L39, L42ish

[rgg_7]

Peter...i concurr....it's all academic at this point. If the chap want to make it a shooter then the rifle needs to be rebarrelled to either 303 standard barrel profile or if he's able to luck into an L39/42 7.62 barrel he could go this option. I think the Owner hoping that it's more than just a standard bubb'd No4.

[newcastle]

I think it's a standard Fazackerly barrel from the 50's as fitted to the No.4 Mk2 rifles. or to the upgraded No.4 Mk1s which (yours) became No.4 Mk 1/2. looks identical to mine, except yours was cut just before the bayonet lugs. I think Springfield sporters still had them mid last year. You CAN slso if you're lucky get hold of aussie hevay barrels for teh NO.1 mmk3 if you keep your eyes peeled.

[Peter Laidler]

If you're thinking of using a heavier No4 barrel for your No1 - and there's no real reason why not - be advised that while you CAN, it's not as simple as a direct replacement

[Frederick303]

Ian,

You seem irritated by the responses, but it seems as a neutral observer that folks are attempting to be as helpful as they can. The barrel does have all the appearances of a cut down normal No 4 barrel. The F53 or F55 marking that can be made out in the fuzzy pictures on the barrel indicates it is a Fazakerly barrel, and as I am sure Peter Laidler can confirm, there is no known special heavy version of the Fazkerley barrel, they made service weight barrels alone (at least I have never rear of one). Nor was one ever approved fro UK or common wealth competition (though one was approved for the SMLE and the No 4 7.62 conversions)

Now if you say it is .1 wider at some point, I would note that on eth taper in front of the barrel reinforce you might find this, but on the critical fits, i.e. the barrel reinforce, and the parallel portion of the barrel that sits on the front forend seta, the diameters have to be fairly precise, otherwise the rifles would not assemble.

I have always found when you check into a new forum it takes a while to get the feel of it, this one is very friendly and has a number of subject matter experts, such as Capt. Peter Laidler. There is no better site for Enfields; this is the place to be (though gunboards is pretty decent). In any case if you want to pick the brains of these folks, it is incumbent upon you to post clear pictures and precise descriptions. If you are irritated by the responses, please be aware that your pictures are blurry. It is not easy to figure out what story they have to tell about the rifle with such a data set. As an engineer (and I am one too) you will not doubt be aware how difficult it is to troubleshoot one of you designs in the field if folks do not provide you clear and precise data. It is also true with identifying rifle features.

Overall the rifle you show does have all the appearances of someone’s home project. Now if the barrel is good you might well be able to make a good shooter out of it. More than one shooter has found that when you reduce the charge of nitro powder until you get speeds in the 2,100 to 2,250 fps that you can sometimes get better accuracy out of the SMLE at short range (i.e. eliminating the vertical dispersion at close range). You may well find a similar sweet point if you try it.

The sight is a 100 dollar plus sight, so you have done well with this.

[Amatikulu]

Nobody has been called a "liar." Questions have been asked and some information and some speculation has been offered. Let's take a step back before this thread becomes overheated and we end up closing it and everyone ends up with hurt feelings.

What is apparent to me based on the pictures available and the discussion so far, is that we have a rifle barrel that appears to be in a standard military configuration (minus the bayonet lugs), that has a diameter that would not be within acceptable tolerances for a known military barrel. Clear pictures of the markings on the barrel would help in the barrel identification. then it is one of two things - 1) If the markings conform to known military markings, we have a barrel that is not as yet known to us. or 2) The markings do not conform to known military markings and the barrel is a commercial or hobbyist barrel.

[jmoore]

I'm wondering if the answer to the "I" question might not be the obvious one:





Note the "1" in No4 Mk"?"/2 is also the same figure used in the serial number immediately following. Now if the rest of the numbers were based on the one on the side wall, the substitution of a vertical stick for a proper "1" about which a bored Fazackerly employee would care not a whit as to it's actual designation would follow naturally. It's marked, let the next fellow decipher it...

And if the receiver was actually a Maltby (and kept it's old S/N during rebuild), the "1" as the first digit makes perfect sense.


BTW: I could not find a magazine photo in harlton's gallery, but I'm tired. Heck the "F '53" marking on the barrel I missed until a few minutes ago!- Which is definitely regular old Fazackerly, so...

[muffett.2008]

Strewth, you blokes had better send me a pair of new glasses, I clean missed that to, maybe just only pay cursory attention to blurred photo's.
There were heavy No.4 target barrels made in OZ as well as No.1's. It was always a bugger adjusting wood for these.

[harlton]

I wouldn't bother with the new glasses, As I've said it's clearly stamped into the bottom of the mag, using a full set of metal stamps, that's the kind that have a 1's and an I's in it. The letters are even separated from the numbers, being on another line, the engraved serial #, is beside it offset by 90degs.
If you read the original question, I wasn't hoping for anything, but a simple answer to a simple question. I have given you sizes I obtained with precise measuring instruments. They are meaningless, a bunch of pictures that you can then argue into madness, being preferred.
I cannot get clear pictures of the barrel, as when I get close enough that the small #'s are readable, the flash goes off and everything disappears, but all of the other pictures are clear.
None of you needed to figure out, any of the stuff you have deduced, I stated all of this upfront, to many times, apparently for pleasure.
The question was simple, I told you I suspected the front had been nipped off , but wasn't sure. The fore-stock, sporterised like an L39, the things, I wondered about, have not been answered, but ignored like the clearly stamped #'s, to argue about sticks. I didn't really want a discussion about picture's of Enfield's, some thicknesses of barrels at the same spots would have been perfect. Then I could have determined more readily what I was going to do next with my gun, get it. After a week of stupidity, I'm no further ahead, than when I started, other than now, I've made the handgaurd fit on it, and fired it. Ian

[PrinzEugen]

Mate - the amount of mags which have been restamped to go with a rifle is innumerable - and it will have been restamped with whatever the stamper interprets the serial number to be on the rifle. It certainly doesn't prove one way or the other which is the correct interpretation.

[Frederick303]

Ian ,

No offense meant, but I really think you are off on your comment about "pompous prats". You also made a comment about " not just an Armourer" or something like that prior. If my standard dictionary is correct, the word pompous refers to a person with an overly important view of themselves in a specific setting. I respectfully suggest that you reconsider your point of view. There are fellows here who are the acknowledged authorities in this field, one former senior NCO who has written the "Book" as it were on the Bren, No 4 T, No 32 scope, Sten, and Sterling SMG. Ian Skennerton as posted on this site as well, if my memory serves me correctly. There are others who have not written books, but who can claim to have studied some area in depth to the point of being a subject matter expert. All answers questions for free. Because of this it is the site to be at if you like Enfield Rifles.

With all due respect, the questions and debate have to do with getting the answer right, not pomposity. As an engineer you must have some appreciation for that. The reason for clear pictures is that, for example a Charnwood conversion can be determined a lot more easily by looking at a picture of the left hand side of the action body, whereas a description of the same side could be argued for , say 4 pages on this forum without a clear answer if it is a legit 7.62 conversion or not. It is similar with your rifle.

Give it a think, I respectfully suggest an apology is in order.