1942 Fazakerley No4 Mk1. Really nice rifle

This one looks like it was built this week.

Anyway, what can the experts tell me? Don't be bashful. Thanks.


https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../yCNpRpb-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../5TLGUU3-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../8kAjTbv-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../CNeFjJP-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../nBGMR1W-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../oVtztzs-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../izbVWwO-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../QcdyHmu-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../T3dwlLU-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../o4mYQxh-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../ZRScAip-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../Q9yyXb6-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../sVklxDg-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../Db2BBR4-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../jkIiHfx-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../CI8HMGg-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../Dj8Bp6x-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by martin08

Anyway, what can the experts tell me? Don't be bashful. Thanks.

---

Well, it has a non standard part fitted.

The suffix A in the part number means that a fault was made during manufacture meaning that a standard part could not be used so a 'one-off' part was used. The A is a 'warning' to armourers that they may find that they cannot repair the rifle as standard parts will not fit.

There is no indication what the fault is, it could be as simple as a hole was drilled oversize and they had to tap it for the next size up bolt, or, it could be something major relating to the body / action.

It's a nice tidy rifle from what I can see. The A suffix rifles are not uncommon, & although it meant that that they might be difficult when it came to repairs, it did not mean that they were unsafe to fire. I do not believe that it came out of ROFF looking like that. Firstly, it appears to have been black painted (quite probably suncorite) which was not in use in 1942. The original finish is more likely to have been oil blacked or blued early in the war. On top of this the charger bridge insert has been welded over. This occurred very commonly with repairs & refurbishment, as the little insert commonly worked loose, & 'slipping a gob of weld' on it was a sure fix.

I'm also not sure why the rifle serial has been stamped into the butt in the same place that scope numbers were stamped on No 4 T's......I don't think there was ever a requirement for it in UK service, although no doubt someone will correct me on this if I have it wrong.

But it's a nice looking rifle regardless.

The only 'import' mark is a tiny "U.K. .303 BR" on the left side of the receiver, and it cuts through the paint. Is this the original Suncorite finish? Thanks


https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../1pgMZuE-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

It's a nice tidy rifle from what I can see. The A suffix rifles are not uncommon, & although it meant that that they might be difficult when it came to repairs, it did not mean that they were unsafe to fire. I do not believe that it came out of ROFF looking like that. Firstly, it appears to have been black painted (quite probably suncorite) which was not in use in 1942. The original finish is more likely to have been oil blacked early in the war. On top of this the charger bridge insert has been welded over. This occurred very commonly with repairs & refurbishment, as the little insert commonly worked loose, & 'slipping a gob of weld' on it was a sure fix.

I'm also not sure why the rifle serial has been stamped into the butt in the same place that scope numbers were stamped on No 4 T's......I don't think there was ever a requirement for it in UK service, although no doubt someone will correct me on this if I have it wrong.

But it's a nice looking rifle regardless.

---

I'll try to get the internal receiver pictures soon. It looks like a gun which was never refinished.

Here's a better angle of the charger bridge.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../uDLj9hL-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by martin08

Is this the original Suncorite finish?

---

It can't be original suncorite can it? The charger bridge bears the proof of the spot weld to hold it tight and that was done well after the fact wasn't it? A repair for a loose charger bridge?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

It can't be original suncorite can it? The charger bridge bears the proof of the spot weld to hold it tight and that was done well after the fact wasn't it? A repair for a loose charger bridge?

---

Yes. Now I am researching that Suncorite was not applied to new rifles until '44 or very late '43 at the earliest. So this is post-production, but no FTR date as I have seen on others.

Thanks.

The rear sight is still in the white.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bindi2

The rear sight is still in the white.

---

Yes. Rear sight is unfinished underneath, and the top surface is polished. Also in the white are the majority of the bolt body (handle is suncorite), the bolt head and face, and feedramp.

Rear of the charger bridge is also in the white.

Any significance to this? Thanks.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../Db2BBR4-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../1C7iXtr-1.jpg

Replacement parts not done by the military.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bindi2

Replacement parts not done by the military.

---

Yet, here they appear on a pre-1968 import-marked gun? Perhaps Sam Cummings did the alteration (Interarmco)?

Of course, anyone could have done this while it was residing stateside in the past 50 years.

