No4 mk1 , (F) Date1/49, PF 73,382

[Strangely Brown]

One thing I have never understood was the allocation of serial numbers to the likes of Parker-Hale for rifles which had already been allocated a serial number.

These numbers are not included in Stratton's book and I wonder if anybody on here has an example with a much later date indicating a scrubbed receiver.

circa 1951/1954
PF405813 - PF405848 FULTONS BISLEY
PF411229 - PF411264 FULTONS BISLEY
PF361160 - PF361259 PARKER HALE
PF404157 - PF404206 PARKER HALE

My own No.4 with a ball burnished barrel, so far we have identified about 4 rifles with very similar serial numbers but varying dates amongst them.

[harry mac]

One thing I have never understood was the allocation of serial numbers to the likes of Parker-Hale for rifles which had already been allocated a serial number.


https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...standard-2.jpg

Perhaps it's like the army. If you try to apply logic to it, it doesn't work

[Peter Laidler]

If I understabnd this correctly Stangely Brown, and Harry's answer, are you saying that serial numbers were duplicated by Fazakerley?

[Strangely Brown]

No Peter, Parker-Hale having been given a serial number block to use then scrub receivers which are already numbered and then apply the numbers of the block assigned to them.
Does this make sense?

[harry mac]

If I understabnd this correctly Stangely Brown, and Harry's answer, are you saying that serial numbers were duplicated by Fazakerley?

I wouldn't even pretend to know, Peter. I'm perfectly prepared to remain mystified as to why mine's been re-stamped with exactly the same serial number as was struck out.

[Peter Laidler]

To be really truly honest Strangely......... and in a word...... No! I cannot imagine in a hundred years a Govt Ordnance Factory supplying a batch of unissued serial numbers to a private company so that they could linish the original numnber OFF the body - and then re-engrave a new serial number on it - so that it looks like it';s........... Nope it's what I'd call following a sharp intake of breath '.....toooooooo dodgy'. Supply new registered bodies, already numbered as the registered and accountable 'master component' that was NEVER supplied or available to Ordnance and NEVER available as a spare part, well, that's another matter but to be wide open to chicanery or dishonest practice.

Re the body 406534, to be honest, that looks like it was engraved by a first week apprentice

There were instances of duplicated numbers, one of them beinbg the V series of Bren guns and when this was picked up, it was circulated in the Information to Quartermasters briefing reports that no one ever read or took any notice of if my experience with No2 pistols and No2 revolvers is anything to go by

[Strangely Brown]

Re the body 406534, to be honest, that looks like it was engraved by a first week apprentice

A few of these early dated No.4's with much later serial numbers have been recorded at Bisley competitions, the common factor being they all have ball burnished barrels and have the same (bad) style of electric pencil writing.

How does a No.4 MkII end up with a serial number as late as 406534 on a 10/49 dated rifle??

[Peter Laidler]

Chicanery I'd say.......... But a dealer can put whatever number he likes onto a rifle.

[Strangely Brown]

Chicanery I'd say.......... But a dealer can put whatever number he likes onto a rifle.

Look at Post 11 again, Parker Hale along with Fultons were allocated serial number blocks:

PF405513 - PF405712 ADMIRALTY

PF405813 - PF405848 FULTONS BISLEY

PF411229 - PF411264 FULTONS BISLEY

PF361160 - PF361259 PARKER HALE

PF404157 - PF404206 PARKER HALE

Unknown contracts

PF401496 - PF404156 2661 RIFLES
PF404207 - PF405392 1186 RIFLES
PF405413 - PF405512 100 RIFLES
PF405713 - PF405812 100 RIFLES
PF405849 - PF407448 1600 RIFLES
PF407729 - PF411228 3500 RIFLES
PF411472 - PF412789 1318 RIFLES

[CINDERS]

PF405849 - PF407448 1600 RIFLES

so #11 falls into this little lot then