Strange serial# No4 mk1

[Toos]

I was wondering of anyone can give me information about a Lee enfield no 4 mk 1.

I can read the following info

(seems like) BB
1942
67715


There is also a R in the wood of the forehand.

Is this an original BSA build rifle?
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.

[muffett.2008]

Post pic's.

[Toos]

here is a pictureAttachment 32445

[Steve H. in N.Y.]

I don't see the M47C that would be expected on a BSA rifle. To me it looks like a Fazakerly because it doesn't look like anything else.

[Toos]

Please correct me if i am wrong, are there wo2 no 4 's with such a serial number? Don't they always have a letter in the number?

[Roger Payne]

I may well be wrong but IMHO it's just a badly stamped single 'B' rather than 'BB'. This would make it a BSA 1942 (they didn't start using the M47 & then M47C till 1943). It looks entirely likely that the serial has been overstamped. As a generality letters & numbers often get transposed when this happens; eg a B for a 8 or a 4 for an L etc etc.

ATB

[Peter Laidler]

I agree entirely with DRP. It's a 1942 BSA made rifle

[Toos]

thanks for the replies.
Does the re-numbering means this was done after the war in India or wherelse? The bolt has the same serial number.

[Peter Laidler]

It could have been done anywhere. Armourers were renumbering weapons all the time - with the same number of course but where they were illegible or indistinct. Fazakerley were the worst offenders with their barely cutting engraving machines or 'scratchy pens'

If we could just about read the numnber, then all well and good but if it was illegioble, then we could usually find it from the unit 'WOCS' register (that's War Office Controlled Stores register) If you didn't have a clue what it was and couldn't 'cook the books' so to speak......., not that an Armourer ever would you understand, not even rushed off his feet with work up to his armpits, then there was a system whereby a new number could be allocated from a specially reserved block of numbers

Has that answered the question in a roundabout way?

[SpikeDD]

I personally don't see any evidence of a renumbering, more like distortion from metal being moved do to the heavy stamping. The "6" looks like it may have took a hit from something but my eyes see nothing abnormal.