But this gun gives no 'bubba' vibes. It all looks like arsenal finish and fitting.

Yes, or maybe a rather pale parkerising on the rearsight. If you look at the receiver where the UK 303 Brit is stamped & the paint has flaked off, the underlying surface looks slightly grey to me (mind you that might be my eyes!), which would also fit with parkerising, & which was the approved finish to go under suncorite. Rifles were bead blasted, parked & then suncorited. I just wonder if the sight got a quick dip in phosphoric acid but never got painted??

I've refinished quite a lot of No4's similarly over the years. If I can do it so can anybody else.

Forgot to mention earlier, but it's also got a Long Branch safety fitted. Plus, the refinish was obviously done before the UK 303 Brit was stamped into it, so perhaps not necessarily even done in the US??

Good eye. The rear sight frame and elevation riser are exactly as they appears in the photos, a very light and almost 'battleship gray' color. So, there must be a finish, and light parkerization is a possibility.

The top surface is perfectly polished, with no finish.

Just a general observation really, nice usable No4, I would suggest its been refurbished by an owner in the years since it landed on US shores.

Certainly repainted and a Singer back sight fitted, probably had the two position austerity sight fitted originally, possibly replacement wood, numbered by an old owner.

The bolt head certainly shows signs of military primer erosion, assuming its original to the rifle, it must have had good prior use.

The point being, as has been said before, 'vast' numbers of Enfield's were sold off in the late 50's and early 1960's, they have drifted around the world, from trade to owner and back for 60 plus years now, so its impossible to tell now what's original and what isn't...

Only the recent French sell off's (all seem to be original WW2 spec) and perhaps the ex Italian Navy examples are close to original 'ish' specs.

Treat it for what it is, a nice honest looking No4mk1, as long as the bore, throat and crown are good, happy days and enjoy....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

Just a general observation really, nice usable No4, I would suggest its been refurbished by an owner in the years since it landed on US shores.

Certainly repainted and a Singer back sight fitted, probably had the two position austerity sight fitted originally, possibly replacement wood, numbered by an old owner.

The bolt head certainly shows signs of military primer erosion, assuming its original to the rifle, it must have had good prior use.

The point being, as has been said before, 'vast' numbers of Enfield's were sold off in the late 50's and early 1960's, they have drifted around the world, from trade to owner and back for 60 plus years now, so its impossible to tell now what's original and what isn't...

Only the recent French sell off's (all seem to be original WW2 spec) and perhaps the ex Italian Navy examples are close to original 'ish' specs.

Treat it for what it is, a nice honest looking No4mk1, as long as the bore, throat and crown are good, happy days and enjoy....

---

The pre-'68 import mark breaks through the paint. So, it was not refinished after it arrived.


Yes, it's been fired. The previous owner talked about range sessions, and the primer ring is evident. The bore is an 11-1/2 out of 10. An exaggeration, but it's really that nice.

I'll take some internal pics. No stateside refinisher has been inside, either.

Anyone have an ideas about the rear wood number in the position of sniper numbering, besides stateside? I had not seen this before.

OP’s rifle looks to me like one of the early 1990s imports ( most certainly not a pre-1968 import) released by the British MoD. Many of these were mummy wrapped and had the serial number stamped at the wrist like this example. As mentioned, the black paint isn’t the original 1942 finish. A legit military No.4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by husk

OP’s rifle looks to me like one of the early 1990s imports ( most certainly not a pre-1968 import) released by the British MoD. Many of these were mummy wrapped and had the serial number stamped at the wrist like this example. As mentioned, the black paint isn’t the original 1942 finish. A legit military No.4.

---

I'll take a closer look for the proper post-'68 import mark with the importer's name and address. Perhaps under the handguard? Can't take more pics until tomorrow.

Would there be other evidence of FTR?

Do the numbers on the bolt handle look original? It does show the A-suffix.

And just wondering if this has the original barrel. Would it be 2, 4 or 6 groove if original?

Thanks.

