Gunboards Forums banner

Lee enfield No 4-tons of markings?

814 views 17 replies 6 participants last post by  22SqnRAE 
#1 ·
Can anyone help me identify what these marking identify on my MK1, I really know little about these, so any and all info would be great!
 

Attachments

See less See more
10
#11 · (Edited)
The A at the end of the serial indicates that it has non interchangeable parts on it.
Its a Long Branch bolt and Long Branch bolt head.
The photos look like it was FTR in 1958 when it was converted to a Mk 1/2.
The ROF (Royal Ordnance Factory) would have ROF M (Maltby) or ROF (F) Fazakerly stamped on the left butt socket. I'll hazard a guess the original stamping was actually POF for Pakistan Ordnance Factory, Wha Cant. I'm thinking that the B serial lead suggests POF rather than a mis-strike on ROF.
The PF serial on the stock indicates a Fazakerley rifle originally, but that's not to suggest that the steelwork and furniture were the same original rifle. In FTR parts got mixed and matched to meet the 80% service life left rule.

I could be very wrong... It is a Lee Enfield after all...

While you may think there's a lot of unidentified marks, these are the usual markings on a Commonwealth rifle. Heaps to learn! ;)
 
#13 ·
The A at the end of the serial indicates that it has non interchangeable parts on it.
Its a Long Branch bolt and Long Branch bolt head.
The photos look like it was FTR in 1958 when it was converted to a Mk 1/2.
The ROF (Royal Ordnance Factory) would have ROF M (Maltby) or ROF (F) Fazakerly stamped on the left butt socket. I'll hazard a guess the original stamping was actually POF for Pakistan Ordnance Factory, Wha Cant. I'm thinking that the B serial lead suggests POF rather than a mis-strike on ROF.
The PF serial on the stock indicates a Fazakerley rifle originally, but that's not to suggest that the steelwork and furniture were the same original rifle. In FTR parts got mixed and matched to meet the 80% service life left rule.

I could be very wrong... It is a Lee Enfield after all...

While you may think there's a lot of unidentified marks, these are the usual markings on a Commonwealth rifle. Heaps to learn! ;)
Thanks! That’s some good info!!
 
#14 ·
After a little time and consideration, I reckon my thread No 11 is wrong. Very.

I'm going to suggest another option for this rifle's origin:

ROF Fazakerly in 1942. The "F" is missing , but may be mis-struck in the second line. The British No 4 markings in wartime are, generally, all over the shop and evidently applied by sugar-hyped chimpanzees on heat. Or something like that.

Fazakerly did use single prefix letters and then went to the double letters post war.

I'm curious about the FTR, as I've seen a lot of examples of Faz's engraving to be FTR (F). In this case, it's F 58. Just goes to show with Lee Enfields, you simply remove "always" and "never" from your vocabulary.

What is more curious about this FTR is that the rifle was kept as a Mk 1, not upgraded to Mk 1/2 standard, with the hung trigger. Suggests a possible straight to store issue.

JB White's suggestion is on the money.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top