Maltby Production

[Richard Hare]

Had my rifle pulled down for the grease job;

No 4 Mk 1. Barrel is serial numbered as well as action. It's a 1942, and marked ser# V11529.

Question;
Barrel is also stamped BE 127. This stamp is in large letters just ahead of the knox form and goes around the barrel. Any ideas on this?

Richard.

[Peter Laidler]

I wouldn't mind betting that the BE-127 is the old ORDNANCE part number of the barrel, B1/BE 127 that was superceded by the later MoS type part number of B1/CR xyz A. Do you want the bad news now.......?

[Richard Hare]

Peter.

I have a pal like you in Boroughbridge! LOL.

Yes, I'll take the bad news now. I'm sitting down...

[Richard Hare]

Is it anything to do with me writing" V" in the serial number, when I meant "Y" Peter??

[Peter Laidler]

Not serial number. Will explain tomorrow.......

[Richard Hare]

Actually, couldn't read my own writing!
I was right first time on serial number so scrap the "Y" post.

Is there a way to edit instead of adding a new post?

R.

[Peter Laidler]

Maltby made rifles were highlighted as those likely to be fitted with barrels made by the earliest form of hammering over a rifled mandrill by Accles and Pollock. These barrels had the nocks form section pressed on and pinned with two taper pins about 2" from the breech end. They were then finally machined as a whole in the usual way. The problem was that during the breeching up, the closeness of the....... blah blah blah of....... breech threads, shoulders........ the pinned reinforce section would come slightly loose and you'd see the pins and the join between the two sections of barrel..

Technical instructions were issued and as a result of several failures, these barrels were deemed to be obsolete and to be withdrawn ASAP. The trouble is that these barrels were all supposedly marked III on the breeching up flat. Alas, they might have been but as. the....... anyway.......... So unless the III mark is present and not obscured, you can't see the joint and can't see see evidence of the pins, you don't know whether it is one!d of identifying them.

Having said that, if none of the features are visible, who really cares. I have only seen a few plus the class room examples

[Sentryduty]

Technical instructions were issued and as a result of several failures, these barrels were deemed to be obsolete and to be withdrawn ASAP.

That entire post is a fascinating bit of technical history, but outside of the service based examples, I gather this must not be a widespread issue today? Prior to just reading this I had no idea there were (potential) barrel failure issues on the Lee-Enfield platform, and given the rate that both information and mis-information spread across the internet, it must be a very uncommon occurrence?

This wouldn't be something to add to the checklist of things "Every person should inspect before buying a used Maltby produced Lee-Enfield" would it?

[Richard Hare]

Peter,

Thanks for your reply.

The Accles and Pollock drawn tube barrel with a separate knox -form was tried in 1943, so unlikely to be fitted to a 1942 rifle as is the one in question.
Although they made 100,000 of these barrels, they were declared obsolete soon afterwards.
(Skennerton, P 162)

Skennerton says also that some developed a "slight amount of play", just as you suggest, but doesn't record any failures as such.
I would like to see /inspect one of these barrels, but am afraid mine isn't one of them. :-)

Sentryduty,
I don't think you will find many of these barrels today, as anything going through the workshops would have this obsolete barrel replaced. (If you found one, it might be at a premium these days!!)
Also this type of barrel did not have as bright a bore as usual barrels, so special instructions for cleaning were issued.
If looking at a 1943 or later No 4 , and the bore is dark-ish it Might be good to check for the mark 111 stamp.

Not sure, but I Thought this A&P barrel was 3-groove??? .............Peter??

[Peter Laidler]

Spoke to the senior Armourer at SW district earlier this morning about this. They quite often used to identify these barrels but had authority from the RSSD at the Ord Depot at Longmoor to return any such No4's back WITHO9UT the barrel. They would use these barrels for future DP programmes, retaining any perfect barrels for service use (- and my old No4T of course!)

The Tech Instruction was dated 1954 that Maltby was the principal recipient of hammered barrel production. I dare say that if it was a 'blow-up' failure, it'd be described as catastrophic. But in this case the failures were sloppy loose barrels. I have a funny feeling that this subject was aired on this(?) forum a couple of years ago.

Re your thread 19. The real mechanical experts might quote other info but the EMER states that the barrels were identified and declared obsolete in 1954 which is hardly '.....soon afterwards' in my book. As they were still coming to light in the 80's or so could mean that they weren't THAT rare even in service. But it's simple for us to cull them because we ain't paid for them!