My first SHTLE MKIII.

[Surpmil]

Yes,
ZF is condemmed but repairable by the original factory.
BER is another 'mark' meaning 'Beyond Economical repair' (financially cheaper to scrap and issue a new rifle.

Z is condemmed and not repairable by even the original factory, It should not be rebuilt and made into a live firearm as people better qualified that we have declared it unsafe & unrepairable.


An old post from 2008 by Peter Laidler

The short answer to this is that the ZF marking to an Armourer means that this is the end of the line.

The Z means that it has been condemned at a Base workshop (that's the Z bit) as suitable only for a Factory Repair (that's the F part). This will indicate something to do with a part that cannot be rectified at Base Workshop and that is inevitably a damaged body. On a No4 rifle, this is what we call 'the master component', a part that is NEVER supplied as a spare part through the Ordnance channels.

There was only one other mark that was more extreme than ZF and that was ZF-BER. Which meant that in addition to the ZF, one of the examiners had decreed it to be beyond economic repair in any case. But effectively, both were the same......................

There was a milder Z-BER which indicated that it wasn't even worth sending to the factory and at workshops, these were torched!

So, the rifle your correspondent is referring to falls into one of three categories
1) scrap
2) very scrap
3) Extremely scrap

And assuming that the marks and associated standards and practices over the years have not changed - as this rifle was probably sentenced just after WWII I would think - then what do we have?

A rifle that was reproofed before being sold as surplus and used in a civilian context for a couple more generations.

Conclusion: probably sentenced for excessive body wear and inability to headspace on whatever the standard was for the No.1 Rifle at the time.

But I'm not sure that makes sense either as from Peter has told us, at least in regard to the No4 Rifle, there was no cure for inability to headspace on a No2 bolthead (of the proper length!), even at "the factory", so why would such a rifle be marked "Z" as though it could be repaired, when it could not even at a "factory"?

We know from Peter IIRC, that relaxation of the headspacing standard was at least considered, which would only have been the case if safety was not an issue. As I recall Peter's remarks were that a rifle that would not headspace on the standard was simply considered not to have sufficient life left to justify the cost of overhaul.

Unsafe? I doubt it.

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.

[Alan de Enfield]

But I'm not sure that makes sense either as from Peter has told us, at least in regard to the No4 Rifle, there was no cure for inability to headspace on a No2 bolthead (of the proper length!), even at "the factory", so why would such a rifle be marked "Z" as though it could be repaired, when it could not even at a "factory"?

As I understand it Z (alone) was condemmed as not repairable by base workshops OR the factory, whilst ZF was unable to be repaired at base workshops but could be repaired by the manufacturer.
"Simple" headspace that could be rectified by changing a bolt head could be done at base workshop level ( if not a lower level) so would not warrant Z or ZF.
All bolt heads for the No1 Mk3 were manufactured oversize and had to be ground down to fit.



On the subject of No4 bolt heads, a number 3 bolt head could be fitted if OK'd by a senior armourer.

From Peter :

There is a little more you might need to understand before you can appreciate the whole picture. The No4 rifle was a very precisely made piece of gear. The very fine production tolerances achievable meant that every rifle could be assembled with any parts from production within set tolerances and be correct for headspace with either a No0 or a No1 bolt head fitted. To leave the factory, that was between .064" and .068" headspace. If a rifle failed headspace in service (failed the "field" gauge at .074") Then it was sent back for repair. If it could be headspaced with the next size bolt head (either a 1 to replace a 0, or a 2 to replace a 1) it was deemed good to go. If a rifle did not pass headspace with a No2 bolt head, then it was passed up the line to the senior inspector who would apply the Gauge, Inspectors, Selected Breach Bolt. If the receiver passed the test, it could be fitted with a No3 bolt head and put back into service.
NOTE HERE. A NO3 BOLT HEAD WAS ONLY TO BE USED ON THE SAY SO OF THE SENIOR INSPECTOR.
If it did not pass the test, it would have been sentenced Z for return to the factory, (even if a No3 bolt head would pass headspace)

Interestingly, I wonder how many rifles are out there with No3 bolt heads in them that the owners have fitted to keep them in heasdspace, when actually the receivers may be worn beyond reasonable limits.

Also I wonder about the amount of rabid buying in the past of number3 bolt heads and the owners who have fitted them because their rifles failed the SAAMI spec field gauge at .070", which is a good .004" below the manufacturers spec...