No4 Based Trainer Help

[Son]

As described by Brian

You had better get in touch with the people at the link Alan posted above, the highest recorded A prefix serial they know of is A2828... yours is 2849

---------- Post added at 12:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:32 AM ----------

Can any N9 owners post a couple of pics of the Nock's form? Particularly the left side markings?

Mine appears to have A 1097 stamped over another marking there...

[55recce]

My rifle is marked .22 R.F.N. N. 9 Mk1 P-H'60 on the left side of the receiver the serial number is A3015 which seems to raise the ante a bit

[22SqnRAE]

the serial number is A3015 which seems to raise the ante a bit

Hmm... well, 55recce, maybe not quite.

I'll quote from p 303 of Skennerton's 2007 revised edition Bible:

"It would appear that about 3,000 of these rifles were so converted"

Having had a couple of discussions with Ian, I am confident that he exhausted reasonable effort to verify his facts. Now saying that, there are some salient points to consider regarding The Bible:

1. Not all libraries or document repositories were complete or in possession of the requested detail (understandable).
2. As with all published research, once issued, there will always be the emergence of some pedant with specific knowledge previously unheard of during the search. They will, accurately, discredit the accuracy of the published detail in specific, small detail, but not in essence or overall. This is common and Ian recognises and has, like many authors, had to odd dispute with an anorak over minutia of absolutely bugger all consequence.
3. That PH and MoD didn't have specific detail in their records available during Ian's research is not at all surprising.

None of that reduces the interest and impressive detail of your last of the real No 9's that PH made possibly 1959 or 1960? I really don't know how long they took to make the 3000ish conversions. My guess is that they took quite a bit longer than Fazakerly took in their FTR process or turning No 4 Mk 1s to No 4 Mk 1/2 or No 4 Mk 1/3s...

You've got a real pearler of a specimen by those details, well done!

[22SqnRAE]

Brad, Response to your #11

Here is the Left, top and right side of Nocks from my No 9.

The serial no on barrel reinforce is matched with body.

On right side bbl marked F55 for a 1955 Fazakerly barrel, so not long in service before being turned into a .22.

On closer inspection, the rifle is a bitzer. The wrist markings being scrubbed gives no clue as to the original maker. The barrel at least is identified. Timber is all Brit, lower band is Long Branch. Magazine body of a Savage.

Attachment 106368Attachment 106369Attachment 106370

[Son]

Could you have a quick look at the pic in post seven showing the left barrel reinforce. There is a number, prefixed with an A overstamping something else there... Interesting the serial on your barrel is on the same side.

[22SqnRAE]

I make that barrel number to be AD 10974. The rubbish alignment is probably what makes it more or less bona-fide.

I'd not be too concerned about the provenance of this rifle. I would think the major difference in it's pedigree is that it wasn't one of the RN purchased No 9's. It was converted by PH.

The lack of finishing and refinishing of the body was most likely only Navy Specification difference. If PH didn't waste all this time and effort the conversion would be more attractive pricing wise for the civilian market. The barrel number suggests it may have been a Maltby made one.

[Roger Payne]

That makes sense. The conversion certainly looks well done, & not recently.