1941 Fazakerley No.4 Mk.1 missing pieces - questions, questions, questions....

[spinecracker]

Managed to have another peek at the 1941 Fazakerley again, this time with a No.3 bolt head and some calipers. Like an idiot, I measured the bolt head length of the #4 bolt head but forgot to write it down. I did swap out the bolt head for a #3 (length 0.635") and the rifle only just failed (As in I could detect slight pressure, but the bolt still closed). I think if I can get hold of a #3 bolt head that is slightly longer but within tolerance (i.e. closer to 0.640"), it might pass the field gauge. On closer inspection, the rifle appears to be original with no import marks. The rear hand guard, forend and buttstock are varnished, but that isn't difficult to deal with. The forend is one of the early ones with the low right hand wall, and there are some stamping under the varnish on the buttstock that I can't make out due to the varnish.

I know I asked these questions at the beginning of the thread, but I still haven't found any answers, so I'll try again :P

1. When was the Mk.II rear sight introduced to British rifles?
2. When was the Mk.II cocking piece introduced to British rifles?
3. What type of upper band should be seen on an ROF 1941 No.4 Mk.1?

Just so you know, I spend all day asking questions and not stopping until I get answers - it is like being a 4-year old all over again...

[muffett.2008]

Chase up a copy of strattons book on the rifle, all the answers you seek will be found, as I am flat on my back again, I can't get up to chase the answers for you.

[jmoore]

3. What type of upper band should be seen on an ROF 1941 No.4 Mk.1?

My onliest ROFM 1941 came with a thick C.E.W. band, not hinged. It's pretty much an all early features rifle, so maybe that part is acceptable, too.

But Fazackerly may have been producing their own bands in one piece for all of their production life. Have not seen or heard of a hinged ROF(F) band yet. So the challenge is made!

[spinecracker]

Sorry to hear that, Muffett. Get better soon.

[spinecracker]

I have just ordered Stratton's text, but it won't be here for 10 days...

Thanks for the photos, jmoore. Do you have photos of other aspects of your rifle, like the cocking piece?

[jmoore]

Yah, but again, it's a ROFM (Maltby). They were the largest user of subcontracted parts. Directly comparing the two might not be the best way to get an exact idea of what you need.

Muffet.2008, don't get up on our account! I should be able to do some looking tonight, but I'm afraid dating parts changes isn't a cut in stone deal.

[spinecracker]

Just trying to get a ballpark idea of how much of this rifle may be original, and how much time and effort might be needed in putting her back together. Make or break will be on Saturday morning when I pass the gun store on my way home from getting some range time in (5 rifles, 250 rounds of ammunition and lots of stuff to shoot...yeehaw!)

As for rechecking the headspace...

My #3 bolt head is 0.635" long. The upper tolerance for #3 bolt heads, found on a prior post on another forums by the good Mr. de Enfield, is 0.640". If I add a shim to my #3 bolt head that is 0.004" thick, bringing the length up to 0.639", and the rifle passes the field gauge, then it should be ok. If not, then it is toast. Am I correct in my thinking?

[jmoore]

I reckon. I'm afraid I don't get all excited about headspace. Sloppy bolt, severe overturn of the bolthead, pounded out locking surfaces, uneven locking lug bearing, Loose charger bridge- that kind of stuff makes me question shootablilty. Especially if you are going to reload for the rifle.

[spinecracker]

I am just following Mr. Laidler's advice as best I can with limited resources in the short period of time I have to do it in

[jmoore]

I believe you'll find, if you dig deep enough, you'll find that Captain Laidler has the same feeling rregarding headspace IF you do your own ammo. But considering the vast volumes of info here, it's hard to root out.