Help Identify this Number 4 Mk. 2

[Surpmil]

To answer directly: I can't see any reason it wouldn't be safe to shoot from what you have told and shown us.

There may be stamps on the rear face of the action that would tell us conclusively who made the receiver ("body" in British parlance.) Speaking of terminology, is "bog-standard" a phrase used down KY way; I always thought that was another British term?

I don't ever remember seeing the Mk2 designation stamped into the receiver wall like that but, maybe others here have?

I thought at first that the SN was probably changed, but I think I can see traces of two "8"s there just to the left of the stamps, so probably just a case of electro-pencilled markings being over-struck to make them more durable, as was done in service at times.

If the original SN is A1848 that suggests a very early receiver. There are some folks here who could say more about that.

The fact that it was found in good enough condition for conversion in 195_ suggests it didn't have too hard a war.

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.

[davidwrankin]

Speaking of terminology, is "bog-standard" a phrase used down KY way; I always thought that was another British term?

I am Kentucky born and bred, but I have loved British TV shows since I was old enough to find Mystery on PBS myself. (Last of the Summer Wine is getting copied from legal Region 2 DVDs to my media server as we speak.) I accidentally catch myself using British English slang and spelling without meaning to.

Milady was also from Eastern Kentucky, they occasionally kept older English sayings going (and she was also a British TV junkie, more than I am), so might have picked it up from her too.

Back to the gun. I decided that, rather than post more pictures, I'd throw together a quick YouTube tear-down and video of every marking still on the gun. I've posted it at , and we'll see if I can embed it:



The video makes it a lot clearer that someone went to a lot of effort to clear off all the obvious armory markings. Hopefully what is left is enough to hazard a guess, at least.

I have to admit, No. 1 Son's RTI purchase has been interesting, at the very least. I still think he overpaid for the condition this gun was in (and the amount of crap (literal and figurative) I cleaned off it....), but trying to solve this mystery has been fun.

It also inspired me to order a "pigsticker", Aussie stripper clips, and WW1/WW2 surplus ammo pouches to make up a collection.

[Giove]

In my opinion the S.N. was changed in India. I have an Indian sniper with a S.N. replaced completely similar to this.

Tha stamp on the butt-stock (508 in the circle) identifies an Indian depot.

[davidwrankin]

Speaking of terminology, is "bog-standard" a phrase used down KY way; I always thought that was another British term?

I am Kentucky born and bred, but I watched a LOT of British shows on PBS growing up, and we still watch a lot of British TV. (I am currently loading my newly-purchased region 2 box set of ALL of Last of the Summer Wine to the media server for binging...) I catch myself using British slang unintentionally quite a bit.

Back to the gun:

Thanks everyone for the posting. As I mentioned to Alan in a PM, if I wanted to let this be a wall hanger and wanted to refinish the gun, I'd be tempted to try to etch out the markings (CSI-like). However, I don't want to ruin the finish that is still on the gun, and I'd be a bit afraid that removing more metal might weaken the body/receiver.

One thing I do want to finish pinning down: can we tell visually this is a Mk 2? If not, how can we tell without markings the difference between a Mk 1/2 and a Mk 2? This is the first Enfield I've ever seen disassembled, so I just don't know enough to tell.

There could be an England -> Pakistan -> India path for the gun, and India scrubbed the gun to clean Pakistani proof marks. I don't think a gun seller cleaned it, because they would have no incentive to remark the serial number correctly in all four spots. A forger would have wanted to add factory marks and make it look more authentic. As it is, either BSA or a different Enfield-aware armorer restamped the Mk 2 locations with the A1848 serial number intentionally and correctly.

Did BSA use Savage parts for their FTRs, or could it have picked up the furniture in India as part of an armorer swap or FTR there? The buttstock has a slightly different finish color than the front furniture, so I suspect that it picked the buttstock up as an armorer's swap or during the grenade refit in India.

I suspect that most of the history of "A1828" is going to be a mystery, but I'm OK with that. What we do know about the gun points to a remarkable 70+ year history already, and I want to make sure it can stay in serviceable condition for at least that much longer.