Mint Lee Enfield No. 4 Mk II

[Brian Dick]

I've had hundreds of ROF Fazakerley No.4Mk.2 rifles but never one stained like that. I'm just referring to my experiences. Nothing is set in stone when it comes to these rifles. The L81 rear sights were sold by SARCO under false advertising pretenses and it's really unfortunate that folks have permanently altered rifles by drilling holes in the receiver. Especially when the correct target sights are available if one keeps an eye out. The axis pin holes can be sleeved with tubing soldered in and the hole in the side for the detent filled with steel filled epoxy and touched up. My uneducated guess is this is just one of the new Mk.2 rifles that was worked on by a previous civilian shooter.

[XL39E1]

I,ll tell you how you get that finish!
Take a 1 Factory Wraped Rifle, remove the wrapping, strip the wood from the metal parts of the rifle, take some white spirit and wire wool and clean off any mess from the wood, then apply some woodstain like Jacobean Dark oak with the same wire wool (not soft clean cloth), wait for it to dry and there you go!
I've done a few like that because the owners just didn't like the Blonde finish!

[Bigedac]

Brian,
Thanks for your help. Peter remarked that some of the end of production rifles did have dark wood, so who knows? It is a very nice rifle none the less.

[Paul S.]

I have a thought or two.

There are a few things in your original post, Bigedac, that strike me as significant. First of all, you mention it has a Huber target trigger, albeit the wrong one. Secondly, you mention it has a target back sight, and again not the right one. Finally, you mention that the furniture is very smooth, not terribly significant, and apparently devoid of proofmarks. It is also apparent that the metalwork finish is in top nick.

Now, reading what the premier experts here have said, and what you've posted, I wonder if this rifle has been worked over by someone wanting a pretty to look at target rifle. I wonder if the absence of proofs on the furniture is the result of being sanded, and if the dark wood may or may not be the result of stain. I wonder why an American-made aftermarket sight would be on a 'mint' British rifle if it hadn't been added by someone in the hope of improving accuracy.

[Paul S.]

I have a thought or two.

There are a few things in your original post, Bigedac, that strike me as significant. First of all, you mention it has a Huber target trigger, albeit the wrong one. Secondly, you mention it has a target back sight, and again not the right one. Finally, you mention that the furniture is very smooth, not terribly significant, and apparently devoid of proofmarks. It is also apparent that the metalwork finish is in top nick.

Now, reading what the premier experts here have said, and what you've posted, I wonder if this rifle has been worked over by someone wanting a pretty to look at target rifle. I wonder if the absence of proofs on the furniture is the result of being sanded, and if the dark wood may or may not be the result of stain. I wonder why an American-made aftermarket sight would be on a 'mint' British rifle if it hadn't been added by someone in the hope of improving accuracy.

[Brian Dick]

I think XL39E1 and Paul S. have pretty much summed it up. That would be my uneducated opinion on this particular rifle.

[Beerhunter]

That rifle looks to me as though at least some of it has been refinished. Those post 1968 GCA importers marks at the muzzle end of the barrel have paint in them.

[Bigedac]

Well, all of you guys have valid ideas. I have taken it completely apart and the stain inside is the same as the outside with none showing on the rivets that hold the various metal parts to the wood. As far as sanding, if that were the case wouldn't the serial number and F54 on the stock be diminished? They are not at all sanded. I'm sure someone wanted to make this a target rifle, but it is not refinished, at least that I can tell by holding it in my hands. Also the muzzle stamps don't have paint in them, the shadow on the photo makes them look darker than they are.
Bigedac

[Peter Laidler]

everyone out there, and I hate to be contrary, but you can be rest assured that there definately WAS dark woodwork for Mk2 rifles manufactured at Fazakerley, as I said earlier, including the very very late Mk2 fore-ends without the cut-off block recess. I have a stack of them on my Armourers shelf if you want to see them. They aren't highly polished (ugh.......) like the photos you can be rest assured that they exist. If I was any good with photos and computers, I'd show you one - or even three un-dyed, untouched, original dark late Mk2 wood from Fazakerley

[muffett.2008]

Strewth Peter, when Rog Payne gets down to visit you, we'll get him to fix that, that excuse has been your mainstay for to long, it's gotta go.