I think it's honest. My guess is that it's a post 1986 rifle imported directly from the disposals unit at Donnington via Interarms in Manchester, England to Alexandria, VA. It's their import mark from that era on the bottom of the left butt socket. I bought a couple of loads of those rifles in 1990 when I first got licensed in Florida. Another established dealer and I drove to RSR Distributors in Orlando a couple of times buying 20 at a time which was all we could afford. Many were original WW2 issue rifles taken back through workshops, inspected, gauged and repaired or refinished when necessary. Some got full blown FTR treatment and are marked as such. Others just got a coat of Suncorite baked over existing finish. The woodwork was cleaned and treated with raw linseed oil. Later Interarms imports were marked with a dot matrix engraver on the front left side of the body. They came from South African reserve war stores. I bought a few hundred of them from the now defunct Ellett Brothers Distributors in Chapin, SC in 1994 after I moved to SC. There was a block of Savages, (33 to be exact), along with some early original Long Branch rifles and a sprinkling of British wartime manufactured rifles from BSA and Maltby as well. The majority were post war ROF Fazakerley Mk.1, Mk.1/2 and early Mk.2. There were some Mk.2 rifles from the first months of production. I've seen the serial number stamped on the top of the wrist before. I think the few I've seen were Maltby manufactured rifles, not that it makes a difference.

I forgot to add that I have one of those original rifles in stock and for sale. Purchased from me in 1990 and consigned from the son of a lifetime friend who passed away unexpectedly a couple of years ago. It's a '44 BSA. It sports the '46 post war stamp on the left butt socket and is still in its original blackened finish. No one seems to know where they were inspected, repaired and marked but I suspect it was a pooled ordnance workshop in Europe. The British and Canadians had them in Germany and possibly Italy. When I imported hundreds of the former Greek issue Long Branch rifles in 2001, many of the wartime dated rifles had the '46 stamp on the left socket too.

Thank you, Brian.

I looked at the import mark on the bottom of the buttsocket under magnification and could not make anything out to be legible. It honestly looks like a vise-grip mark or similar. But I'll try to take a closer macro-pic.

Thanks also to all who are trying to decipher this specimen.

Here's what it is: "IAC ALEX VA", short for "Interarms Corporation Alexandria Virginia". I think they caught Hell from BATF&E and that's why they changed to engraving on the left front bodyside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

They came from South African reserve war stores.

---

When sold they were just surplus stock taking up storage space. For many years serving soldiers used to be able to purchase the No 4 rifles from the Defence Force for about R60 with bayonet after the No 1 Mk 3 [R15 with spare wood and bayonet] were sold out. The new 'government', horrified at 'arming the population', stopped that quickly and sold the entire stock and ammunition in about 1996 I believe.
All the ones I've ever seen were Fazaker.y and 1947-49 dated. Work out the exchange rate in the late eighties/early nineties.

If there are any particular areas you would like to see photographed, let me know in the next hour or two from this post time stamp when I will have time to take more pics. Thanks.

Under the handguards, it looks like a greased barrel. There is a gasket-material shim under the middle band, Rear guard has "J.S. ^ 3" on the inside channel.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../cs5zyhN-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../c0AewvJ-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../Wu0mxMC-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../6w30rOc-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../YIl4cRu-1.jpg

---------- Post added at 02:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:03 PM ----------

The import mark still looks like a few scratches, at best.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../ZQ4SwCR-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../5izGs6E-1.jpg

---------- Post added at 02:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:04 PM ----------

Mag well, mag, and feedramp/chamber.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../A2pMsKr-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../qvj2J9F-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../N4E5Hh3-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../ZEA8NZL-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../HNllpqm-1.jpg

---------- Post added at 02:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:07 PM ----------

Nice, two-groove bore and flat crown.

Brass buttplate and trap.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../S8vUtxp-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../CEE8Ib5-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../3bAuUa1-1.jpg

It's exactly as it should be. Serviced and greased with XG279 prior to storage by the MoD. Keep the barrel clean, screws tight and enjoy it. I always laugh at the self-proclaimed hard-core collectors that hate the post 1986 import marks. When it comes to No.4 rifles, I'll take a post '86 import marked rifle any day over a pre '68 that usually have British commercial proofs and country of origin stamps. No one ever complains about those! The fact is that the rifles surplused prior to 1968 were probably culled because they failed one of the MoD gauging standards. They hung on to the good ones in war reserve stores and yours is one of those.

Indeed, this is a very nice one. Thanks for your experience and assistance.

