No 4 Mk 1 markings confusion

[jasonafair]

Hello all! I just acquired a No4 Mk 1 1942 production. I have been trying to decipher the markings on it and coming up completely lost. I have several very good resources but very little is matching. Hopefully the attached photos will make more sense to you guys than they do me. Right now I'm thinking that I stumbled upon something really good or more likely, got ripped off....
Any help is appreciated
Jason

PS If interested, I found an Enfield No2 Mk1Revolver that I could post a couple of pics of to see if it would be worth picking up...

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.

[Alan de Enfield]

It is a1942 RoF Maltby (UK) manufactured No4 Mk1 which has a mismatched bolt and should not be fired until the bolt is checked for proper fit and function.

Muzzle markings are the importer markings, most other marks are the 'component' manufacturers / subcontractors.

It looks very much like one of those recovered from a Goat dung heap in Ethiopia by RTI.
Hopefully it is not one of those.

[jasonafair]

It has a No 2 bolt head also which had given me concern also. The blank right side isn't giving me warm fuzzies either.
This was one of the ones from Classic Firearms. I should have known better.
Someone else chime in with great news to make me feel better

[Bindi2]

There should not be any thing stamped on the right side under the bolt handle it is a No4 not a No1. You can feel better about that. What is to worry about a No2 bolt head with correct over turn. As long as the head space is between 0.64 (bolt will close) and 0.74 (bolt wont close ) you are good to go just make sure the bolt lugs are both sitting correctly because it is NOT the original bolt. DO NOT TRY AND TIGHTEN THE HEAD SPACE UP IF IT IS BETWEEN THOSE NUMBERS. Rim sizers vary so much you can damage your rifle. The LE is a battle rifle not a target rifle it head spaces off the rim not the shoulder. The design has a built in operational factor of 0.10 plus oversized chambers. Don't stress correct if needed then enjoy the best battle rifle that can have a mixture of parts and still be correct.

[Surpmil]

Is this one of those cases where the bolts got separated from the rifles and the importer was too lazy to sort them out?

I see references to making sure the bolt and body (receiver) lugs mate properly, but not how to do it. One way is to remove the bolt head, spring and firing pin etc. (you'll need to buy or make the tool to unscrew the firing pin), put some blue on the rear faces of the lugs on the bolt body, re-insert into the receiver and while pushing as evenly as you can on the front edge of the bolt body, work the bolt handle up and down a few times and then check the contact shown by the wear to the layout blue. If the contact is not good, some lapping will be required.

[Alan de Enfield]

I see references to making sure the bolt and body (receiver) lugs mate properly, but not how to do it.

In the Library are Peter Laidlers "How To" series of Armourers Instructions. To assist here is an extract from the 'fitting bolts' section.


First things first. Bolts could only be fitted at Field and Base workshops because they were the only ones that had a 'GAUGE, Inspectors, Bolt'. This is a brand new, calibrated bolt. Still in white metal and marked as such. If my memory serves me right, the slot in the long/top locking lug is machined right through to identify it. So that's the reason if you have ever seen one. This bolt is bare. Clean the locking lug surfaces of the rifle and put a smear of 'engineers blue' marking dye onto the corresponding locking surfaces of the inspectors bolt. Insert this bolt RIGHT FORWARD, rotate it closed, then draw it backwards and forwards a couple of times to mark the mating locking surfaces of the rifle. Push it forwards, unlock and remove.
Examine the locking surfaces of the rifle. The blue witness marks should be evident. This ensures that whatever wear that has taken place on the rifle locking surfaces has taken place equally. If its not, then I'm afraid that the rifle is unserviceable.

BUT, that's not quite the end of the story because you won't have this 'Gauge, Inspectors, bolt' but it's only right that I tell you. Now for a little secret. If you have ever bought a rifle that has a sploge of red paint on the left side, adjacent to the internal left side locking lug, then you now know that the rifle was condemned for 'worn locking lugs'.
If you are going to fit a second hand or new bolt, then do the same thing. If the dye pattern is one sided, then stone the high surface of the bolt until BOTH locking lugs bear evenly against the locking surfaces of the corresponding surfaces in the body. BUT DO NOT ATTEMPT to stone the rifle to get a bolt to fit (you can only get to the right hand surface in any case ....). The rifle body is induction hardened at these points to a depth of .004 - .006" but we have found it deeper.

[Surpmil]

In the Library are Peter Laidlers "How To" series of Armourers Instructions. To assist here is an extract from the 'fitting bolts' section.


