A Rifle No. 4 Mark 2 FTR or??????

[Lance]

A new addition to the horde, a Rifle No. 4 Mark 2 FTR’d by Fazakerly in 1956, but was it??

Fazakerly was completing FTR’s since the end of The Second World War, possibly prior to the end as I have never found any data on when they started. Dated FTR’s from Fazakerly start in 1947 but there are countless Fazakerly FTR’s that are not dated so are they from before 1947? Unknown… Anyways, Fazakerly continued the FTR program through the beginning of 1958. They did start new Rifle No. 4 Mark 2 production in 1949 so to have early Mark 2 rifles returned for FTR makes sense, they are not overly common but do not rate rare in my book.

As I did not have an example of a Mk 2 FTR when this one presented itself I pulled the trigger and picked her up. Upon her arrival I noted a small detail I had missed in the sellers photo’s, it lacks the cut-off block lump on the right side of the body.

The retention of the cut-off block on production No. 4 rifles is a mystery especially with the approval of the Mark I* pattern bodies as they differed in order to reduce machining, why not remove it then? They did remove in for the No. 5 body production but it continued in new rifle Fazakerly production until 1955 and the “UF” series of rifles.

This rifle does not have it, so I think that this is a new left over body from the end of the factory new Mark 2 production. Previously with the SMLE Converted Mark II and II* program new SMLE Mark I and I* bodies were used to keep the production lines moving so I think Fazakerly did this also during their FTR process, at least at the end. Or it was a rejected body that did not meet new standards but did meet FTR standards?

To keep costs down, Fazakerly also used new production second quality wood during this FTR. The fore-end and butt are both ’55 dated but both have repairs. Repairs to the stocks on new rifles would not be allowed but FTR’d rifles have looser standards and as you can see the fore-end was never machined for the cut-off block on the body. Yes the repairs could have been completed in service but the rifle overall is close to mint so I am leaning away from that possibility.

This rifle is not all factory new, the front sight protector is an older SSP, the trigger guard, and rear swivel assembly are Savage and the cocking piece is WWII Fazakerly. The bolt is not new but I cannot find any identifying marks to say who originally made it. The rest of the rifle appears to be new Fazakerly parts. At an approximation of 90% new parts, it leans closer to new vs FTR.

No. 4 Mark 2 rifles are the least interesting Lee-Enfield model in my personal opinion so I am pleased to find one that has character.

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.

[Mk VII]

I had A15579 with F57 FTR on it. This, too, lacked the cutoff hinge 'lump'.

[mrclark303]

These Mk2 FTR's are very interesting. I would assume post Korean war refurbishment, as I can't think of a better reason why 'relatively' new rifles would require factory re-work in peace time.

[enbloc8]

Thanks for the post. While I don't own one, I find these very late Fazakerley FTRs intriguing, especially since they overlapped into the era when they were transitioning from "masters of the No. 4" to "couldn't build an SLR to save their life"...or their jobs.

Wasn't there some discussion a few years ago that these late FTRs may have been part of an effort to "clear the bins" and wind down No. 4 activity at Faz?

[Simon P]

I've had both 56 & 57 dates examples over the years

[Alan de Enfield]

Thanks for the post. While I don't own one, I find these very late Fazakerley FTRs intriguing, especially since they overlapped into the era when they were transitioning from "masters of the No. 4" to "couldn't build an SLR to save their life"...or their jobs.

I think you may be exagerating the Fazakerley capabilities.

RoF Fazakerley never built a 'top quality' rifle throughout the whole of their production, the reason that many / most Faz No4s have a suffix A to the part number is beacuse the rifle could not be assembed using the correct parts and somehwere on the rifle would be a 'hand fitted;, non standard part.

The workforce was unwilling to work to instructions and the management - workforce environment was 'tense'.

A note from Peter Laidler :

After the end of the upgrading programme, the ‘new-build’ PF- and UF55A- No4 Mk2 rifles were produced. But by this time, industrial relations at Fazakerley were best described as ‘tense’ and the factory began its slow inevitable decline. Even the offer of the secretive L2A3 Sterling and L1A1 rifle contract couldn’t sweeten or un-blinker the suicidal workforce. So while Sterling got on with making and selling its guns to the rest of the world and BSA stepped in at the last moment to rescue the L1A1 SLR, the remaining SLR machinery went from Fazakerley to Lithgow …………….. but that’s another story.