Early, early Maltby? One of the first??

[Lance]

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?

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.