A suffix on serial number - what parts were typically non-interchangeable?

[spinecracker]

I had another look at the Enfield No4 Mk1/2 that I am interested in (it underwent FTR at Fazakerley in 1953 and has an import mark on the receiver that I can't identify - yet), and I noted that the serial number had an "A" suffix which, according to my minimalist research, would indicate that non-interchangeable parts were used. The question is what parts would have typically been replaced with non-interchangeable parts? I assume this would have happened during the FTR. For those who are making lists of British Enfield No4 serial numbers, this one is DA254**A, which would mean it was made at Fazakerley, but would anyone have an idea of the year?

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.

[S-A-M3]

My understanding of these guns is that during initial manufacture there was some difference in tolerences to the blueprint[so to speak] So some parts hadto be handfitted, and true interchangeability with all mass produced parts wasn`t necessarily possible. Perhaps Peter Laidler is best qualified to comment.
Stuart.

[Thunderbox]

Unless its a Trials rifle upgraded to No4, the "nonstandard" alteration can be so minor as to be undetectable. I stripped two "A" suffix rifles recently and examined every part - replacing each in turn with sample "new" parts. One rifle was very slightly binding in the rearsight rotation, the other rifle a little firm in the sear rotation - either case not really different from any old No4. Apart from that, I could find no discernible evidence of altered parts or variations from other rifles.

[bradtx]

spinecracker, The 'A' suffix for wartime produced No.4s primarily alluded to substitute parts that wern't part of the final approved pattern. This could include the number of grooves in a barrel, barrel bands, wood type, furniture milling, cocking pieces, trigger guard assemblys and butt plates (likely others I don't remember).

Many small, or minor parts were introduced to expedite production during WWII. Only Fazakerley continued using the 'A' suffix throughout wartime production.

Brad

[spinecracker]

Thanks, that explains alot. Now all I have to find out is the year of manufacture. My wife thinks I am being a little anal retentitive (as if being the opposite would be any better....), but I want to know a rifle inside and out before I lay down cold hard cash for it. Then again, I wish I hadn't seen that BSA No1 MkIII on the same rack - now I want both - waaaahhh!!!!

[tlvaughn]

Based on serial numbers observed, my best guess is late 42 to mid 43.

[spinecracker]

Woohoo! The kind of date I was looking for. Now I just have to round up $300 or bargain really hard at the store. It was obvious that the guy in the "used gun" section had less idea about military surplus rifles than I do (yes, it is possible), but I might be able to bargain them down if the rifle is still on the rack in a month's time (of course, some other blighter might buy it in the meantime, but that is a chance I might have to take...). If that one does get sold, that will leave me with a choice of a No4 Mk1 that went through FTR in 1949 but hasn't been upgraded to a Mk1/2 (has an Ishey screw and is ok, but not great, condition) or a beautiful No1 MkIII - choices, choices....

[Peter Laidler]

There's a bit of fuzzy logic creeping in here. An A suffix on any weapon indicates, and I quote, '........are fitted with components which are not generally interchangeable and care must be taken when changing such components. When a replacement is required and a spare component will not or cannot be made to fit, the .............' and on it goes.

This relates to the rifle body and barrel. These are what Armourers describe as the 'master components'. The usual reason was that during production, if for example, the body moved slightly within a jig during production and it couldn't be assembled properly, then it would be sent to a rectification bay (At Enfield, during Bren production, they called it the hospital.....) where one of the skilled workers would see if it could be rectified to save waste. It might mean a bit of hand finishing or ring punching sear axis pin hole or aligning something correctly or selecting a barrel that matched a poorly indexed body thread. These rifles were marked with an A suffix.

They wouldn't waste time with a poorly fitting sear or, say, bolt release catch.

The only one that I can ever recall with an A suffix that I encountered a problem with was getting the thread of a PLATE, catch, head, breech bolt to align with the mag catch axis screw. It looked as though the body had been machined incorrectly or poorly around the radiussed part. It was during a big Base Workshop FTR programme. I didn't even try to find the plate I'd taken off so I just filed a new plate to fit. A very simple example....................

[krinko]

Mr. L.---
Every wartime Fazakerley I have ever seen has been an "A" suffix rifle----they can't all have slipped in the jig.
The Trials rifle bodies made up in No4 configuration were given "A" suffixes as well----they were made far away from Liverpudlians---surely there was no mistaken machining on these?
I can't help but think the "A" meant something other than "body and barrel" problems when applied to WW2 production.
-----krinko

[Peter Laidler]

I must admit to having seen one or two Fazakerley No4 rifles. Indeed, here's one in my hand at the moment and it isn't a A prefix either.

You're right, the trials rifles WERE prefixed with an A.... for the very reason that they contained parts that weren't interchangeable with run of work rifles. Like backsights for example............

You'll just have to accept what I say about the A suffix because it's an irrefutable fact, passed down by generations of Armourers. And not only that, it's in the Armourers bible, quoted here, word for word.

The example I gave of, say, a rifle slipping or moving a bit on the machining table was after all, only an example, passed down to me by others with far more experience than I'll ever have and passed down by me to the forumers. There will be loads of other reasons of course but not having seen them all...., just a goodly proportion, it all seems to tie in. That is unless anyone else has another suggestion that ties in with the UK Military Armourers bible, EMER SA&MG C509 Miscelaneous Instruction 3 dated 21st June 1951. As always, I'm prepared to listen