Early, early Maltby? One of the first??

All right all you super knowledgeable experts out there I need your option on this new addition to the herd. I present to you what I feel is one of the first 1941 Maltby Rifle No. 4 Mark Is. It is currently ripped apart so if you need any other pictures please let me know.

Her history. I saw it on an auction site and a few details which will be discussed later made me spend my wife’s hard-earned dollars to get it! Sadly this rifle was not a rack queen and was used, it is well-worn, dented, and chipped. It has also had some parts definitely changed while in service. The rear hand guard, which matches in finish to the rest of the rifle is a Savage, the middle band is Long Branch, and the bolt has been replaced with the rifle’s serial number crudely engraved. The bolt body is a Long Branch, bolt head Fazakerley and cocking piece Singer. The front sight protector lacks any manufacturer marks.

So why do I think it is one of the first?

First, look at the body markings, they are the standard Maltby markings BUT, the font is different and it is not roll stamped, it is engraved (example of the roll stamp added). The serial number is 3226A, not a standard Maltby number, all the 1941 examples are 1XXXX form. Is it rifle #3226?

The front hand guard band is an Enfield manufactured hinged example along with the fore-end and front hand guard metal end caps, both Enfield but installed on a W. Sikes wood (both are SL marked). If you look at the badly worn numbering at the end of the fore-end and use your imagination you can make out 3226A. Also, the butt is an SL Sikes example. The rear sling swivel assembly is only broad arrow marked. Of interest is the number “14” stamped and pencil marked in the front hand guard groove and stamped into the butt by the SL markings. Is this rifle #14? Unlikely, possibly? I could not find a 14 anywhere on the rifle body and barrel, the rear hand guard previously mentioned has been replaced.

I always thought that Fazakerley received all the extra Enfield bits, I guess Maltby was given some also?

The matching barrel is devoid of any proof marks with only a “B8”, the front sight base is Enfield inspector proofed.

The trigger guard is Maltby marked but marked with a homemade style stamp, the trigger is an SM41 trigger. The rear sight is Singer SM41 marked example, safety catch arm is unmarked.

The body, besides the previously mentioned markings there are only two inspector's marks by the vent hole at the breech, one by the bolt channel, and Maltby’s weird lot/batch/or something else number in the trigger guard groove, BB9T.

Finally, look at the body by the cut-off block. A pilot hole has been drilled, was it an early jig hole or did they start to drill the magazine cut-off screw hole?

Are you still reading or did you get bored? Anyways what does everyone think?

Interesting. I shall try to dig out my example for comparison. best, p.

Certainly typical early R.O.F.M marking.

Glad you got it, I was seriously considering that one :)

Lance, FWIW I suspect my thoughts would have been much the same as yours.

Pretty sure that is an incomplete body (receiver) from the No.4 trials rifle production that has been finished off at Maltby.

Very interesting not only for what it is, but for the fact that 3000+ rifles into the run, such bodies were apparently still on hand!

That of course suggests many more were made than was previously thought. The steel batch number under the rear guard screw is also very close to some trials numbers IIRC.

Aside from the obvious relief for the cut-off screw and the at least started hole for the same, the machining of the left body side and the colour of the blue also says "trials" to me.

And in case we might think the body is just an odd coincidence that far into the run, we also have the Enfield-made hinged band, foresight base, blade etc.

Interesting how the handguard retaining ring has been center-punched to tighten up the fit. Presumably something that was not permitted or not found necessary later.

A very historic and educational rifle that looks pretty untouched.

A nice job done with the pantograph engraver on the body markings. Pity they gave that up. The "41" almost looks like it was added later, but probably wasn't.

Wow, that's truly a museum worthy piece!
As a Maltby enthusiast, that's pretty much my Holy Grail of a rifle.....

I think that it is early too. Before they'd got to gripe with speeding-up and streamlining production. Engraving was a time wasting feature too. The 'A' following the serial number is such an indicator too and was specifically mentioned in the early EMER.

HHave a careful look at the barrel to see whether the nocks form is pinned to the barrel - or machined as a whole.

Yes Lance is one of the very early Maltby.

We talked about another here:

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=75991

Thanks for the link Giove and nice rifle! Your markings look like they are rolled stamped but the body marks are identical, I am envious of your original bolt! Have you ever removed the fore-end? Curious if you have the cut-off screw hole started?

