All right all you super knowledgeable experts out there I need your option on this new addition to the herd. I present to you what I feel is one of the first 1941 Maltby Rifle No. 4 Mark Is. It is currently ripped apart so if you need any other pictures please let me know.
Her history. I saw it on an auction site and a few details which will be discussed later made me spend my wife’s hard-earned dollars to get it! Sadly this rifle was not a rack queen and was used, it is well-worn, dented, and chipped. It has also had some parts definitely changed while in service. The rear hand guard, which matches in finish to the rest of the rifle is a Savage, the middle band is Long Branch, and the bolt has been replaced with the rifle’s serial number crudely engraved. The bolt body is a Long Branch, bolt head Fazakerley and cocking piece Singer. The front sight protector lacks any manufacturer marks.
So why do I think it is one of the first?
First, look at the body markings, they are the standard Maltby markings BUT, the font is different and it is not roll stamped, it is engraved (example of the roll stamp added). The serial number is 3226A, not a standard Maltby number, all the 1941 examples are 1XXXX form. Is it rifle #3226?
The front hand guard band is an Enfield manufactured hinged example along with the fore-end and front hand guard metal end caps, both Enfield but installed on a W. Sikes wood (both are SL marked). If you look at the badly worn numbering at the end of the fore-end and use your imagination you can make out 3226A. Also, the butt is an SL Sikes example. The rear sling swivel assembly is only broad arrow marked. Of interest is the number “14” stamped and pencil marked in the front hand guard groove and stamped into the butt by the SL markings. Is this rifle #14? Unlikely, possibly? I could not find a 14 anywhere on the rifle body and barrel, the rear hand guard previously mentioned has been replaced.
I always thought that Fazakerley received all the extra Enfield bits, I guess Maltby was given some also?
The matching barrel is devoid of any proof marks with only a “B8”, the front sight base is Enfield inspector proofed.
The trigger guard is Maltby marked but marked with a homemade style stamp, the trigger is an SM41 trigger. The rear sight is Singer SM41 marked example, safety catch arm is unmarked.
The body, besides the previously mentioned markings there are only two inspector's marks by the vent hole at the breech, one by the bolt channel, and Maltby’s weird lot/batch/or something else number in the trigger guard groove, BB9T.
Finally, look at the body by the cut-off block. A pilot hole has been drilled, was it an early jig hole or did they start to drill the magazine cut-off screw hole?
Are you still reading or did you get bored? Anyways what does everyone think?
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.
Mine are not the best, but they are not too bad. I can think of lots of Enfields I'd rather have but instead of constantly striving for more, sometimes it's good to be satisfied with what one has...
Pretty sure that is an incomplete body (receiver) from the No.4 trials rifle production that has been finished off at Maltby.
Very interesting not only for what it is, but for the fact that 3000+ rifles into the run, such bodies were apparently still on hand!
That of course suggests many more were made than was previously thought. The steel batch number under the rear guard screw is also very close to some trials numbers IIRC.
Aside from the obvious relief for the cut-off screw and the at least started hole for the same, the machining of the left body side and the colour of the blue also says "trials" to me.
And in case we might think the body is just an odd coincidence that far into the run, we also have the Enfield-made hinged band, foresight base, blade etc.
Interesting how the handguard retaining ring has been center-punched to tighten up the fit. Presumably something that was not permitted or not found necessary later.
A very historic and educational rifle that looks pretty untouched.
A nice job done with the pantograph engraver on the body markings. Pity they gave that up. The "41" almost looks like it was added later, but probably wasn't.
Last edited by Surpmil; 02-04-2023 at 11:10 PM.
“There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.”
I think that it is early too. Before they'd got to gripe with speeding-up and streamlining production. Engraving was a time wasting feature too. The 'A' following the serial number is such an indicator too and was specifically mentioned in the early EMER.
HHave a careful look at the barrel to see whether the nocks form is pinned to the barrel - or machined as a whole.
Thanks for the link Giove and nice rifle! Your markings look like they are rolled stamped but the body marks are identical, I am envious of your original bolt! Have you ever removed the fore-end? Curious if you have the cut-off screw hole started?
Peter, I went back and looked at the barrel, it is solid but look what I found when I removed the grease. Good old number 14. Thanks for making me go over her again. I kept looking and still could not find #14 on the body but I did find it on the fore-end. Additional information is the sear is SM41 marked.
So I assume 14 was an assembly number, long shot guess would be that this was rifle #14 in the initial trials production run that was then given a serial number and thrown into service.
Giove another favor, can you look for an assembly number on your rifle?
PM
