L39, L42ish

[muffett.2008]

It looks like an aftermarket replacement target barrel, although the Aussie ones are a bit heavier than the Brit. ones, yours is more a Brit. profile, not quite as sharp at the sight taper.
I would love to see a better shot of the stamps around the breech end, they would tell where it came from.
I see what you mean about the frame being flat, I think there are a couple of models with this look, maybe one of the old hands may come in on this when they get over their hissy fits.

[harlton]

Hi Muffett,
That would be good new for me, I'll try and take some better shots, as you can tell I am a crappy photographer, I really had a good go the other day but couldn't get the detail, I'll try tomorrow when I have the best light thanks for the answer.

Regards Ian

[jmoore]

I'm still in the "shortened standard military barrel" camp. Comarative breech end photos this time (I added a photo to my previous post),

A '43 Faz bbl:



And harlton's breech end- image sharpened as much as my feeble skills can muster:

[paulseamus]

Ian

No 4 barrels are like hens teeth to source in Australia. Too many were swapped out early when they were plentiful and now it appears that there are none left.

Just in the process of having a MAB/TSE barrel fitted to one of my No 4's. It should be a standard profile, in stainless, but without the bayonet lug. TSE make the MAB barrels and they still build Omark M44 target rifles. Total Solutions Engineering

Posting a barrel locally within Australia is easy. Exporting (and importing) is difficult but not impossible.

Given that you are in the "wide, cold, land of plenty", with the US just over the border, I would have thought that sourcing a barrel locally would not be an issue for you.

Hope it all goes well.

Paul

[jmoore]

about the frame being flat

Here's some eliminating photos:

Late Fazackerly:


Mid WWII Faz.:




'41 Maltby (with pad-sorry):



3Lseries Long Branch:


My guess?: Not BSA, Savage, or Fazackerly. Either Maltby (Post '41) or Long Branch. The small indistinct "dots" just behind the barrel reinforce make me think Maltby.

[Thunderbox]

I hear your observation that it is 0.1" thicker overall than a standard No4 barrel, but from the photos it does still look like a standard Fazakerley .303 barrel that has had the front inch or so cut off.

In particuar, the knox form and chamber area look entirely normal - in proportion to the visible part of the receiver. Is the forend packed or bedded in any way? This often prevents handguards from being fitted, particularly if the reinforce is a bit too high.

[Peter Laidler]

I agree entirely with Thunderbox here. If the fazakerley barrel, identified in the photo by the F/53 logo were .1" wider (that's a tenth of an inch.....) then it probably wouldn't fit into the fore-end. And the notion that it would slip past the factory examiner that far out of spec is the stuff of wild speculation. I have just glanced at 26 No4 barrels from various manufacturers and they're all within .002" with an oddball .004" oversize at one point in the middle. I'm looking at another 9 on Tuesday but even in my limited experience with No4's generally, I don't think that we'll see much deviation here. If that barrel is a bog standard cut down No4 barrel, then you can take the word of this very limited experienced Armourer, who started his apprenticeship 50 years ago in January next year, that it will be on size and in spec.

Some bodies/barrels do seem to sit deeper into the fore-end and when we encountered these, we'd just recess the fore-end to allow the hanguard retaining ring to sit a little lower and sand the underside of the rear handguard to suit. It was absolutely taboo to slim down the part of the handguard that slipped under the ring because if that was too thinned down, it'd snap off during firing.

I know that it's academic to the subject, but you can eliminate any confusion about the serial number too. We do not use the letter I (as in the letter 'eye') in our serial number formatting. If you see one, then it is a 1 (as in the figure ONE). Your number is E - one two three and so on

[rgg_7]

I've looked at the pictures and comments a couple times. IMO a Brit MK1/2 has be subjected toL39/ L42 cloning. The barrel has been cut back...like to know if the sight block/base lugs are present? The barrel profile looks like a standard No4 F.

The fitting of the handguard is controlled by the modifications made to the forend. The forend has been inletted for a midband and the the top wood modied to suit. I suspect the alignment is off on the top wood as there's no handguard ring at the knox as a reference point. Should be very easy to fix. Install a ring. A little inletting black to mark the hanguard//barrell interference, scrape out the excess material and it should fit.

[Peter Laidler]

But if it is a bog standard .303" barrel RGG, which we think it is - in spite of assurances to the contrary, It's still shortened/cut back, free floating, L39 or 42'd - call it what you will, then any further work to 'improve' it is all academic because the harmonics are already down the pan it ain't going to shoot as accurately anyway. The best thing to do is to re-barrel the rifle and start again. If the old cut down barrel has a good bore, then have it machined down to No5 spec where it'll be marginally more accurate than it is now. That's only my 2c's worth based on nothing more than my observations

[harlton]

For the last time, The barrel is the largest I have, that includes 3 other No4's, 2x 1896 long lee's measured as if they were 25.2 " long and it's heavier than my A3. I don't know about the I, but if you look at the bottom of the mag picture the I is there for all to see, so you did bloody use it. I am really tired of being called a liar when their is no reason for it. For your information your talking to someone who is also an engineer, MIED IEng MSAE, just not an armorer, but I know how to read a mic, when building 20,000rpm engines.
I didn't build this, I just bought it,and please put an I in it.
Regards Ian