Peter, I went back and looked at the barrel, it is solid but look what I found when I removed the grease. Good old number 14. Thanks for making me go over her again. I kept looking and still could not find #14 on the body but I did find it on the fore-end. Additional information is the sear is SM41 marked.

So I assume 14 was an assembly number, long shot guess would be that this was rifle #14 in the initial trials production run that was then given a serial number and thrown into service.

Giove another favor, can you look for an assembly number on your rifle?

Sorry Lance, I did'n buy the rifle. It cost a bunch.

Nice early Maltby you have there Lance!
I have 3558, but no suffex after the number. I note from looking at a few earlyish Maltbys that the engraving or roll stamping position starts off quite alot further forward on the action than the later ones too! Hence why mine has had the ROF part of it machined off for the front scope pad!

Nice piece for sure...

Attachment 129925Attachment 129926Attachment 129927I did not find the one I was looking for but found two of interest before I got too tired to continue. Will continue tomorrow if things go well. No pictures yet as camera battery was drained.
I was pleased to uncover a second NO. 4 with Indonesian markings.

Found:

B code 1941 date 0917 serial no.

ROF M 1941 date A13962 serial no.

It is worth noting the 1930s serial nos. applied by Enfield were on stamp for the first two digits of the year followed by the last two hand stamped.

Can I ask what markings are on the backsight and do you have photos of it?

The very different levels of "dirt" accumulations suggest to me a foresight protector swap relatively recently. I wonder if someone removed a trials pattern protector and replaced it with this one in order to restore a trials No.4?

The most interesting part of all this IMHO is the evidence that either production of No.4 components continued at RSAF Enfield longer that suspected, or that early production bodies which perhaps were out of spec but still useable were not discarded, but put into some kind of storage and presumably sent out to Maltby for completion in 1940-41; possibly both scenarios.

The backsight relief cuts in the body would be a clue perhaps: The 1931-33 dated bodies have the earlier, smaller relief cuts for the ball detent. With the Model C trials variant in 1935, the deeper relief cuts we see on all later No4's were introduced with the plunger detent. Those cuts were left "in the white" on at least some of the Model C rifles.

We can see from the engraving that this body was blued afterwards so not likely we're going to learn anything from that here though.

The steel batch numbers should tell what bodies were produced together though, regardless of what the other markings are. Unless of course they didn't necessarily finish up one batch before starting to use another!

Here is the backsight area. While taking photos I noticed there appears to be a pilot hole that was filled by the bolt head release, it could be just the design of the milling bit also?

I also took a couple more pictures of the markings/blue finish as the first one was dark. It is hard to photograph as it either bleeds out the color or looks overly dark.
.

That circular cut by the bolt head catch looks like a burr or perhaps a chipped cutter edge got stuck and did a few rotations.

There are three other noticeable cosmetic flaws in the machining so could well be this was an early production body that was put aside for possible future use. From the three trials rifles I owned and examined pretty carefully, a lot of attention was given to the level of finish on those.

The linear tool marks on the left side of the area covered by the backsight when folded down are a minor mystery: planer or shaper? But looks like one pass: two opposing cutters, one cutting in each direction??

So the bolt is a mismatch? Mk.I cocking piece?

Backsight is clearly the trials pattern in most respects, pretty much identical to the Long Branch MkI sight as well.

Sorry for the delay, as stated earlier, bolt if force matched, Mk I cocking piece (SM), bolt Long Branch (C/|\) on handle and bolt head Fazakerley. Try not to laugh to much at the bolt s/n.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lance

the bolt s/n.

---

Looks like they scraped it out with a screwdriver...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

The linear tool marks on the left side of the area covered by the backsight when folded down are a minor mystery: planer or shaper? But looks like one pass: two opposing cutters, one cutting in each direction?? .

---

Early date, A suffix (something non standard.)
Hand work (with a draw file?)

They certainly had the skills and were not afraid of doing hand finishing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColinA

Early date, A suffix (something non standard.)
Hand work (with a draw file?)

They certainly had the skills and were not afraid of doing hand finishing.

---

I wondered, but it would have had to be an inappropriately coarse file handled with machine-like precision and even if it was, the marks wouldn't extend right up to the "shoulders" at either end.

Pity about the missing bolt, but that might well be one reason the rifle survived pretty much untouched.

Congrats Lance,
Very notable acquisition, glad you posted it.
I saw that come up on the auction site and was considering if I should notify the various Enfield forums that it was out there if it was legitimately that early.
Glad it went to a good home that knows what it is.

