Another "rare" ROF Maltby, or is it??

[Lance]

Greetings All

Here for your opinion is another “rare” 1941 ROF Maltby Rifle No. 4 Mark I, but is it truly a Maltby??? I present to you what I think is a body and barrel from Maltby sent to ROF Fazakerley to be completed. What you say, never happened! This rifle suggests that it might have happened.

From recorded observations, ROF Maltby was the most efficient manufacturer of bodies during 1941. “E” prefix bodies with 1941 dated roll markings show that over 60,000 were made with the 1941 markings. If they were all manufactured in 1941 or if ROF Maltby continued to use the 1941 body marking roll stamp into 1942 is another debate. Completed rifles at ROF Maltby, Fazakerley, and BSA only totaled slightly less than 34,000 in 1941 so it can be said that ROF Maltby had surplus bodies available in 1941.

ROF Fazakerley appears to have struggled in 1941 with their body manufacture in comparison which can be supported by their use of surplus Enfield Trials No. 4 and SMLE Mark VI bodies in early 1942. These rifles appear in the 27000A through 29000A serial number range from ROF Fazakerley.

This rifle is serial number 25550A a ROF Fazakerley type serial number with matching original bolt, barrel, and fore-end. Initial appearance shows the standard ROF Maltby body markings but with the rifle serial number “25550A” stamped into the body using the same font as ROF Fazakerley marked bodies. Externally there are no other Maltby marked parts.

Looking at the external parts, the foresight protector, and bolt head (1 marked but 0 electropenciled) have the early Fazakerley inspector marks of “FY” over a number. The foresight blade and cocking piece have “FY” marks with the cocking piece being one of the early Fazakerley production with the step in front of the finger grasp that has grooves. The rear sight is an “F” marked Mk 2. The trigger guard, bolt body, and butt plate lack manufacturer's marks, the fore-end is an early low wall “JC” J. Curtis example with a “SM” Singer front hand guard metal end cap and “CEW”, C.E. Welstead front and mid bands. The butt stock is an Enfield Trials manufacture.

Internally, the trigger, sear, and magazine release are all SM, Singer marked. (Off topic but the magazine release is either a smudged 41 or an undocumented 40??). The foresight block, rear hand guard ring, and bolt head release plate are unmarked. The bolt head release slide and safety arm just have an electropenciled broad arrow.

Barrel markings. The 2 groove barrel has the matching serial number stamped with the same font and has been examined by numerous “N” North inspectors only which is why I think it came with the bodies. The barrel has a lot number stamped into it but no date

Body markings or the lack of them! There are only 2 inspectors marks on the body, a Maltby mark by the front trigger guard screw hole and a “GR” over “P” by the bolt body channel; there is the typical Maltby lot number on the back of the body in the trigger guard groove. This leads me to think this rifle was assembled at ROF Fazakerley as ROF Maltby completed rifles traditionally have numerous inspector marks by the bolt body channel and by the barrel breech area on the body marked for when I assume the barrel and bolt are fitted.

This rifle with all the early Fazakerley marked parts, Fazakerley serial number, the Enfield butt stock, and lack of traditionally seen Maltby inspector’s marks on the body resulted in my acquisition of this rifle. Did bodies and barrels from Maltby go to Fazakerley in late 1941? This is my hypothesis based on what I see, what do you all think??

[Alan de Enfield]

I don't see why not.

Physically the plants were close to each other (less than 100 miles by road) and although Maltby employed Monkeys to mark their rifles. Fazakerley employed Monkeys to actually build them. Knowing the standards of workmanship and work ethics of those employed at Fazakerley I could well understand the difficulties in getting anything (new) built in volume.

Even in WW1 there were systems in place to relocate 'surplus' Lee Enfield parts to 'needy' factories (the component pool system) so I see no reason why something similar could not have been duplicated 25 years later.

[Surpmil]

Personally I was trying to figure out the weird stippling, which looked like some very sharp stuff mixed in with whatever the action was blasted with.

Given what you mentioned about the observed serial numbers on 1941 roll-stamped Maltby bodies, it looks like a very convincing case.