Any Advice from the Enfield Experts?

S

SwampYankee

New member
I recently picked up a new No. 4. Mark 1. It was very pretty and the price was right. However, upon further inspection I think it is some type of rebuild, and not a factory job. I’m still pretty pleased with it, but I would like to replace as many of the parts as possible to something approximating factory.

Here are the details:

- The bore is absolutely brilliant, none of my other 3 Enfields come close to the shine or the sharpness of it.
- The barrel and receiver look nearly 95% original blue, very little wear.
- Marked 47C 1944, N30764, No 4 Mk 1 (so it's a BSA, my other BSA is a 1943 and is just marked "B")
- The bolt looks new, literally the bolt face is almost mirror perfect, the paint on the bolt head is also perfect. The bolt matches the receiver, surprisingly.
- It has a Savage magazine, Savage front band and I believe Savage rear stock
- The rear stock has a new brass plate, which does not fit, with beat old screws
- The upper front stock and main stock are marked CE1967 and are in perfect condition
- The stocks all look new, with a real thin coat of shellac
- The upper rear stock does not have ribs, it is smooth
- It has a CAI mark on the barrel, it is an older mark: small, clean and rolled, not penciled.

All of this leads me to believe that this gun was probably rarely fired but for some reason, has replacement (and relatively new) wood. My guess is that someone bubba’d the original wood or put a hunting stock onto it. Someone else found it, saw the great condition of the actual gun and attempted to retofit it to original.

Does this make sense?

I think I will try and replace the Savage parts and maybe get a new rear stock, or at least replace the brass with steel.
 
Swampy,

Looking at your information I would suggest that your likely scenario is pretty much correct. While it may not be entirely unusual to find a Savage sight on a BSA or FAZ No4 you rarely would have seen other fitted parts like bands and the like to such a degree on a Brit No4.

I feel that the rifle was missing hand guards and bands when previously bought and somebody used whatever parts they could scrounge to restore it as best they could without due attention being payed to the parts matching the original manufacture by BSA.

CAI as you may already know is Century Import ...

# - Some No4's did see use and fitting of the brass plate but it is far more common to see the Zamak zinc alloy type fitted and it should be fitted to a BSA No4.

# - As to the grooved upper hand guards, not all No4's had them and there was no rhyme or reasons as to which rifles got them, it was literally down to availability of made parts on hand at the time.

# - Shellac finish is incorrect for all Enfields ... the correct finish is BLO or Boiled Linseed Oil, finished with a wax coat.

By rear stock do you mean Butt stock or are you referring to the upper hand guards? Post some pics up so I can get a better look at it and we'll see what you've got and most importantly does the bolt match the receiver serial numbers?

Best, Tiki.
 
Remember that many No. 4 Mark Is-like many M-1 Garands-are "mixmasters",
in the British case many of the smaller parts were made by subcontractors,
and there were numerous small design changes during production-the 4 types of rear sights, e.g. Many were refurbished in the Field, Royal Army Ordnance was more concerned with getting them back on the firing line than keeping them "correct".
 
SIG,

Mixmaster Enfields are the exception, not the rule. While you may see some few mixed parts between various English factories ... some BSA parts on a FAZ and vice versa and the stamps of the various sub contractors in Britain ... it is not the norm to find Savage or Longbranch marked parts on BSA or Faz Enfield's since the English factories had plenty of their own parts on hand during both FTR and available to Base and Field REME unit armorers.

On the other hand you may well see some Savage and Longbranch No4's sharing parts but this is because Savage closed its doors late in 44 and sent all spare parts to Longranch for use there. The vast majority of mixed North American parts found on English No4's is a result of civilian restoration and not Factory or Field refit. Contrary to this misconception the British paid a very keen attention to the correct fitting of parts - even in the field.

The final illustration of this due diligence was that even in the field, if a bolt required replacement the unit or field armorer would restamp the bolt for matching serial numbers. The various war time dispersal rifle mix masters of the No1 variety should not be confused with a general practice in the service. Add to this fact, I have helped identify rifles in the thousands for members at Surplus and the rate of English rifles to be found with Savage or Longbranch parts is about 1000 to 0 ... you never see it unless a civvy did it.

Tiki.
 
Last edited:
Tiki, I fianally broke down and purchased my first No5 MK1(F) made 3/47.
You talking them up made me do it(I blame you) lol. It will go well with my
No4's
 
P99,

That is great news mate and congratulations, welcome to the No5 club. Please add your rifles details, with pics, to my No5 Serial Number survey over at the Enfield forum in my signature - we'd love to have your input.

Best, Tiki. :cool:
 
Mad,

No, there is no way to know - all field REME or Unit Armorers had the correct set of stamps for both furniture and metal components and could apply them accordingly. If a bolt required total replacement such that it needed a new serial number they would simply re stamp it to match and that would be the end of it. The end result would look the same as factory.

Tiki.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top