Help on Serial Number

[CelticCollector]

Ok thats what I was thinking, but wasn't sure.

[CelticCollector]

I love my 49 Faz, but want a few more Enfields. Have not shot it yet, as I'm still cleaning old cosmo out of the bolt, and around the sights. Barrel was very dirty when I got it. Ran out of patches. They were coming out black ( carbon ) and a slight brownish tint, rust or old cosmo? Foaming Bore cleaner and letting it sit a bit a good idea to break that junk loose?

[Beerhunter]

I must be the odd man out, I have about a dozen Faz's and none of them have the A suffix.

Far from it. As I said earlier, post-war they were actively sought out and destroyed.

[jmoore]

Faz started using the PF prefix in 48 with the last of the MkI's and continued until 1955. H should be 42-43 Faz. The A suffix is a non standard part. I think your seller has transposed the two rifles.

I must be the odd man out, I have about a dozen Faz's and none of them have the A suffix. The only A suffix I have is a 43 Maltby.

Dang, they must be all where you are! Every time I run across a WWII Faz they have the suffix, but invariably they're '42 or '43 dated. The few I've bought are also fall into the same catagory, but I reckon I bypass 30-40 (or more) rifles for every one i buy (picky b*&^*rd that I am) . How odd. I was beginning to think non-suffixed WWII Fazackerys didn't exist...

ETA(Was trying to find some photos, but no luck so far.)

[krinko]

"...post-war they were actively sought out and destroyed."

Not always.
This conversion of an A-suffix Fazakerley to Mk1/2 was done at Fazakerley in 1953.
-----krinko

[Peter Laidler]

When a rifle required the selective fitting of parts - deformed backsight ears and 'chattered' breeching-up threads (barrels were loose in the threads until they were tightened) were a couple of faults that I seem to remember well, we'd sift them out and 'cast' them. These were inevitably old Faz 'A' suffix rifles. But if they got through the Base Workshop 'IN-INSPECTION' and could be successfully repaired, then they'd be sent out into service regardless of the A suffix.

You just got to know the reason for the A suffix after seeing hundreds and hundreds of them

[jmoore]

More discussion and some photos of "A" suffix rifles here:

'A' Suffix No.4 Rifles - Military Surplus Collectors Forums

(All this cross linking will make more sense a few months from now...)

[blast from past]

Forgive my ignorance as a newcomer to Enfields, but I am hoping there might be a serial numbers guru who can help me out. I have read various threads on this forum, but am still confused.

I have a No 4 Mk1/2 which carries a serial number in the 13xxx series (identified by Charles Stratton as Maltby manufacture), but with a "PF" prefix which I understand means post-war Fazakerley.

What happened to Mk 1 serial numbers when the rifle was converted? Is it possible that this rifle was manufactured in Maltby, then converted in Fazakerley retaining its s/n but with a PF prefix added?

The serial number is on the rear left of the action body. The full wording reads "No 4 Mk 1/2" on the top line, and the PF serial number is below. Forward of the engraving/ stamping, the receiver appears to have been milled, so previous markings could have been there. There is nothing visibly struck through or deleted and no dates that I can see (other than on the barrel, which is a RSAF heavy 7.62 dated 1969). The PF serial number is repeated on the bolt handle.

Is there anyone who can help me out with this, please?

[Badger]

I thought I'd add this list to this thread, for others who might be researching Enfield serial number ranges in general.

(Click PIC to Enlarge)

Note: After you click on images to ENLARGE them, you may find they automatically size smaller in your browser's window making them harder to view. The auto sizing is your browser's way of keeping images entirely within the screen size you have set. Move your mouse pointer to the bottom center of the pic and you will see an options panel appear. There will be a small square box next to the large X, which will have a pointer arrow sticking out of it. If it's illuminated, it means the pic you're viewing can be enlarged, so click on this box and the pic will EXPAND and open to its normal size.

Regards,
Doug

[blast from past]

Many thanks, Doug.

Looking at this, my Maltby suggestion seems wrong. It looks as if my number falls in the PF 12000 to PF 111999 post-war Fazakerley range shown and may have nothing to do with Maltby. Interestingly, this range doesn't seem to appear fully in Charles Stratton's lists; his table F-4 (ROF Fazakerley (Post WWII)) starts with PF 15118 in 1948. He does note that "the data reflects only serial numbers actually observed and reported.." so

So, I am a bit further forward, but still none the wiser as to the Mk 1 origins of the rifle!