Enfield No4 Marked Fire

[mmppres]

Enfield No4 Marked Fire
Saw a rifle up auction an the receiver is marked xx FIRE xx.
Never saw this before is there a meaning to this. Owner is stating its ready to be rebuilt. It is a barrelled action with just a butt stock, No bolt no forward wood or metal bit. Any advice.

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.

[browningautorifle]

marked xx FIRE xx.

Does that mean it was in a...fire? Like the one 1903 Springfield we just discussed? This is how it was marked by the originator?

[mmppres]

The rifle doesn't look at all that it was in a fire. Still has its original finish.

[Alan de Enfield]

The rifle doesn't look at all that it was in a fire. Still has its original finish.

That would be my guess :

WARNING WARNING FIRE WARNING WARNING

There were a whole shipload of rifles that were involved in a fire, the rifles were recovered and used a DP rifles and the ship towed out to sea and scuttled.


From Peter Laidler

During the 60’s and 70’s there was a constant need for No4 DP rifles, not only for cadet Forces but Parachute training too where the actual carrying of a rifle was more important than what the weapon was for. The reason for the attrition in this case was quite understandable. So a small but continuous rolling programme of ‘DP-ing’ was undertaken. Naturally many ZF/BER No4’s plus otherwise serviceable rifles were put into the programme plus a healthy dollop of L1A1 rifles too. Not only were these worn out rifles put into the pot, but we later learned, several thousand extensively fire damaged No4, L1A1 rifles and Bren guns that had been involved in a massive fire. These were aesthetically cleaned down, rebuilt to DP standard and profusely marked JUST so that there could be no doubt about their status. Oh, they looked very nice but what had gone on under the surface was a matter of conjecture. Would YOU fire one? I’ve been an Armourer for a couple of years and while I or your local gunsmith could examine one and give it a bright clean bill of health, would YOU trust it. NO, I wouldn’t either!

Let me give you another example too. NO dates here of course but ‘recently’ several hundred assorted weapons were recovered from a fire ravaged/damaged ship, sunk in low water (and later towed out to sea and scuttled). These were all quickly earmarked for scrap and eventually side tracked for DP/Training use. Like the other example, these were also cleaned, and refurbished, painted and ‘restored’ to aesthetically ‘serviceable’ condition. Oh, they looked good but within a couple of years, these had started to rust from under the welds, seams and joints.

And before I forget, let me remind you of something else too, JUST in case you’re tempted to buy one to use as spare parts. This is what the Armourers bible says. ‘……..it will be assembled as far as possible with components which are below the standard required for a service weapon’. And another thing you ought to remember. There were NO gauging limits for DP rifles. Mmmmmmm, food for thought there.

[mmppres]

Thanks so much. I thought there was a problem with it being marked as such,
Mike

[browningautorifle]

Like I stated with the thread about the M1903 that was completely toasted...give me a glass bead and parkerize solution and it'll look like the first day again. The bore might be rough, but new wood and we're in business. I've restored some pretty bad actors. If something is burned, it should be demilled. Cut right in half.

[mmppres]

Rust damage is one thing but fire take heat treatment away. thanks for information