Was the re-inforce lug on the rhs of the receiver of a no4 mk1 machined off in FTR?

[ssj]

Further could it have been "cleaned up" on the lhs where the no4 mk1 would have been and re-stamped no4 mk2? Or is it a no4 mk2? yet stamped like a no4 mk1?


Attached pic shows a no4mk2 engraving, but serial number on socket and F54 on guard, TRIGGER...and a 1/2 wood upgrade, though not very tidy....

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.

[jmoore]

Have not the foggiest what you are asking!

[ssj]

Im curious about a rifle for sale here in NZ. The engraving is different to std no4 mk2s, it has a no4 mk1/2 stock, and it has stampings on the butt socket and a N2xxxx serial number there which made me think its a war time faz made No4 mk1 upgraded to a 1/2, yet its marked no4 mk2 as you can see. The trigger guard has what looks like a F54 stamp, the owner claims its a 1958 gun. the owner says the re-inforce lug is missing so the Ian S. book I have on no4s says that's a mk4 receiver of 1955~56....yet the serial number doesnt conform, that should be PF or UF.

Hence Im confused/curious as to what mk it is. Is it a mk1 FTR'd but mislabeled mk2 (so its really a 1/2) or is it a genuine mk2?

The book I have says some mk2s had a mk1/2 receiver, so is this one?

[Peter Laidler]

Trying hard but STILL ain't got the foggiest..............

[jmoore]

Are you referring to the lump on the RH forward side of the action body? (The one intented for the magazine cutoff bits.) The only No.4 actions of that sort I've seen are late No.4 Mk.2s and some possible post-production Mk.2 put togethers.

[Thunderbox]

It sounds like the rifle is a No4 Mk1 that has been poorly converted & misrepresented as a No4 Mk2 or Mk1/2.

[Peter Laidler]

When I was in NZ, the Armourers at the big Ordnance Depot weren't at all hands-on familiar with the Mk1/2 and 1/3 or even the Mk2 No4's. They knew about them from the EMER's of course but not in the flesh. I don't think that there were any. I sent for and got a couple of sets of the complete drawings from the SASC Liaison Officer at Enfield and left them in the tech library. I also got an up to date EMER for the L4A4 Bens too. Unbelieveably, also got a Thompson 1928 for the small technical museum at Ngaruawahia (now housed at Waiouru). Came through the diplomatic channels 'without let or hinderance' as they say. Easier times then!

[ssj]

"The one intented for the magazine cutoff bits" yes its this bit, though the book I have call it a re-enforce.

"and some possible post-production Mk.2 put togethers."

Do you have any details? or where I might read up on them? like who assembled them? Enfield? BSA? Faz? Its possible this gun is one of these, so maybe its genuine. Tried googling, no joy.

[ssj]

Peter, there are some no4 mk 1/2s and mk2s here (so far in roughly equal proportions, NB ive not seen a 1/3 yet), none Ive seen yet have NZ army stampings, Im assuming therefore no4 mk2s are ex-target ppls guns, converterd to sportster imports (my one), or un-touched/un-issued imports via America. What I do see here is an abundance of no4 mk1* year 1942 LB guns, more than 55% Ive so far seen. Quite a few with NZ army markings. Im making up a spreadsheet of all I find....thats sort of good for me as UK based LB parts on ebay are common. I dont know how hard it is to get bits form canada yet, or even import a gun or 2, I know from the US its almost impossible. I can get an Austrialian MAB 6 groove barrel here which would also then be similar to the canadian FTR program, I think so fairly appropriate.

PS I spent 4 hours last night reading threads here, not even 1/2 way through yet, LOL....great background....thanks

[ssj]

jmoore, on that pic showing the missing cutoff, is there a F5x just aft? say 1.5 inch back in 1/8inch high letters? My 2/52 gun for instance has F4x (I assume the x is a 9 but its badly stamped) all other bits arr F50 or F51....