Restoring No. 4

[daveboy]

I have a No. 4 that has not been sporterized, but it does have an incorrect finish and I would like to return it to as close to original as possible. First, however, I would like to know what I have.

No markings on right buttsocket, left buttsocket is marked "M47C" on first line, followed by what appears to be "1943" on second line, and "AT1089" on third line. "No. 4 Mk 1" is electroplated on left side of receiver. I assume this means my rifle was manufactured in 1943, but where?

The rifle has been refinshed with a glossy bluing and I would like to return it to an original finish. Would this be phosphate covered with black paint? From the research I have done that would seem correct. Would the stock hardware, swivels, etc. have this same finish?

Also, the wood is of three different types and has been sanded considerably and has a glossy varnish. I would like to replace the wood. Should I look for walnut, birch, or what?

I appreciate any help.

daveboy

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.

[Dan.lord]

I have a No. 4 that has not been sporterized, but it does have an incorrect finish and I would like to return it to as close to original as possible. First, however, I would like to know what I have.

No markings on right buttsocket, left buttsocket is marked "M47C" on first line, followed by what appears to be "1943" on second line, and "AT1089" on third line. "No. 4 Mk 1" is electroplated on left side of receiver. I assume this means my rifle was manufactured in 1943, but where?

The rifle has been refinshed with a glossy bluing and I would like to return it to an original finish. Would this be phosphate covered with black paint? From the research I have done that would seem correct. Would the stock hardware, swivels, etc. have this same finish?

Also, the wood is of three different types and has been sanded considerably and has a glossy varnish. I would like to replace the wood. Should I look for walnut, birch, or what?

I appreciate any help.

daveboy

Hi Dave, M47C is the markings for B.S.A. ( British small arms ) at Shirley England.
Yup 1943 is the year of manufacture
At 1089 is the serial No.
The engraved bit states that it is a No 4 Mk1 (nice)
The original covering was as you say like a matt black paint, I've found on ebay some sniper black, in spray cans, & this comes up very nicely.
The stock, you can either go for beach, or if possible I'd go for Walnut. I don't know where you are in the world, but here in the UK you can get full beach sets in unissued condition for about £50.00.
I would use linseed oil (boiled) or the CCL gunstock conditioning oil to give it a great finish.
All metal fittings wre painted the same way. I hope this helps All the best Dan.

[krinko]

Here is a photo with an unmolested 1944 Birmingham Small Arms No4 Mk1 from the BSA factory in Shirley. It's the one on the bottom---top rifle is a 1/55 Fazakerley No4 Mk2, wearing the (mostly) post-war black paint.

The finish on the Beezer is a dipped chemical blue/black that would be nearly impossible to duplicate today---so good luck with that.

The Beech furniture is a nice reddish brown---butt and forestock are made by W. Sykes Ltd., marked "SL" over "N74".The front handguard ferrule is marked "M47", otherwise the handguards are blank as to maker.
You can use what wood you have---even if it's mixed species, mixed maker.
The wartime British production did this all the time, dying all pieces to match in color.
I use powdered dye from a woodworking specialty shop to do color matching when I need to---cheap and keeps forever until you mix it with water.

Recent stock sets in the US have been Fazakerley Beech dated from 1949--1955 and more recently, Circassian Walnut from Pakistani Ordnance Factory.
These latter will really bust your balls if you aren't a skilled woodworker.

Good luck with the resto.
-----krinko

[Peter Laidler]

All you budding restorers ought to take a good, long, hard look at this photograph as it shows the full wood at the rear of the fore-end close to the tie plate and trigger guard of the lower, Mk1 rifle. This is exactly as it should be.

Everyone has seen the wood here sanded down to within an inch of its life by a butcher with his sanding belt machine to the extent that the sander has graunched the wood away and is nibbling away at the tie plate. Or even worse, it's now below the level of the butt socket.

Further up the fore-end, the lower sling loop band recess sometimes looks as though it's only identifiable by the oily deposit where it used to be!

[RJW NZ]

Good mention Peter, I remain very surprised every time I pick up my 1955 enfield at how fat it feels after handling ww2 enfields, I'm pretty sure no one at enfield decided that no4mk2's needed more 'meat on the bones', so maybe what you've pointed out is the answer.

[louthepou]

Tip noted Peter! Thanks

daveboy, I usually tend to not touch the metal, but in your case if it's been really messed around with... I wonder if the end result would be worth the trouble.

Lou

[Peter Laidler]

Looking at Krinko's pictures again. Look at the small gouge from the wood, about 2" forward of the front of the magazine. We would slightly roughen-up the inside of this ragged recess and melt some shellac into the hole with a soldering iron. Once it'd cooled off, it'd be tough enough to make good. If it was a big deep gouge, then we'd drill it out round and hammer in a glued tapered oak dowel. If you were really clever, you'd make a dowel from across the grain and hammer that in, then make off so that the grain of the tapered oak plug followed the grain of the wood.

[Mk VII]

I'd guess it's had the rather dark shiny hot-blue applied by Parker-Hale when they refurbished ex-Service arms for the North American market.

[krinko]

MkVII---
The Sony Cybershot that I used to shoot that photo was not in color correction mode. Interior lighting, coupled with the burgundy velveteen cloth backdrop, combined to make the blueing look bluer and much better than it actually is.
The finish is comparable to other wartime Brit production---including Dispersal rifles. It's not fancy.
-----krinko

[daveboy]

Thanks for the replies. But, now I am confused. I can do a fairly decent home parkerizing or a home bluing (hot water). Would my 1943 BSA be correct with parkerizing (phosphate) under black paint or bluing? This gun is a mixmaster so I am not concerned with value, I just want it as close as possible to how it was when issued.

Also, concerning beech wood: I am fairly competent at finishing new walnut to look like aged military wood. Having never worked with beech however, I need to know--if the stock set is all new beech would it be stained and then BLO'd? If so, what type of stain, what color? I ask this because I will probably purchase a new set of beech wood and again I would like to know how it would have looked if issued with this wood.

Thanks again for all your replies. Will post before and after photos when through with the restore.

daveboy