the Lee Enfield enthusiast ranks and am looking at this rifle, i cant make heads or tails of it. So i could use some advice as to proceed or not? Many tahnks.
It looks to be a nicely preserved rifle - presumably you have identified the markings so know its history ?
It started life as a No4 Mk1 rifle, which then went back to the factory for a 'rebuild & update' (called an FTR = Factory Thorough Repair) where it was brought up to the latest specification with trigger modifications, it then became a No4 Mk1/2
After its military life, it has had a civilian life of target shooting (hence the target rear sight and the 'regulated by Fultons marking)
Is it worth it ?
Depends on what the asking price is.
Depends on the woodwork being undamaged
Depends on if everything is 'tight'
Depends on the condition of the bore
In the UK the retail price for the rifle would be around Aus$ 1100 and the target rear sight would add another Aus$ 300
Your rifle was converted from the wartime no 4 Mk1 to the Mk2 standard, trigger not hung from the trigger guard but the body. Subsequently Fultons in the UK, a company noted for its quality work on LE rifles for competition use, worked on it to prepare it for competitions in the UK. Thus the target rear sights, expensive in their own right. Barrel could be a wartime two groove or newer. Two groove should be just as accurate as the five groove barrels.
All other things being equal, such as mentioned in the previous post, it should be a good buy.
More photos would result in a better answer, eg the swivel on the trigger guard was added for competition use. Full length of both sides, bore photo, right side of the action, bolt handle bottom, etc.
I have that rear sight on my P14 and it is a real pleasure to use.
When I bought my rifle, everybody stressed the fact that the sight by herself would be half the price of the rifle.
Can you test the gat before buying?
Diomed, I would be interested to know if the foresight is the standard blade with the normal foresight protectors either side or whether somebody has fitted a foresight tunnel?
Diomed, It looks like it has a number "0" bolt head too - they typically range in size going up from 0 to 3. Not definitive of course but a good indicator of plenty of life left in the rifle.
WL = Wilkinson Ltd
VNS = Viners Ltd, Sheffield England (N79)
N49 = H. Morris & Co. Ltd., Glasgow
Source ~ The Broad Arrow MkII
I don't remember ever seeing exactly those markings on a Mk.I/2 conversion: too deep and too neat, and no mention of where and when the work was done.
Is this perhaps a conversion done in the civilian world?
No serial on the butt socket seems a bit odd too.
My thoughts too. The original maker's marks have been linished off, but if someone can recognize the examiner's mark on the top of the receiver ring we might still be able to do ID the factory. I can't remember what the examiner's number(s) was/were off the top of my head for Maltby, & am not in a postion to look at my examples till later today, although from the general looks of the receiver it looks most likely it was a Faz or BSA Shirley. In that event it would be possible to distinguish between the two by a quick look at the draws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
Giving it some thought and desperately trying to remember some images lost when my "new" computer went tits up I'm leaning towards AJ Parker rather than Parker-Hale.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
Fultons could also be in the frame for this given that at some time they either tweaked the rifle for a customer or did the complete conversion work themselves.
According to Stratton "Lee Enfield No. 4 and No. 5 Rifles", P171, T13475 is a No. 4 made at ROF Maltby (assigned serial no. range 10000-19999 with single letter prefix)
It seems to be a well-cared for Fulton conversion, so ought to be a good shooter.
Thanks Patrick. I hesitated to draw too much from the serial as so many of these target shooting reworked No4's were renumbered, but I think you're right. I just checked a Maltby 4T in the gunroom & it bears the same crown/N/59 examiner's stamp on the receiver ring. It made me think of Maltby, but the machining of the receiver side wall looks more typical of a Faz/BSA. Probably it's a later war produced rifle than most Maltby's I've come across......
If it is a No4 Mk1/2 what does it still appear to have the Mk1 fore end with the metal tie plate still in place? It could have been cut of course but that sort of bodge would not have been done in service...
From what I can make out from the photograph it does indeed appear to be a Mk1 fore end but with the tie plate omitted and a screw inserted. Had this been done in service the tie plate hole in the woodwork would have been filled in with a piece of wood. I wonder if the internal conversion has been done properly. Skennerton page 251 has photos of how it should look. Incorrect fitting may well interfere with correct trigger function, worth checking out. Smells of a bit of a bodge to me.
I'm not sure what picture you are looking at but the tie plate or at least part of it is still in place, you can see that it wraps around the woodwork at the rear.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBadDog
Well spotted, originally looked on phone, small screen etc, looking on a bigger screen it does appear as if something black is behind the screw head, whether the tie plate is complete or not? Be interesting to see how this fits in with the internals of the rear of the fore end.
Certainly would not have been done by a military armourer.
I rather think that this is the way that Fultons did it - has anyone got a "Fultons regulated" example for a comparison?Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBadDog
I do have a Fulton's regulated No4 mk1/2; but the FTR was done a Faz' so not much use in this instance.
Notice that the Fulton's Regulated stamp appears to be under the surface finish, but the engraved number on the receiver is not!
Which to me would suggest it's been refinished and then engraved. But I'm no expert; it's just what's seems obvious to me.
Also note that the original poster has not come back to say thanks for all the info you guy's have given!