Enfield No.4 Mk1/2

[MotorRacingBruce1980]

I have found myself a lovely little No.4 which looks like its had very little use. I know its not exactly rare or historical but its mine and I'm going to enjoy shooting it which is all that matters.

Its a Fazakerley made Rifle dated 1952 but also marked 1973 which I believe would be when it was Re-Proofed and released to civilian market. Most serial numbers are matching even the magazine just one piece of wood that has been changed.

The normal quick checks came back well with muzzle end showing very little wear and chamber also being a nice tight fit. Rifling is bright and looks as new as well. Proof will be in the pudding when I get it on the range though.









Now for the part that will probably upset the purists! I'm not a fan of varnished or light wood. As the top rear section wasn't original I thought I would remove the varnish that someone had put on and give it some colour before finishing with oil.









I think it looks so much better.

Now to start the re-loading and get some range time with it.

[Andy]

Looks great. The few I've looked at look like bits of drift wood at the 500 quid mark. That looks really nice.

[Rearlugs]

Those marking are highly unusual, not at all normal for a production rifle or FTR conversion.

PF- series up to about 50,000 were new build Mk1 rifles, with an overlap of about 20k in numbers with new build Mk2 rifles. FTR conversions to Mk1/2 and Mk1/3 usually kept their original WW2 era numbers. No rifles were built from new as Mk 1/2 or Mk 1/3.

Also, pretty much all factory rifle markings from 1945 onwards were electro-pencilled - not engraved like this. About the only exception was a very small batch of rifles built for AJ Parker in a separate PF400,xxx number range.

Where are the 1952 and 1973 marks? What do the bolt, magazine and forend numbers look like?

[MotorRacingBruce1980]

Those marking are highly unusual, not at all normal for a production rifle or FTR conversion.

PF- series up to about 50,000 were new build Mk1 rifles, with an overlap of about 20k in numbers with new build Mk2 rifles. FTR conversions to Mk1/2 and Mk1/3 usually kept their original WW2 era numbers. No rifles were built from new as Mk 1/2 or Mk 1/3.

Also, pretty much all factory rifle markings from 1945 onwards were electro-pencilled - not engraved like this. About the only exception was a very small batch of rifles built for AJ Parker in a separate PF400,xxx number range.

Where are the 1952 and 1973 marks? What do the bolt, magazine and forend numbers look like?

There is a broad arrow with F52 on the top front of receiver. All the other serial numbers are stamped (Magazine, Bolt handle, Lower front of stock).

73 is stamped on the top of the Barrel. What is confusing is the proof mark date which I looked for last night which is MB for 1961.

There are loads of other small marks but they are very faint and small so will have to get the magnifying glass out.

[MotorRacingBruce1980]

Took a few pics of other markings without taking the woodwork off to see if anyone can shed some more light on what I actually have.

[ovenpaa]

It is a fine looking rifle although I am not sure I would have darkened the woodwork if it was mine. What does it shoot like?

[bnz41]

Thanks for the extra pictures some parts stamped with a F for Fazakerly as far as I can see (rear sight/front sight ears/trigger guard).
Nice looking rifle.

Where are the modern ish proof marks, on the bolt/receiver and check under the muzzle. No rifle date either. I would suggest the bolt has been filed then re numbered as numbers out of line and lightly stamped.
This is my opinion others may know more.

I have a No4 1/2 the details are scratched onto the receiver by a series of very small dots also it's dated of F56 meaning Fazakerly 1956 not stamped.

[MotorRacingBruce1980]

It is a fine looking rifle although I am not sure I would have darkened the woodwork if it was mine. What does it shoot like?

Have not as yet got it to the range as wanted to check it all over first but hope to get some range time with it soon.

If the woodwork was all original and matching I would of left it as original but someone had varnished some of it and replaced the 2 upper handguard sections.

[MotorRacingBruce1980]

Thanks for the extra pictures some parts stamped with a F for Fazakerly as far as I can see (rear sight/front sight ears/trigger guard).
Nice looking rifle.

Where are the modern ish proof marks, on the bolt/receiver and check under the muzzle. No rifle date either. I would suggest the bolt has been filed then re numbered as numbers out of line and lightly stamped.
This is my opinion others may know more.

I have a No4 1/2 the details are scratched onto the receiver by a series of very small dots also it's dated of F56 meaning Fazakerly 1956 not stamped.

The modern ish proof marks are under the top rear handguard.

Here is my bad drawing skills of all the other marks that are covered by the woodwork.

[bnz41]

Thanks for that, seems Ok from those marks, but I thought proof marks had to be visible without having to remove the wood first.

Enjoy your range time when you get chance.