No4MKI, Stratton, and me - question

[IditarodJoe]

This has me puzzled. My rifle has matching serial numbers, BA264XX, stamped on the buttstock socket, bolt and barrel. In Charles R. Stratton's "Lee-Enfield No.4 and No.5 Rifles", the author seems to indicate that serial number range 20000-29999 was allocated to ROF-Fazakerley and that the s/n perfixes ranged from HA to PF. How then did this rifle end up with a BA prefix in this s/n range?

Also, Stratton states that prior to 1945, rifles had the full year of manufacture stamped on them. On this one, the left side of the action body is stamped No4MK1ROF(?) 3/43. Is Stratton wrong or am I misunderstanding?

I'd appreciate any help. Thanks.

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.

[bradtx]

Joe, Remember that Stratton's figures relate to what info he recieved in a prolonged poll. Like anything in print that deals with collectables, it's subject to update.

Fazakerley's '43-'44 No.4 s/n prefix'g was a bit odd. Once the Z prefix was finished in '43 the pattern became AA, AB, AC, BA, BB, BC and so on. The leading '2' requirement was dropped when the PF prefix was adopted.

I can't find Stratton's mention about Fazakerley using the full year during the war years. Which page is that on? At some point in '42 only the last two digits were used and at some point in '43 the date moved to the left side action body wall with some electro penciled rather than stamped.

Brad

[IditarodJoe]

Thank you for the information, Brad. I can appreciate how much effort must go into creating a book such as Mr. Stratton's . . . this type of knowledge is constantly evolving.

It's my first excursion into the world of British firearms and I'm just at the beginning of the learning curve. The history is fascinating. Should keep me occupied for at least five years (or another gun safe - whichever comes first.)

FWIW, looking at the last sentence on page 23 (continuing on pg.25), I got the impression that my rifle should have the full year stamped on it. Either I misunderstood the text or new information has come to light since publication.

Thanks again.

[bradtx]

Joe, Stratton's text is incorrect WRT the full year stamping. Could a '42 or '43 Fazakerley still have a full year stamp? Yes, there were multiple stations for every assembly item and a minor running change could've taken quite some time to be fully implemented.

Brad