It's a roughly-made 1942 rifle which has been massaged by someone to present a sort of post-FTR appearance. Look closely at the "import marks": do you see fresh phosphating where the paint has flaked off? Can't say I do, but not that close a photo. Were it a service overhaul from all Peter has told us over the years, we know it should be there. In my experience any kind of paint over any decent phosphating with a good crystalline structure will bond like hell, so that sort of flaking means either crap phosphating or none at all.

The proof of the work "down the shed" is the serial number added to wrist of the butt, as though on a No.4(T) Notice how heavily sanded the woodwork is? I venture an armourer would have re-stamped the forend number.

Some wanker who didn't know his game well enough. He might as well have taken the trouble to round off the all the nasty sharp edges left during original manufacture, that at least would have been some improvement.

The fugly welding in of the charger guide bridge might be a souvenir of the superb original craftsmanship, :rolleyes: or one of those ham-fisted repairs one sometimes see where they couldn't be bothered to grind off the blobs of weld after. IRRC this could be an original feature or a post-war job.

From somewhere an apparently brand-new backsight has been found, but the lack of any maker's mark we can see and the strange horizontal lines on the back of the sight arm suggest perhaps a factory reject which has subsequently surfaced and been resold. Such things did occur, witness the many reject, but original No.5 flash-hiders that turned up about 25 or so years ago.

Pardon my lack of diffidence! :D

Edit: now that I've read the rest of the thread, rather than just viewing the photos, OP you'll have to balance my view against the others! :D I wouldn't bother with it if I was you, unless you want proof of just how bad things got in 1942 and the sort of careless people who were employed in these factories, and their miserable work that passed inspection. How many soldiers cursed their lazy backsides as they struggled to charger load their rifles without cutting themselves we'll never know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Look closely at the "import marks": do you see fresh phosphating where the paint has flaked off? Can't say I do, but not that close a photo. Were it a service overhaul from all Peter has told us over the years, we know it should be there.

---

It would look like that.

I've seen the photos as well as you have. I've done parkerizing and I don't see it there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

I don't see it there.

---

Interesting...

I am just so glad that I quit drinking in 2004, several years before I joined the internet. Otherwise, I might ask where the good stuff was sold! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by martin08

This one looks like it was built this week.

Anyway, what can the experts tell me? Don't be bashful. Thanks.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by martin08

I am just so glad that I quit drinking in 2004, several years before I joined the internet. Otherwise, I might ask where the good stuff was sold! ;)

---

Personally I never started, so I never had to quit - or any other substance misuse or abuse for that matter.

But glad you made it onto the wagon, though I hear it can be a bumpy ride at times!? :D

Speaking of substance, I'll be happy to discuss the substance of my remarks with anyone. ;)

PS: As you probably noticed, the bolt body should be painted as well, at least along the main recoil lug.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Personally I never started, so I never had to quit - or any other substance misuse or abuse for that matter.

But glad you made it onto the wagon, though I hear it can be a bumpy ride at times!? :D

Speaking of substance, I'll be happy to discuss the substance of my remarks with anyone. ;)

PS: As you probably noticed, the bolt body should be painted as well, at least along the main recoil lug.

---

I most certainly asked for input, and I'm happy with the bounty of replies.

I knew it was 'different' before I posted, but it seems others have seen different ones much like it from the 1990s.

Rob,

The phosphate of the day was zinc and very light grey. I agree the rear sight is a replacement but it's also light grey zinc phosphate and most likely replaced in service, but I could be wrong. That rifle would have sported a Mk.2 sight as original so it would have definitely been changed. I had many of those first British post 1986 No.4 imports straight from Donnington to IAC to the distributors and will also stick to my comments since there were several exactly like it. The serial number on the butt has been encountered before and confused me too until I was told that the Armourers in later years didn't do things exactly the way the old hands did. I've also seen it on L42A1 rifles and a few of what appear to be original Maltby rifles. So, we can agree to disagree but when I see the wood off and original grease and paper shims and such, it tells me it's been worked on legitimately but honest. If Bubba had got hold of it, you'd know as the first thing they do is clean the XG279 grease off. I never could understand that.

Come to Carolina and we'll teach you how to drink!

Brian

I wouldn't see us disagreeing often Brian, :D but are you saying it's an FTR rifle or something less: lick o'paint and a sand 'n oil job? I wasn't aware of any lesser level of "service" myself, not on a mass scale at least.

