No 4 "Factory Defence Only" rifle

[slug]

I've just acquired a No 4 Enfield that's marker "For Factory Defence Only". It's dated 1942 and the serial number, 56/A/28 is on the left receiver, butt socket and bolt handle. It has an unusual, short cocking piece. It has two groove rifling and stamped DP on the receiver ring and bolt handle. The magazine is stamped ROF 8142.
Unfortunately, the receiver was drilled and tapped with four scope mount holes. Could this be some prototype or trials rifle?

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.

[MkIX]

Could this be some prototype or trials rifle?

I've never seen a cocking piece like that, nor have a seen a rifle stamped "For factory defence". But I have always heard that DP meant Drill Purpose and that rifles marked for it were done so for a reason, possibly they were deemed unsafe to fire or just unfit for service. I'm sure someone else can tell you more, or correct me if I'm wrong.

[Peter Laidler]

Ah, yes.......... This was a rifle held for factory defence at the Fazakerley factory where industrial strife was beyond legendary. So just in case agitators did decide to take over or overrun the factory, the specially trained 'security services' on site were trained and arms were held close at hand. Fazakerley were the only small arms factory to have or need this arrangement although some wag suggested that the same arrangement should have been in place at the Triumph factory as Speke. It being the only way to prevent the industrial scale thieving of parts!

The ROF (Royal Ordnance Factory) and other stamp marks are simply the factory controlled stores register numbers

The short cocking piece is a red herring and has no bearing on the markings...........

Next question

[bigduke6]

Any idea when these were first introduced at Fazakerley ? always been led to believe all ROF sites in WW11 had there own defence force, with most being attached to the local Home Guard unit.

[smellie]

Capt. Laidler, can you fill us in a bit more regarding the "industrial strife" or else give us a source for more information?

We had a very similar situation in this country in WW2, but the agitation all seemed to be in one province.

In Canada, the younger generation has forgotten entirely the pejorative meaning of the word "Zombie".

Also, would you evaluate this rifle as normal factory output? To my eye, it looks to have been assembled from reject and non-standard parts.

In all, a MOST interesting critter!
.

[Frederick303]

Second on that request, I would have expected this to be a fake or "fantasy" piece prior to Capt. Laidlers post.

I would alos be interested to know what the reason was for the modifed cocking piece, it would seem this would result in a speed lock so to speak, albeit with a reduced impact force. The only other example I have seen of this was on a match tuned No2 MK IV that has such an arrangement, but even it had more weight on the striker than that shown in the picture.

[Simon]

Second on that request, I would have expected this to be a fake or "fantasy" piece prior to Capt. Laidlers post.

I was looking at an example of a "Factory Defence" rifle myself only last week in a North West UK Gunshop.

Cheers,

Simon.

[jmoore]

I believe the subject has been brought up in this forum before, however don't ask me which threads! But the first photo of such a beastie is the one above.

[Patrick Chadwick]

Seems to be a quasi-official "lunch-box special", a sort of "last-ditch" rifle for internal use. I don't think I would fire it.

[Bruce_in_Oz]

That is one very strange cocking piece.

If the rear has simply been trimmed off, then there is no thread to actually prevent the thing shaking itself off.

The 0.250" diameter of the striker and the inner forward section of the cocking piece are specified to VERY tight tolerances and form an interference fit, or at least that's how they are supposed to be on new components. The thread is basically used to haul the striker into the cocking piece until the crescent cut on the rear of the striker lines up with the keeper screw cut in the back of the cocking piece. The assembly needs that close fit on those two parallel features to prevent the cocking piece shaking itself out of correct alignment with the sear after a few hundred cycles. If you can remove the striker without getting a few white knuckles, it is probably a bit loose. (Don't forget to remove the keeper screw first, though.) If the cocking piece can float around, correct engagement with the sear and the "bolt, locking" is not likely

SO....How on earth is this abbreviated job held in place? Special short striker with a funny thread?