When I saw it I was actually tolerably impressed that such an early war rifle actually kept a fair number of rarer early war bits.

Are we clear cut that it is a trials body, or is it one of the first actual production receiver bodies?

There is no definite proof either way on the body but I would lean toward a semi-manufactured Enfield body finished at Maltby based on the cut-off screw hole and only the few Maltby inspector marks. The questions it raises is there any other pre-10000 rifles out there that are not in the 3XXX s/n batch? Compared with the other 3XXX rifle the inspector proof marks are the same just its body markings are standard roll stamped so was this rifle number "14" that was then assigned a 3XXX number and added to the first run of rifles? If it was the 14th rifle made during the initial set up it makes sense that later someone would engrave the body markings as it would be too late to roll stamp the body. Sadly there are not enough rifles to compare it with.

good morning everyone, really nice piece Lance, I own one too but with a much higher serial number, despite having the same year of manufacture, as soon as I have a moment I'll do it and try to post some photos, clearly from the serial number yours is very most quoted being one of the first.
Linpao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lance

There is no definite proof either way on the body but I would lean toward a semi-manufactured Enfield body finished at Maltby based on the cut-off screw hole and only the few Maltby inspector marks. The questions it raises is there any other pre-10000 rifles out there that are not in the 3XXX s/n batch? Compared with the other 3XXX rifle the inspector proof marks are the same just its body markings are standard roll stamped so was this rifle number "14" that was then assigned a 3XXX number and added to the first run of rifles? If it was the 14th rifle made during the initial set up it makes sense that later someone would engrave the body markings as it would be too late to roll stamp the body. Sadly there are not enough rifles to compare it with.

---

I'm not clear on your meaning here:

Quote:

---

The questions it raises is there any other pre-10000 rifles out there that are not in the 3XXX s/n batch?

---

Do we have any reason to think Maltby serials didn't begin at 0, 100, or perhaps 1000?

The electric pencil markings on the receiver/body wall are almost exactly what is on the later stamp and that is probably not a coincidence as those markings are quite unique in terms of No.4 rifle markings overall.

So that might suggest the stamp(s) were already decided on and perhaps ordered, and in the interim the electric pencil was used.

To date, I have yet to find any pre-10000 rifles that were not in the 3XXX batch. Not to say there are none and I am still hunting but it suggests Maltby began there.

The electropencil markings have only been found on this rifle. Rifles with later serial numbers are roll stamped, sadly I have not found an earlier serial number example. This suggests, as you already mentioned. that the body markings were already determined and the roll stamp was not ready or that this rifle was never roll stamped and later marked to comply with the established marks.

There is a lot of guessing with this rifle due to the lack of survivors for comparison.

I have no memory where this information came from or the veracity of it

ROF Maltby Quantity 270000 Serial Numbers 10000 - 19999 then A10000 - A19999 & so on thro' alphabet

ROF Maltby Quantity 2000 Serial Numbers 3001A - 4000A & 8001A - 9000A
Components for these 2000 rifles are not interchangeable. Components for these rifles were made by Enfield about 1935, shipped to Fazakerly in 1940. Supplied to Maltby by Fazakerley, They were actively sought out and destroyed in the early '50s. Very few have survived.

If correct it would explain a lot.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

I have no memory where this information came from or the veracity of it

ROF Maltby Quantity 270000 Serial Numbers 10000 - 19999 then A10000 - A19999 & so on thro' alphabet

ROF Maltby Quantity 2000 Serial Numbers 3001A - 4000A & 8001A - 9000A
Components for these 2000 rifles are not interchangeable. Components for these rifles were made by Enfield about 1935, shipped to Fazakerly in 1940. Supplied to Maltby by Fazakerley, They were actively sought out and destroyed in the early '50s. Very few have survived.

---

Thanks for that tidbit of knowledge! I know there was a 2,000 rifle contract 1/41 at Fazakerley for "earlier trials No. 4 rifles f/ army stocks, converted at Faz" which I assumed were mostly the No. 1 Mark VI rifles. I did not know Maltby also had a similar contract and they were culled later. I hope to find more survivors to paint a better picture of the early days.

Clearly time someone started a Maltby spreadsheet as that kind of record invariably reveals patterns that are otherwise not detectable.

There are, or were, a number of early rifles featured on this site over the years. That would be a start.