No 4 Receiver question

[BurtonP]

Hi all,
A quick question about a project I'm revisiting. Ages ago I posted this one that I'd restored as a faux 4T, and I'm finally getting round to the daunting task of mounting a real No 32 scope. Mr Laidler's essay on the subject has been printed for reference!



Anyway, I'm curious about the receiver wall in the pic. As has been commented on before it's a real dog's breakfast - a bad day for someone at the Fazakerly plant in 1942. What I'm curious about is the ground recess in the left receiver wall where a scope mount pad would go - is this what it is? There are no other marks indicating 4T selection; it's a normal ROF product FTR'd possibly at Maltby, possibly at Long Branch. The ground recess, if not original, certainly pre-dates thhat might it be?e FTR stamping.

What might it be?
Thanks in advance.
B

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.

[Roger Payne]

I've also often wondered if the idea behind it was to facilitate the mounting of a scope, but I've never heard of any hard evidence to confirm what exactly it is there for. It is typical of BSA, Faz & Savage rifles, but it is not evident on Maltby & LB rifles. I think, if my eyes do not deceive me, your rifle was FTR'ed at Maltby.

[Lee Enfield]

I've also often wondered if the idea behind it was to facilitate the mounting of a scope, but I've never heard of any hard evidence to confirm what exactly it is there for. It is typical of BSA, Faz & Savage rifles, but it is not evident on Maltby & LB rifles. I think, if my eyes do not deceive me, your rifle was FTR'ed at Maltby.

I suspect as you do that the relief was intended to facilitate conversion to scoped rifles.

I've also come to the conclusion that the receiver contour (and butt socket ect) on (earlier 1941-42) Long Branch rifles conforms to the 1930s No4MkI trials rifles almost exactly - which is why they don't have the relief while most others do.

Likely many of the small changes to BSA/Faz production were intended to facilitate production speed, and i cannot see any other production reason for the relief cut on the receiver side.

[BurtonP]

Thanks. I researched the odd FTR with an M before and came to that conclusion, but any records of that research are lost and I doubt my memory these days!

---------- Post added at 10:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:47 AM ----------



So, it was potentially part of the original machining, to aid any future hypothetical selection as a 4T version? Seems a bit forward thinking and optimistic!

[BurtonP]

While on the subject can anyone pass judgement on the pads I picked up ages ago to use?
They look used to me. Repro? Original? How does one tell?

[mrclark303]

I've also often wondered if the idea behind it was to facilitate the mounting of a scope, but I've never heard of any hard evidence to confirm what exactly it is there for. It is typical of BSA, Faz & Savage rifles, but it is not evident on Maltby & LB rifles. I think, if my eyes do not deceive me, your rifle was FTR'ed at Maltby.

Maltby FTR and typical Maltby inspector stamps Roger.... Seldom seen (by me at least), I've only ever come across a handful of Maltby FTR's over the years.
I assume FTR work was taken on as production wound down in 45?

[BurtonP]

Maltby FTR and typical Maltby inspector stamps Roger.... Seldom seen

Well, that's a shame, it is sanded and covered by a scope pad now.

---------- Post added at 08:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:35 AM ----------

On the subject of the Maltry FTR - I'm thinking it happened earlier than 1945. The rifle also has a bunch of Canadian stamps, which I assumed meant the rifle came back to Canada with them. There is no "England" stamp for import after the war.
Once in Canadian hands would the rifle be sent for FTR at Maltby?

[Surpmil]

Personally I'd see that flat on the left wall as possibly a control surface created for either locating the receivers in a jig or jigs, or a surface created for clamping purposes, presumably in a jig.

There was never much enthusiasm for sniping or scoped rifles IMHO from the low priority apparently accorded them, even after the loss of perhaps thousands of No.3 snipers in France in 1940.

After all, if it was a flat for scope mount purposes it was a failure as RSAF(E) and H&H both had to mill off the mating surface, aka "seat" for the front pads.

[Roger Payne]

They look like cleaned up castings to me. The originals were machined from the solid. Regardless, IMHO they are reproductions.

Just noticed a giveaway on the rear pad - the two screw holes are in line, not so on originals.

[BurtonP]

Thanks Roger!
Repro or not it shouldn't make much difference to my efforts.