Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Copper Bullet member
Joined
·
599 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Picked up a No 4 Mk 1/2 and looking for information on this one. Haven't found much in my web searching about it. Very decent shooter though. I've tried two kinds of surplus ammo in it an it handles and shoots great! It looks like the " /2 " was added later during a refurb. All of the numbers match on it though. Will try to post some photos tomorrow.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member/Moderator/Administrator/
Joined
·
27,675 Posts
The /2 means this one was modified to the Mk II status with the receiver mounted trigger. Fine rifles.
 

·
Platinum Bullet Member
Joined
·
7,597 Posts
Was it Fazakerley, Maltby or Shirley built originally? Also, is it a 5-groove barrel? My Maltby was refurbed at Fazakerley and has an almsot mint barrel and had no marks in the feedramp when I bought it.
 

·
Copper Bullet member
Joined
·
599 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
5 groove barrel and I can only guess that the M.B. stamp is the manufactor. I'm new to enfields and now own 3. A No 1 and 2 No 4s. Shooting them this weekend makes it easy to see why people collect them.
 

·
Platinum Bullet Member
Joined
·
7,597 Posts

·
Copper Bullet member
Joined
·
599 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 · (Edited)
Thanks for the information and an interesting sight LVSteve. Being that the serial number is A43754, I have no idea. I'm setting here cleaning it again due to "test firing it" yet again. Alot of fun to shoot and has much better sights than my other No4. Though the look of my No 1 is just so classic, this No 4 is the better shooter. But, I do have another question.. I'm guessing to say that this isn't a collectable enough firearm to worry about changing the stock on? I have a complete, very nice stock and this one, though not cracked or even dinged up just doesn't look as nice. Or should I leave it as is? Strangely enough, even the mag number matches the gun and bolt.
 

Attachments

·
Copper Bullet member
Joined
·
599 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Thanks Bindi2. Will do.
 

·
Platinum Bullet Member
Joined
·
7,597 Posts
How common or uncommon are No.4 Mk.1/3s? I've seen a reasonable number of No.4 Mk/1.2s, but only 1 No.4 Mk.1/3 (maybe I'm looking in all the wrong places - as usual!)
I let one go to somebody else at an online estate auction just last weekend. The pictures were minimal so I passed as the next bid took me to $235 + shipping + local transfer fees. The only Mk1/3 I have seen in person had headspace best measured with the edge of a shovel. No thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
934 Posts
I let one go to somebody else at an online estate auction just last weekend. The pictures were minimal so I passed as the next bid took me to $235 + shipping + local transfer fees. The only Mk1/3 I have seen in person had headspace best measured with the edge of a shovel. No thanks.
I somehow think it didn't leave the factory that way, but I am sure we have all seen Lee Enfields that have suffered in the hands of civilians, besides Bubba :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,422 Posts
Since this is a Mk1/2 conversion and both Fazakerley and BSA did these conversions using brand new "A" prefix serial numbers, the only way to tell who made, or even who converted the rifle is to show close photos of the leftside of the receiver and buttsocket.
-----krinko
 

·
Platinum Bullet Member
Joined
·
7,597 Posts
Since this is a Mk1/2 conversion and both Fazakerley and BSA did these conversions using brand new "A" prefix serial numbers, the only way to tell who made, or even who converted the rifle is to show close photos of the leftside of the receiver and buttsocket.
-----krinko
That's interesting. My Mk1/2 Maltby was not renumbered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,422 Posts
LV Steve,
BSA conversions, starting 1950ish, are supposedly for non-MoD contracts and would have been renumbered accordingly, as the rifles were then off the books, I suppose. SpikeDD has lots of these and could give a clearer idea of earliest dates.
Fazakerley renumbered some of their conversions with "A" prefixes, especially the 1956-58 "floor sweepings".
-----krinko
 

·
Platinum Bullet Member
Joined
·
7,597 Posts
That explains it. My Maltby was redone at Fazakerley before 1956. I cannot remember the exact date but I know it was not that late.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
379 Posts
Hello LV Steve,

For whatever interest it may hold, The earliest BSA 1/2's - 1/3's I've seen are dated 1954. 1953 dated BSA FTR's of No.1 Mk.III's are common and I just recently found 2 examples of 1954 dated BSA FTR'd No.1 Mk.III rifles. That at least shows in 54', both No.4's and No.1's were being converted and or FTR'd by BSA. I have yet to find a 1953 dated FTR of a No.4 rifle. For many years it was accepted that Fazakerly had done all the FTR's to Mk. 1/2 and 1/3 until the BSA examples started showing up. This provoked my interest and I began hunting these particular rifles. In conclusion, the fact that the BSA FTR'd rifles had never been written about in any book, supports the supposition that they were not for the MOD... but private contracts.

So... until a 53' BSA FTR dated 1/2 or 1/3 turns up, the span of examples I have or have seen cover from 1954 to 1957. The 55 and 56 dated ones seem to carry a different style marking than the traditional " FTR 1954 ", with only B 55 and B 56 representing the conversion. ALL but one example of these FTR's has had all of their original markings scrubbed and new "A" prefix numbers applied. One example observed, a B 56, retained all of it's original markings and retained use of the original serial number, which follows suit to Fazakerley's conversions. It was a Maltby rifle. Of course, this is just one persons personal observations and I don't have a clue beyond that.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
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