1944 FTR'd, but when was it first built? No cut-off...Original maker?Tx

[RJW NZ]

That fit of the forend at the wrist area is remarkably tight, nice to see ...
The butt plate shows plenty of marks that come from being thumped onto parade grounds. Perhaps the ZF mark took this off the firing line and instead of being destroyed it was diverted to square bashing.

[Garandrew]

Offending area?

[Peter Laidler]

I've been asked for my opinion so here goes. No1 rifles are not really my forte as I've only seen/dealt with a few hundreds and then, they were mostly the EY era rifles.

The little FTR on the bottom right side of the butt socket usually indicates to me the very early war FTR system by the trade as this was a requirement in the contract. Later, it's been back to BSA where the body markings have been linished off and this is clearly visibly because you can see in the metal structure and if I'm not mistaken, the incompletely linished lettering underneath. It's then been re-marked.

Let's not go into the ZF marks again. Back in service it's been inspected by an old, experienced, senior Armourer/Examiner at a Base workshop and deemed to be ZF. The butt is painted because it's clearly visible to ALL.

Once back in Ordnance, that would be destroyed or sidelined as a DP rifle or destruction - or disposal. I prefer not to look into the might's, if's, but's and what's. These signs are put there for stupid simple Armourers to see and act on.

[jmoore]

The little FTR on the bottom right side of the butt socket usually indicates to me the very early war FTR system by the trade as this was a requirement in the contract. Later, it's been back to BSA where the body markings have been linished off and this is clearly visibly because you can see in the metal structure and if I'm not mistaken, the incompletely linished lettering underneath. It's then been re-marked

The problem here is that the "FTR" appears to have been done after the body marking reapplication and refinishing. It has cut through the finish and later turned brown. This suggests a rebuild AFTER the 1944 build up/ manufacture/ remanufacture. Nits and picking, yes!

[Garandrew]

I thought I read the FTR was standard on known examples of 1944 Dispersals?
Andy

[Peter Laidler]

Ah, I wondered whether anyone would notice that. I threw it in to see if you were all awake. May well have been applied at the time of it's 1944 rebuild but it's certainly a much older rifle. Be that as it may, that ZF is still its death knell unless proved otherwise

On a different matter JM, IF a forumer bought the diaphragm-less No32 mentioned here, could you make the diaphragm and lead screw nut?

[jmoore]

On a different matter JM, IF a forumer bought the diaphragm-less No32 mentioned here, could you make the diaphragm and lead screw nut?

I'm probably a poor choice at this time. Too much else going on. I can't even make progress on my own projects. Gonna be back to twelve hour work days all too soon as well! However, if you're willing to wait a frustrating amount of time...

Isn't that unit in Belgium or some such?

[krinko]

I thought I read the FTR was standard on known examples of 1944 Dispersals?
Andy

The FTR mark in question is on all nine of the '44s I have seen, if that's any help. There is a 17. 2.44 contract listed in the very useful Skennerton book "British Small Arms of WW2" regarding "overhaul" of 43,689 No1 rifles. Wouldn't this perhaps refer to the 1944 Dispersal rifles?
-----krinko

[Garandrew]

Krinko, I have the book, I noted that too...I was hoping it would explain the FTR, but the ZF is the problem..
Andy

[krinko]

The ZF could have been applied anytime----some of these rifles served somewhere long after WW2and then there is always the possibility the butt was replaced by some other civilian owner.
At any rate, shootability is secondary.
-----krinko