First time poster with a question

[Patrick Chadwick]

According to Stratton "Lee Enfield No. 4 and No. 5 Rifles", P171, T13475 is a No. 4 made at ROF Maltby (assigned serial no. range 10000-19999 with single letter prefix)

It seems to be a well-cared for Fulton conversion, so ought to be a good shooter.

[Roger Payne]

Thanks Patrick. I hesitated to draw too much from the serial as so many of these target shooting reworked No4's were renumbered, but I think you're right. I just checked a Maltby 4T in the gunroom & it bears the same crown/N/59 examiner's stamp on the receiver ring. It made me think of Maltby, but the machining of the receiver side wall looks more typical of a Faz/BSA. Probably it's a later war produced rifle than most Maltby's I've come across......

[Buccaneer]

If it is a No4 Mk1/2 what does it still appear to have the Mk1 fore end with the metal tie plate still in place? It could have been cut of course but that sort of bodge would not have been done in service...

[BigBadDog]

From what I can make out from the photograph it does indeed appear to be a Mk1 fore end but with the tie plate omitted and a screw inserted. Had this been done in service the tie plate hole in the woodwork would have been filled in with a piece of wood. I wonder if the internal conversion has been done properly. Skennerton page 251 has photos of how it should look. Incorrect fitting may well interfere with correct trigger function, worth checking out. Smells of a bit of a bodge to me.

[Buccaneer]

From what I can make out from the photograph it does indeed appear to be a Mk1 fore end but with the tie plate omitted and a screw inserted.

I'm not sure what picture you are looking at but the tie plate or at least part of it is still in place, you can see that it wraps around the woodwork at the rear.

[BigBadDog]

Well spotted, originally looked on phone, small screen etc, looking on a bigger screen it does appear as if something black is behind the screw head, whether the tie plate is complete or not? Be interesting to see how this fits in with the internals of the rear of the fore end.
Certainly would not have been done by a military armourer.

[Patrick Chadwick]

From what I can make out from the photograph it does indeed appear to be a Mk1 fore end but with the tie plate omitted and a screw inserted. Had this been done in service the tie plate hole in the woodwork would have been filled in with a piece of wood. I wonder if the internal conversion has been done properly. Skennerton page 251 has photos of how it should look. Incorrect fitting may well interfere with correct trigger function, worth checking out. Smells of a bit of a bodge to me.

I rather think that this is the way that Fultons did it - has anyone got a "Fultons regulated" example for a comparison?

[30Three]

I do have a Fulton's regulated No4 mk1/2; but the FTR was done a Faz' so not much use in this instance.

Notice that the Fulton's Regulated stamp appears to be under the surface finish, but the engraved number on the receiver is not!
Which to me would suggest it's been refinished and then engraved. But I'm no expert; it's just what's seems obvious to me.

Also note that the original poster has not come back to say thanks for all the info you guy's have given!