No markings to reflect the work because only cosmetic? Hardly makes sense to take a rifle to bits and refinish it without checking the critical tolerances one would think? To say nothing of knocking off the sharp edges.

Numbered butts... I can't gainsay what you were told, but the EMERs are the EMERs are they not? Was such a step ever specified therein? If such were going to be applied, the logical place would be under the wrist you'd think, although if rifles were stored in vertical racks as the RN did one could see the preference for being able to read the SN's from that position.

Weren't numbers on the wrist SOP for all the L42's as per the No.4(T)?

Anyway, we all know books and rules exist to be ignored by some!

Was at a house the other day where the empty Jack Daniel's twenty-sixers were lined up in platoon strength. :D The trouble with substances is while they may help you forget what you want to, they also do the same for what you don't want to! :ugh:

These days we're more waiting for NC to come up here; just make sure you bring the 2nd with you! :lol:

My word is not gospel. I'm saying I've had several just like it from the same batch of rifles purchased and imported directly from the MoD by Interarms in the 1980s. Their markings are clearly stamped on top of the Suncorite paint as it's chipped away that very tough stuff. I'd speculate that they were inspected post war, if the original barrel was in spec, they received a basic trip through workshops for a phosphate and paint job along with a scraping and sanding of the wood. Rustproofing is a bit more than cosmetic. It was the spec. Rifles with the Mk.2 sights were upgraded to Mk.1, (it is marked with a small Broad Arrow if you look closely). When PL first visited in the early 2000s, I showed him a '42 Maltby from the same batch that is virtually new condition. The metal hasn't been refinished as that rifle skated somehow from hard use. Thinking it was untouched, he was quick to correct me that it had certainly been disassembled, inspected, gauged, preserved and restored to reserve stores, possibly several times. Considering these were the last No.4 service rifles released for commercial resale by the MoD, they may well have been inspected into the 1970s. This rough old wartime Fazakerley looks like that's exactly what was done. Refinishing the original blackened finish was a given because it wasn't too durable in the first place and the standard rustproofing became phosphate and baked paint in 1944.

The butts were probably numbered so that the same wood went back on the rifle that it was removed from during servicing. Or possibly as you say to ID it in a rack. As far as the No.4T and L42 goes, the number that we expect to see on the wrist is the telescope number, not the rifle serial number. That being said, I had a few L42s through here with the rifle number stamped there too. I don't think I've ever seen a No.4T done like that. He attributed it to younger Armourers not adhering strictly to the EMERs but just getting the job done. At least that's how I remember it. If he's reading this, maybe he can comment and correct me if I'm wrong. Anyhow, after looking at the pictures, it was easy for me to form an opinion on this one.

I'm in SC not NC. Not to breach the rules on politics, but we're still a free state, diverse, full of military retirees and very friendly. The cities have problems with crime as they all do. I'm not in one and never will be. Read up on the Old Edgefield District if interested. It's a very historical place founded by Scottish immigrants in the 1600s. General Longstreet is born and buried here. I know many folks, some both friends and clients of all colors and faiths and we all get along great. A Mexican guy was here on a crew replacing my ac units this week. I chatted him up when he was putting in the new thermostat and his story and mine are very similar as naturalized immigrants to the USA. Him from the south and me from the north! We are getting inundated with folks moving in from out west and the northeast to escape the leftist nonsense and high taxes. I just pray they vote accordingly when they settle here. It's sure driven the property values up for sure.

I'm not a JD or big bourbon drinker. I don't drink hard liquor much to be honest. I only drink whiskey with a few very special friends. Some Scotch and I like Canadian 40 Creek which isn't the mass-produced blended stuff made in Windsor. An ice cold beer suits me better after a day of woodworking in the sun or tending to my overwhelming outdoor chores. :beerchug:

Interesting Brian! My mistake on the scope vs. rifle numbers on the wrist - it's not like I didn't know that after all. ;)

Politics? Here we are collecting, restoring and discussing the implements of the ultimate political event: war. Other forums seem to get along with a space for such discussions, even thrive. Perhaps that's part of the reason this place is so quiet? It's less and less easy to ignore "politics", and that's the result of too many of us having done so for too long.

As you know we in Canada seem to have, or had, a certain natural cultural affinity for the old South and to some extent, New England (the region, not the state).