First things first. Bolts could only be fitted at Field and Base workshops because they were the only ones that had a 'GAUGE, Inspectors, Bolt'. This is a brand new, calibrated bolt. Still in white metal and marked as such. If my memory serves me right, the slot in the long/top locking lug is machined right through to identify it. So that's the reason if you have ever seen one. This bolt is bare. Clean the locking lug surfaces of the rifle and put a smear of 'engineers blue' marking dye onto the corresponding locking surfaces of the inspectors bolt. Insert this bolt RIGHT FORWARD, rotate it closed, then draw it backwards and forwards a couple of times to mark the mating locking surfaces of the rifle. Push it forwards, unlock and remove.
Examine the locking surfaces of the rifle. The blue witness marks should be evident. This ensures that whatever wear that has taken place on the rifle locking surfaces has taken place equally. If its not, then I'm afraid that the rifle is unserviceable.

BUT, that's not quite the end of the story because you won't have this 'Gauge, Inspectors, bolt' but it's only right that I tell you. Now for a little secret. If you have ever bought a rifle that has a sploge of red paint on the left side, adjacent to the internal left side locking lug, then you now know that the rifle was condemned for 'worn locking lugs'.
If you are going to fit a second hand or new bolt, then do the same thing. If the dye pattern is one sided, then stone the high surface of the bolt until BOTH locking lugs bear evenly against the locking surfaces of the corresponding surfaces in the body. BUT DO NOT ATTEMPT to stone the rifle to get a bolt to fit (you can only get to the right hand surface in any case ....). The rifle body is induction hardened at these points to a depth of .004 - .006" but we have found it deeper.

Interesting. A couple of questions: we all know the bolts can be quite loose in the boltways of some bodies, particularly without the bolthead fitted. The reason I suggested applying backward pressure to the end of the bolt was because it seemed logical to try to duplicate the alignment and pressures which the bolt would have on firing.

If one was to simply apply rearward pressure with the bolt handle, would not the leverage of the handle tend to pull the bolt body to the right and therefore slightly out of its typical firing alignment, particularly without a bolt head fitted?

And as for using the Gauge, Inspector's, Bolt, perhaps there is something missing from that text as surely the critical question is whether the two pairs of lugs are each bearing evenly, not the relative position of each pair to the other?

Presumably somewhere there is a drawing the Gauge, Inspector's Bolt was patterned after, but I can't see why it would matter whether the body lugs bore evenly against that gauge as long as they bore evenly against the bolt fitted to the rifle!?

[Alan de Enfield]

Presumably somewhere there is a drawing the Gauge, Inspector's Bolt was patterned after, but I can't see why it would matter whether the body lugs bore evenly against that gauge as long as they bore evenly against the bolt fitted to the rifle!?

That makes sense.

The Inspectors bolt was primarily used to check that the body / locking lugs were not worn to such an extent that it couldn't be headspaced :

From another 'lecture' by PL

GAUGE, inspectors, selected breech bolt......... Haven't seen one of these for a few years. Yes....! Only used by the most senior examiner, this bolt was a calibrated bolt made to the EXACT size. It was kept in an oily drawer along with the other gauges. It's main use was as the final arbiter as to whether a body was worn out. I seem to recall that the No1 gauges came with a matched bolt head which your are missing (oh no they're not, I've just looked properly......!) The locking shoulders were specially hardened so NEVER use one of these bolts as a true bolt and the distance between them and the face of the bolt was the datum. When it was impossible to get CHS, using the old bolt and boltheads then a new bolt, you'd use the gauge bolt do the final check. If this failed then the rifle was scrapped as this calibrated bolt had deemed that the body locking lugs were worn through.

The No4 bolt didn't come with a bolt head as a matched set BUT there was a special bolt head to be used with it that was a special measurement that I forget at the moment. This did the same thing.

This gauge bolt also dictated wear in the boltway. For example, the smaller left locking lug MUST clear the nose of the sear when loading and unloading. If it does foul, then the gauge bolt is used to verify that the body is worn and not the new bolt. This test should be carried out with the bolt lightly pressed down towards the sear nose to give an accurate assessment of the condition of the body. Obviously, it could also be used as a gauge to test other worn bolts too but in those cases, we had the 'inspection standards' specifications to refer to.


