magazine cutoff

[jmoore]

On my trials No4 later No4T and later still L42 the cut-off screw thread is BA. And it's got a standard No4T backsight and a rounded top to the bodyside.

I think we're making too much of the rifle in this thread. Nice find and all that but it's an Enfield body shipped up to Fazakerley to be finished when the going was getting decidely tough. And they weren't going to waste it......, that's what the rectification bay was for. And that's presumably why it's got an A suffix

The other alternative is that it was forged and manufactured wholly at Faz to the original drawing spec. Shrivenham have got an identical un-numbered known pre-production rifle there. It DOES have a number, 37, but that is an identification number put on there for project/security/identification purposes.

I wouldn't mind betting that out in the big wide world, un-noticed and unloved are a few more similar rifles with the slot covered up. And it's difficult to notice the slot from the inside and outside when it's covered by the fore-end. I'm a firm believer that the answer is always simple with small arms.

A bit like why some No1's are marked Mk3* when there is a cut-off slot. It's because the EMER's say in as many words '.......fit a high side fore-end and add a star!

That's the practical side! We're on the collector trivia/anorak side!

[oldhound]

well I have taken some pictures and am trying to send them to Surpmil, as he will post them for me. Have certainly learned a bit about trials rifles the past week, enough to realize I know nothing. I have calibers jmoore but don't have a thread guage. The screw was hard to get out, likely why it was still there. Anyways I'm sure the pictures will get up soon and every one can see for themselves. It is what it is.

[Surpmil]

Post 1 of 2 with the latest photos. Interesting that the barrel is dated 1942, although the markings look very much like the RSAF(E) markings.

[Surpmil]

Whoops, 2 of 3!

[Surpmil]

And finally:

[jmoore]

Dang, won't have access to a good monitor until Friday, but looks like there's something to work with! Any chance of getting pics of the rear sight recess with the sight off? That's one area that was changed when full scale production started.

As for the cutoff screw, Oldhound, just use your calipers to get the OD of the screw shank and also the distance between two thread crests. Easy enough to work out the TPI from that.

Thanks for your efforts, all!

BTW, I'm thinking Bubba didn't add the cutoff slot and screw hole in the action body. The cutoff itself, well... The rear sight is just missing its battle peep, reason unknown - it doesn't really go with the rest, though, regardless.

[Thunderbox]

My money is still on bubba:

- Why isn't the cut-off screw hole counter-sunk, as on all other Enfields?

- Difficult to see, but the cut-off slot does not appear to be milled forward of the edge of the boss, as on most rifles. Is it saw-cut instead?;

- The machining on the body is rough - typical wartime Fazakerly. Enfield Trials bodies tend to be finely machined.

[jmoore]

I'm also still undecided on the action body origins. I reckon its time to pull apart the trials rifle for some "guts" pics. Hopefully, will get it done this weekend. Will also pull apart a SMLE w/ cutoff.

Anybody w/ an early Fazakerly (that has not been FTR rebuilt and covered w/ Suncorite) to dissect and take pictures? Feel free to jump in!

If the slot's not original, I'll have to call it something more sinister than "Bubba-ized"!

[Amatikulu]

For comparison, here's a link to an earlier thread on this forum where I showed pictures of my early Fazakerley No.4 Mk1(T).

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=17275

[Surpmil]

I think we have to use common sense: the owner has no agenda here except finding out about his rifle. He has had the rifle for at least 10 years(?) Was anyone trying to make early No4's look like trials rifles 10+ years ago? I think not. In fact has anyone ever done so? I doubt it. The 'correct' cutoff is almost impossible to find; what would be the point?

As SpineCracker found out at a large show recently, hardly anyone recognizes these rifles for what they are anyway, even one built on a much more recognizable No1 MkVI body! So where's the motivation for the 'crime'?

The missing battle sight? Just means someone wanted clearance for something, or stuck on a sight from a No4(T) probably. When armourers needed a backsight for a No4(T), I doubt they indented for one, just whacked off the battle sight and on it goes...Most of us have seen No4 backsights with the battle sight ground off that were probably not original H&H conversions. Easy to tell as the H&H ones were done with a milling machine rather than a file or belt sander. Anyway, the backsight is completely irrelevant here.

Much more interesting is the two groove barrel dated 1942, but with markings very similar to the No4 trials rifles IMO. Is it the original and why is the body dated 1941 and the barrel '42?