Enfield No4 Mk1 Markings

[zaitsev44]

I just got a No4 Mk1, and I can't figure out a few of the markings.
1) A white "37" painted on the stock.
2) A "F" on the flip-up brass disc on the butt plate
3) Four things that look like stars or asterisks on the bottom of the magazine.
4) Several arrow looking things located all over the rifle
5) "AS" stamped on the bottom of the magazine

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.

[muffett.2008]

Pic's would help.

[zaitsev44]

[I'll get them on ASAP

[zaitsev44]

Attachment 34483Attachment 34484Attachment 34485
Left=37 on stock
Middle="F" on flip-up brass plate
Right=The four "stars" on the magazine floorplate and the "AS"

Sorry if they're hard to see, I did them in a moments notice with my phone

[Brian Dick]

1) Probably a rack number
2) Buttplate trapdoor made at ROF (Fazakerley)
3) Just used to cancel an old serial number
4) "Broad Arrow" gov't ownership and acceptance marks
5) Serial number prefix

[zaitsev44]

Ok, thanks. is there any way you could tell me what a rack number is?

[Peter Laidler]

In a word, no! It's just a what we call 'the butt number' which indicates that it fits into that number slot in the rack! It makes the weekly serial number check easy for the arms storeman who's list identifies that rifle with a rack number 28 for instance, is serial number A-12345 and so on

[zaitsev44]

Ok, thanks, also here's a question that might be impossible to tell, but is there any way I could tell if it has seen frontline service or has been issued? By looking at numbers or what kind of wear it has? Because mine has 3 stock repairs and metal that's "in the white".

[Peter Laidler]

No chance unless you have a forensic laboratory when you could analyse the origins of the sand etc inside the fore-end. It's just a well used, a bit down at heel but trusty and reliable No4 rifle. The absolutely dire photos ain't helped your quest either!

[muffett.2008]

You're not suggesting the quality of the pic's left something to be desired, are you Peter?