There is a little more you might need to understand before you can appreciate the whole picture. The No4 rifle was a very precisely made piece of gear. The very fine production tolerances achievable meant that every rifle could be assembled with any parts from production within set tolerances and be correct for headspace with either a No0 or a No1 bolt head fitted. To leave the factory, that was between .064" and .068" headspace. If a rifle failed headspace in service (failed the "field" gauge at .074") Then it was sent back for repair. If it could be headspaced with the next size bolt head (either a 1 to replace a 0, or a 2 to replace a 1) it was deemed good to go. If a rifle did not pass headspace with a No2 bolt head, then it was passed up the line to the senior inspector who would apply the Gauge, Inspectors, Selected Breach Bolt. If the receiver passed the test, it could be fitted with a No3 bolt head and put back into service.
NOTE HERE. A NO3 BOLT HEAD WAS ONLY TO BE USED ON THE SAY SO OF THE SENIOR INSPECTOR.
If it did not pass the test, it would have been sentenced Z for return to the factory, (even if a No3 bolt head would pass headspace)
Interestingly, I wonder how many rifles are out there with No3 bolt heads in them that the owners have fitted to keep them in heasdspace, when actually the receivers may be worn beyond reasonable limits.
Also I wonder about the amount of rabid buying in the past of number3 bolt heads and the owners who have fitted them because their rifles failed the SAAMI spec field gauge at .070", which is a good .004" below the manufacturers spec...
I would suggest, short of panic, anyone who has a No3 bolt head in a No4 or No5 rifle should own a .074" headspace gauge and check the rifle every couple of hundred rounds. If the hardness has gone (or becomes too thin from ongoing use) from the locking shoulders, the headspace will increase as the softer metal is extruded by the forces of firing. Checking and finding it failing with a No3 bolthead that passed a hundred rounds ago will tell you things are not right.. time to retire the rifle. NOT REPLACE THE BOLT BODY!

[Surpmil]

I have had my say elsewhere about these matters so won't duplicate that here, except to repeat that I assume we can all agree that without measuring each bolt head to see if it was within specs for its size number, the process becomes somewhat random and arbitrary?

As I have access to about 50 stripped, clean and well-used bodies I shall have a look at the rear lugs to see if I can see any signs of extrusion of the metal.

I'm also not seeing any reference to the hardness or hardening of the lugs on the bolt itself; where these not hardened to the same extent as the lugs in the body?

[Alan de Enfield]

I assume we can all agree that without measuring each bolt head to see if it was within specs for its size number, the process becomes somewhat random and arbitrary?

Do you have the actual specification for the bolt head sizes ?

I could never find the actual specification showing the required / start size(s) for each number simply the incremental increase by 'number'.

When I did the bolthead survey (many years ago) I posted this :

What Size Should The Bolt Heads Be ?

It seems to be generally accepted that No4 / No5 bolt heads should fall in the following range :
Size 0 = 0.620” – 0.625”
Size 1 = 0.625” – 0.630”
Size 2 = 0.630” – 0.635”
Size 3 = 0.635” – 0.640”

Whilst I don’t question that this information is printed somewhere, I have not been able to find the original source, the only information I have found does not actually state the ‘starting’ dimension, only that the sizes are incrementally larger :

a) From “Parts Identification List Rifle No4 Mk1 and Mk1*” dated 1945
Bolt head 0 part number BB8584
Bolt head 1 part number BB8585
Bolt head 2 part number BB8586
Bolt head 3 part number BB8587

“Number 0 to 3 increase in length by increments of 0.003 inch”

b) From Canadian National Defence Manual “First Line Maintenance Instructions Rifle No4, all marks” dated 28th June 2002

Bolt head size 0 NSN = 1005-21-103-1143
Bolt head size 1 NSN = 1005-21-103-1144
Bolt head size 2 NSN = 1005-21-103-1145
Bolt head size 3 NSN = 1005-21-103-1146

“…….. the sizes being progressively larger in increments of 0.08mm (0.003”)

Obviously the perceived size increases do not meet the requirements of the period literature.
I wonder if different manufacturers started at differing 'start sizes', & then manufactured their bolt heads with a 0.003 incremebtal increase from THEIR start dimension.

This could account for my results in measuring 250 samples.
#0 bolt heads going from 0.624 to 0.636,
#1 bolt heads going from 0.622 to 0.637
#2 bolt heads going from 0.628 to 0.642
#3 bolt heads going from 0.632 to 0.641

One could suggest that 'small' (undersize compared to expectations) could be accounted for by being ground down, but why would that be done when different sizes were available (unlike the No1 Mk3 bolt head) ?
Why / how would a #0 be bigger than a #3 ?

I wonder if anything new or more definitive on sizing has come to light since ?