My new arrival, an early Mk2 target No4

[RJW NZ]

Fresh in the door, courtesy of a very nice seller, does anyone know when the Mk2's began production? This seems very early, what with the converted no4 mk1 wood and all. There's zero stamps on the wrist, can anyone ID the maker from the serial lumber PF 318154?
I think it has 4 groove rifling, I'm not sure of the barrel maker yet as I haven't had a look inside. The barrel is stamped ball burnished, my first rifle with that feature, nice to have.

On the underside the trigger guard has had about a one inch extension welded onto it to increase the bearing area, somewhat on the same theory as the L42, does anyone know of 'K&H' as a gunsmith/accurizer? I've never heard of them.

The seller showed me images of the bedding, it has the classic parker hale? type, a small bearing pad under the knox area 1 inch square, and then a 2-3 inch bearing area at the mid band, upper and lower. All very interesting.

Thanks if you know of any on the questions.

(the image manager isn't working, I'll try posting them again soon./ Solved, I switched over to Internet Explorer instead of fire fox)

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.

[Simon P]

Never seen a trigger guard modified like that before.

From memory production of the No4 Mk2 commenced in 1949.

Your rifle was manufactured by Fazakerley in Liverpool October 1949.

(F) = Fazakerley
10/49 = October 1949

Is the receiver marked anyway ie Fultons or Parker Hale who could have done the bedding alterations?

[RJW NZ]

Thanks re Faz, so this really is pretty early on in the piece, cool.
On the exterior of the receiver etc there are very few marks, and so far no Parker or Fulton,
lol, 10 minutes later, I couldn't resist so I just opened the guards up. There's no marks that are not just machining stamps, The barrel is unnumbered but has F 56, which I assume is Faz in 1956.

The bedding appears very well done, the mid lower bearing, essentially a half shell U shape about 2 inches long, is actually recessed 1/16th into the fore end wood, nice touch and tells me someone not a wood butcher did the work.

Never seen a trigger guard modified like that before.

From memory production of the No4 Mk2 commenced in 1949.

Your rifle was manufactured by Fazakerley in Liverpool October 1949.

(F) = Fazakerley
10/49 = October 1949

Is the receiver marked anyway ie Fultons or Parker Hale who could have done the bedding alterations?

[tbonesmith]

I've seen that sort of trigger guard mod. not as neat though on a No4 Mk1/3 that I'm rebuilding. Really a very practical modification to avoid any possibility of crushing the wood with the front of the trigger guard. Very nice rifle and neat job all round.
No mark on the very end of the barrel (face)? my AGP setup rifle was marked there.

[Peter Laidler]

If the trigger guard is modified to prevent crushing the wood at the front of it, surrounding the front trigger guard screw then it is unnecessary and redundant. This is because when it's correctly adjusted, the front trigger guard screw should JUST nip up - and no more - the fore-end at this point because any further nip-up or clamping action of the screw is taken up by the COLLAR. That's why it is important to keep the collar between the trigger guard and the body of the rifle.

You don't need to spread the load as shown so to speak, you just need to keep a properly adjusted collar.

As a bit of an aside, in about 1948 or so, the Small Arms School carried out extensive trials into all manner of stocking up. The trials took place in England (at Bisley.....) Germany, Libya and Malaya to get all of the climatic variables such as hot, wet, dry, hot and wet, dry and cold etc etc. .....I'm sure I'm repeating myself here as I recall writing all this rubbish before but I've started, so I'll finish! The end result was that while it was a difficult process at the factory and for the Armourers at all workshop levels, none of the other methods ever out performed the bog standard method for accuracy and reliability

One of the results of these trials, in order to simplify the fitting and reliability of the wood being used was to hand the trigger from the body. This meant that the semi skilled fitters at the factories could set the trigger pulls and pressures before the fore-ends were even fitted.

There's more to it than that but that's it briefly

[Thunderbox]

I think the front triggerguard screw reinforce came about as a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy - it used to be common practice in the old target shooting days for the screw to be slackened off after each days' shooting. Thus they either gradually worked the wood into compression by constant re-tightening, or buggered up the forend by forgetting to tighten the screw at all. Combined with the almost universal shooter conviction that "my group isn't good, so the rifle bedding must be at fault" and the common technique of throwing away the collar to get a (perceived) good tight pull down on the receiver, its not surprising that the gunsmiths started to put metal plates in there. I guess that the target conversion of No4 Mk2 rifles with late-pattern waisted trigger guards contributed - those triggerguards do tend to dig in if the collar is not perfectly adjusted.

[Peter Laidler]

Good point there TBox......... It's hard to believe that they'd unscrew the trigger guard screw each day but they did. THat very probably was the start of the steel insert.

It was carried on into the L42 but that was in order to preserve the existing stocks of fore-ends. Mind you, it wasn't crushed trigger guard screw wood that was the problem with L42 fore-ends, it was the dire quality of the cut and shut conversions!

[tlvaughn]

Fresh in the door, courtesy of a very nice seller, does anyone know when the Mk2's began production? This seems very early, what with the converted no4 mk1 wood and all. There's zero stamps on the wrist, can anyone ID the maker from the serial lumber PF 318154?

The earliest Mk2 I have on record is PF100412 dated 5/49 (last MkI I have on record is PF97096 dated 4/49), so it looks like Mk2 production began in May 1949. Interesting thing about yours is the s/n, all of the October 1949 s/n's I have recorded so far are in the 140xxx - 141xxx block. Your s/n is usually found in the 1953-55 range (it also falls into the s/n range of what many refer to as the Irish Contract).

[Peter Laidler]

I wonder if PF 1000001 was a convenient start point for the 'new' Mk2 rifle while the Mk1 production ran out in the PF 971xx or so area at some time before that.

I just can't imagine Mk1 and 2 rifle PF serial numbers being duplicated. As I said before, it HAS happened before, with Brens, but there was a reason given for it

[tlvaughn]

I wonder if PF 1000001 was a convenient start point for the 'new' Mk2 rifle while the Mk1 production ran out in the PF 971xx or so area at some time before that.

I just can't imagine Mk1 and 2 rifle PF serial numbers being duplicated. As I said before, it HAS happened before, with Brens, but there was a reason given for it

I hate to assume anything with Enfields, but based on the data I have collected to date, I believe you are correct. I am assuming that the MkI production ended at approx. PF99999 +/- and that the Mk2 production began at PF100000 +/-. To date I have not seen any duplicate s/n's in MkI and Mk2 production.