No4Mk2 Questions

[fullm3taljacket]

Attachment 62780Attachment 62781Attachment 62782Attachment 62783Attachment 62784Attachment 62785Attachment 62786

Just got a SMLE No4Mk2 for $200 yesterday and I have some questions for those of you whom are supremely knowledgeable on the topic.

First, I have to assume it IS a No4Mk2, as the serial number and date of manufacture (presented in less than traditional fashion if my research is correct) appear to be electro-penciled in. It is an import, so I expect a certain amount of things like this, but this one seems a bit...off. It is stated in this manner: No4MK2(f) and under that: 4/49 [PF97*** (again, looks electro-penciled, but I could be wrong. See attached pictures.

Second, the finish also looks...off. It looks like there might have been some coating applied later than manufacture, but it does not look like rust to me (again please see attached pictures).

What can y'all tell me about this one?

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.

[Robert303]

1) We need better pictures esp of the side of the receiver. 2) It is not an SMLE. No No 4 rifle is an SMLE. Does the bolt match the rifle?

[fullm3taljacket]

Robert,

Thanks for the clarification. I do not know how to get you a better picture. When I took the picture of the side of the receiver it was originally 2.8MB (too large to upload). I finally figured out how to upload (change the pixel dimensions) after 40 minutes. So while I have a much more clear-looking picture (same picture, better quality) I don't know how to get it attached.

Yes, both the bolt handle and the underside of the cocking piece have a matching two-digit number that corresponds with the SN on the receiver (incidentally, they do not have the electro-pencil-looking numbering).

[ssj]

From the few pics, it looks like a genuine early No4 mk2 made in 1949 to me.

in fact very early, the info I have says,

Last MkI on file - 4/1949 PF97096
First Mk2 on file - 5/1949 PF100412

but yours is something like 9796x of 4/49. Now the comments I have seen say mk2's started at PF100000, looks like not. Can we have pics of the wrist area? both sides please?

If it is a no4 mk2 it must be one of if not the first made? historically then for $200 you got a deal and a half.

[fullm3taljacket]

Attachment 62789Attachment 62790

ssj,

There are your pictures of the wrist area.

[Seaspriter]

fullm3taljacket: Looks like you might have won the lottery.
First, you picked up a real Mk2 for the price of a sporterized version. In today's US market a Mk2 in very good condition will fetch $350-450.
Second, you may have gotten one of the earliest Mk2 versions. With the manufacturing date of 4/49 and serial number PF 97961 you may have one of the first in the series (as SSJ states). That could double the value.

The electro-penciling is accurate and original to post war standards. The (F) stands for the Fazakerley plant, where the gun was constructed. The stock is Beech, which is proper for the Mk2, and the color is appropriate for the earlier Mk2's. (The "blonde" versions were introduced when Marilyn Monroe hit the stage). It has the lightened bolt, which is also common to the No. 5 era.

[Parashooter]

Image edited to restore proportions -

Attachment 62849

[SpikeDD]

A more direct side on shot of the receiver wall would make it easier to read. One of the rear of the bolt handle as well. I'm not thinking that bolt is original to the rifle with a 2 digit serial number ? The full serial number should be electric penciled on the rear of the bolt handle in the same fashion as on the receiver. Such an early Mk.2 is a awesome find from a collectors point of view.

ssj.... If you wish to update your file, I have a 4/49 Mk.I [PF 97,362 South African marked and SAN 97 on the buttplate When a poll was taken many years ago, there was someone who had one a few hundred higher than mine but I can't remember who it was.

[fullm3taljacket]

All,

Thank you for your assistance in identifying some of the particulars of the rifle! After further inspection, SpikeDD is correct, the bolt does not appear to be original to the rifle. Also, SpikeDD, the photo I took was head-on, the dimensions I had to take it down to to upload changed it's appearance. Again, my apologies, just trying to work within the parameters of the system.

Parashooter, thanks for your assistance with the photo stuff, I tried, you succeeded.

If anyone can tell from the photos I uploaded, to me there appears to be a "double" finish applied to the rifle. Meaning there appears to be an original coat of some variety and then maybe another over it. I am by no means an expert in this field (one of the many reasons I come here for help!) but it just looks a bit funky. What do you think?

[Peter Laidler]

It looks pretty-well all original to me except for the wrong bolt number. I'd get that fitted properly and then accurately re-set-up by someone who knows what he's doing. The finish is the standard late war onwards phosphate overpainted with a hard bake black paint.

Just as a matter of interest, your mistake with the photographs is by using a camera-phone. Good as they are, they ain't - nor ever will be - cameras