No4 Mk1/2

[Buccaneer]

I thought that this rifle might be of some interest because of its markings, and to show what had been done to try and "improve" its shooting accuracy.
First its markings, or lack of them , it has obviously been converted to its current Mk1/2 configuration but by who? All of the original markings have been very effectively removed and apart from its current configuration and serial number there is no indication of an FTR date or where it was done. It has an F56 marked barrel so that might indicate that it was done at ROF Fazakerley in 1956, but all rifles that I have seen in the past are normally marked as such. The additional serial number that is stamped just behind the front trigger guard screw is a first for me as are the very rough machining marks that have been left on the butt socket to allow the repositioning of the trigger, I can't imagine that this would have passed inspection & quality control.
The rifle has been "Fultons Regulated", so it might be them that did the conversion along with the extensive alterations that have been carried out to the stock.
I have tried to show just what has been done, the front trigger guard has been re-enforced with an additional plate, in addition the hole where the front trigger guard screw goes has been removed and replaced with a hard wood insert, the collar has been omitted. All of the woodwork has been extensively relieved, I have included a picture of the modified top wood along side a "standard" set, The front of the fore-end again has been extensively relieved and a metal based bearing surface has been inserted along with a new bearing surface just in front of the front trigger guard screw, witness marks on the barrel show how it was supported, the draws have been replaced with dowels inserted from the side to support them.
This rife has at some point been in the US as indicated by the ENGLAND mark on the right side of the action, I understand that it has been a club rifle for a good number of years and those more observant members on this side of the pond will have spotted that there are no valid proof marks hence the reason for it being stripped before its visit to the proof house.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Alan de Enfield]

Interesting rifle - I'd have thought that with Fultons having 'played about with it' it would have been prooved.

[Roger Payne]

Paul, the serial would suggest a 43 BSA, but although there aren't any clear pictures of the whole of the draws, it looks in one photo like they are asymmetrical (I mean on the underside of the rifle body, not the draw recesses in the forend). If this is the case it is a Faz rifle. Early Mk1's proiduced by LB & S would also be possibilities, but the machining doesn't look right for that to me.

The stock shows centre bedding modifications which were popular with many target shooters. The metal plate attached to the front of the trigger guard & the absence of the collar is a variation of the mod approved for the L42 where the plate replaced the collar but was fitted into a milled slot in the forend, but ended up in the same position as in yours, & served the same funtion.

[Buccaneer]

I'd have thought that with Fultons having 'played about with it' it would have been prooved

It's not the first "Fultons" rifle that I have had through my hands that has not been proofed. This was obviously done many years ago and it didn't seem to matter to much then as a lot of military rifles that have been in the same hands for years don't seem to carry proof marks when they reappear on the market. The biggest problem I find is that a lot of people including dealers confuse the old military marks and it is quite a shock when they find out that they are not valid. This particular rifle was just that, it was being advertised on one of the websites for sale to the general public, I made an enquiry and it was not until I asked about proof that they realized that it did not have one.

[Surpmil]

It's possible it's a one-off by someone with the skills and tools to make the modifications, but the metal doesn't show much care taken to removed burrs and dings etc. before the reblue happened.

On the other hand, some target shooters were totally oblivious to whatever they considered cosmetics and focused only the functional aspects of their rifles. I've seen one or two that were really horrendous, but if they shot, that was all that mattered.

I'm getting more the impression of someone who had a small business setting up No4s, sometime in the 60s probably. That would fit with the rough belt sander removal of the markings on the body side and the equally rough file job done on the butt socket: just good enough cosmetically, but no extra time/money spent.

[XL39E1]

It's not the first "Fultons" rifle that I have had through my hands that has not been proofed.

Paul, The London Proof House mark appears just above the "ENGLAND". The same is mark probably on the top of the bolt handle too, and generally the barrels were marked at the muzzle end around the Bayonet lug. Back then though shooters would buy barrels just to keep a spare and swap them, so non proofed barrels are quite common!
It looks like a standard 1960's Fulton target conversion. They did hundreds to customer orders.

[Buccaneer]

The London Proof House mark appears just above the "ENGLAND". The same is mark probably on the top of the bolt handle too,

Well you learn something every day, I am so used to seeing either the BNP for Birmingham or the NP for London I had completely missed the early marks that you have spotted, many thanks for that. Of course we now have to look out for the CIP over N mark that is now being universally used so more possible confusion in the future.