Early, early Maltby? One of the first??

[Surpmil]

Early date, A suffix (something non standard.)
Hand work (with a draw file?)

They certainly had the skills and were not afraid of doing hand finishing.

I wondered, but it would have had to be an inappropriately coarse file handled with machine-like precision and even if it was, the marks wouldn't extend right up to the "shoulders" at either end.

Pity about the missing bolt, but that might well be one reason the rifle survived pretty much untouched.

[AD-4NA]

Congrats Lance,
Very notable acquisition, glad you posted it.
I saw that come up on the auction site and was considering if I should notify the various Enfield forums that it was out there if it was legitimately that early.
Glad it went to a good home that knows what it is.

When I saw it I was actually tolerably impressed that such an early war rifle actually kept a fair number of rarer early war bits.

Are we clear cut that it is a trials body, or is it one of the first actual production receiver bodies?

[Lance]

There is no definite proof either way on the body but I would lean toward a semi-manufactured Enfield body finished at Maltby based on the cut-off screw hole and only the few Maltby inspector marks. The questions it raises is there any other pre-10000 rifles out there that are not in the 3XXX s/n batch? Compared with the other 3XXX rifle the inspector proof marks are the same just its body markings are standard roll stamped so was this rifle number "14" that was then assigned a 3XXX number and added to the first run of rifles? If it was the 14th rifle made during the initial set up it makes sense that later someone would engrave the body markings as it would be too late to roll stamp the body. Sadly there are not enough rifles to compare it with.

[linpao]

good morning everyone, really nice piece Lance, I own one too but with a much higher serial number, despite having the same year of manufacture, as soon as I have a moment I'll do it and try to post some photos, clearly from the serial number yours is very most quoted being one of the first.
Linpao

[Surpmil]

There is no definite proof either way on the body but I would lean toward a semi-manufactured Enfield body finished at Maltby based on the cut-off screw hole and only the few Maltby inspector marks. The questions it raises is there any other pre-10000 rifles out there that are not in the 3XXX s/n batch? Compared with the other 3XXX rifle the inspector proof marks are the same just its body markings are standard roll stamped so was this rifle number "14" that was then assigned a 3XXX number and added to the first run of rifles? If it was the 14th rifle made during the initial set up it makes sense that later someone would engrave the body markings as it would be too late to roll stamp the body. Sadly there are not enough rifles to compare it with.

I'm not clear on your meaning here:

The questions it raises is there any other pre-10000 rifles out there that are not in the 3XXX s/n batch?

Do we have any reason to think Maltby serials didn't begin at 0, 100, or perhaps 1000?

The electric pencil markings on the receiver/body wall are almost exactly what is on the later stamp and that is probably not a coincidence as those markings are quite unique in terms of No.4 rifle markings overall.

So that might suggest the stamp(s) were already decided on and perhaps ordered, and in the interim the electric pencil was used.

[Lance]

To date, I have yet to find any pre-10000 rifles that were not in the 3XXX batch. Not to say there are none and I am still hunting but it suggests Maltby began there.

The electropencil markings have only been found on this rifle. Rifles with later serial numbers are roll stamped, sadly I have not found an earlier serial number example. This suggests, as you already mentioned. that the body markings were already determined and the roll stamp was not ready or that this rifle was never roll stamped and later marked to comply with the established marks.

There is a lot of guessing with this rifle due to the lack of survivors for comparison.

[Alan de Enfield]

I have no memory where this information came from or the veracity of it

ROF Maltby Quantity 270000 Serial Numbers 10000 - 19999 then A10000 - A19999 & so on thro' alphabet

ROF Maltby Quantity 2000 Serial Numbers 3001A - 4000A & 8001A - 9000A
Components for these 2000 rifles are not interchangeable. Components for these rifles were made by Enfield about 1935, shipped to Fazakerly in 1940. Supplied to Maltby by Fazakerley, They were actively sought out and destroyed in the early '50s. Very few have survived.

[Roger Payne]

If correct it would explain a lot.........

[Lance]

I have no memory where this information came from or the veracity of it

ROF Maltby Quantity 270000 Serial Numbers 10000 - 19999 then A10000 - A19999 & so on thro' alphabet

ROF Maltby Quantity 2000 Serial Numbers 3001A - 4000A & 8001A - 9000A
Components for these 2000 rifles are not interchangeable. Components for these rifles were made by Enfield about 1935, shipped to Fazakerly in 1940. Supplied to Maltby by Fazakerley, They were actively sought out and destroyed in the early '50s. Very few have survived.

Thanks for that tidbit of knowledge! I know there was a 2,000 rifle contract 1/41 at Fazakerley for "earlier trials No. 4 rifles f/ army stocks, converted at Faz" which I assumed were mostly the No. 1 Mark VI rifles. I did not know Maltby also had a similar contract and they were culled later. I hope to find more survivors to paint a better picture of the early days.

[Surpmil]

Clearly time someone started a Maltby spreadsheet as that kind of record invariably reveals patterns that are otherwise not detectable.

There are, or were, a number of early rifles featured on this site over the years. That would be a start.