No4 mk1 , (F) Date1/49, PF 73,382

[Gil Boyd]

Even PH employees couldn't understand the logic attributed to the serial numbers and lettering used by its own company!!!

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.

[Strangely Brown]

so #11 falls into this little lot then

Yes it does cinders,
A number of them all with very close serial numbers and the same type of electric pencil writing all have Parker Hale ball burnished barrels.

My query which nobody seems to know the answer for is why they, (PH) appear to have been given serial number blocks and then use those serial numbers on already built arsenal receivers which (we assume) left Fazackerley with a serial number already in place.

Did Fultons also renumber No.4 receivers?? (I'll ask my mate next time I see him!)

[harry mac]

Why do we assume that the action bodies supplied by Faz were already serial numbered? Could they not have been supplied un-numbered for PH, Fultons etc. to apply a number from the allocated block, once they'd built rifles on them?

[Strangely Brown]

Why do we assume that the action bodies supplied by Faz were already serial numbered? Could they not have been supplied un-numbered for PH, Fultons etc. to apply a number from the allocated block, once they'd built rifles on them?

Possibly Harry, hence the early date.
I think where I am at odds with this one; would ROF Fazackerley have just put a date on and no serial number?

My example in post 11 clearly shows the date and number being put on by the same hand, which incidentally all of these examples have much larger numerals.
Which I think confirms a date must have been put on a receiver before leaving the ROF. I guess we might not ever know the answer to this!

[Gil Boyd]

Even in the days of Yore, numbers were for counting, and thats the form we are all used to as human beings, especially when it comes to weapons of any type..................so it follows, numbers at the very least would have been there to be able to statistically record how many were produced IMHO.

[harry mac]

Possibly Harry, hence the early date.
I think where I am at odds with this one; would ROF Fazackerley have just put a date on and no serial number?

My example in post 11 clearly shows the date and number being put on by the same hand, which incidentally all of these examples have much larger numerals.
Which I think confirms a date must have been put on a receiver before leaving the ROF. I guess we might not ever know the answer to this!

Mick, I'd say it makes more sense to keep action bodies un-numbered until they are complete rifles. If you were to number them first, and part way through assembly a rifle was found to be defective, or a machining process was messed up and ruined it, you'd end up with a gap in the serial number run. If you only number them once they are complete rifles, a run of 50 sequential serial numbers equals fifty rifles. It makes accounting easier.