Armory Sponsor
Posted: 12/10/2008 5:29:11 PM EDT
|
I'm fairly new to Enfields. I have a BSA No. 1, Mk III, a unknown No. 4, and a Isaphore. I'm tempted to dig a bit deeper into these things. Can somebody either give me a brief primer on the more desirable variations or point me to a good web-based resource.
Specifically, in the No. 4's how do the various makers compare (Savage, Long Branch, Lithgow, etc) Is there a significant difference or is condition the only thing to worry about? What about the No. 1 rifles? Are their particular ones to look for? |
|
No. 4s were all mostly made to the same standards of craftsmanship. Yes, you will find lemons of all makes, but it's mostly down to condition/originality and how hard they were used. There are some rare variants - like the No. 4 (T) sniper models, and the uncommon to rare Savage and Long Branch Mk. Is.
SMLEs are a bit different. There are many more variations of those, and the different manufacturers produced different quantities. Generally, the older the rifle, and the more of its original parts it retains, the more expensive it will be. SMLE Mk Is in original condition will cost you serious coinage. An odd exception are the SMLE Mk V trials rifles - only 20k of those were made and they are also serious coin in unbastardized condition. As far as manufacturer goes, the least valuable ones are the post-war RFI (Rifle Factory Ishapore) rifles, though those tend to be in decent shape. Next are the GRI rifles made during the British Raj, then the WWII Lithgows. Early Lithgows, BSA and Enfield rifles tend to run about the same price, with LSA and finally SSA/NRF 'peddle-scheme' rifles at the top of the heap. I should also mention the WWII manufacture BSA 'dispersal' rifles - these are an oddity and their value varies. Hope that helps! ETA: If you can post the first part of the serial number of your No. 4, we can tell you who made it. -Mark |
| Well I dissagree w/ the gentleman above. I am a No4 newbie after 15 years of collecting them. The models are No4mk1, No4mk1*, FTF'ed: No4mk1/2, No4mk2, No4mk1/3. The FTF models are trigger upgrades done from 1949..1955. A few were made in Briton, but most were Longbranch and Savage. The Longbranch, although a 2 groove barrel is concidered the most accurate. Savage made 4,5,and 6 groove barrels. Brit made were generally 4 groove. To say that all were equal is not true. If you were being bombed daily it shows in fit and finish, the Brit model suffers from this. Now the MKIII is a different animal, the WW1 models are better than the WW2 models for the same reason stated above. My Buddy has a 1917 BSA that has Brit acceptance WW1 stamps, Austrian Police Stamps from after the war, Nazi acceptance stamps from Germany taking over Austria and 1947 Brit acceptance stamps. She is a perfect rifle w/ allot of history. Sights, mag cut-offs, way to much info to pass on here. Gunboards is a great site and can give you more info than I can. jp |
|
Quoted:
Well I dissagree w/ the gentleman above. I am a No4 newbie after 15 years of collecting them. The models are No4mk1, No4mk1*, FTF'ed: No4mk1/2, No4mk2, No4mk1/3. The FTF models are trigger upgrades done from 1949..1955. A few were made in Briton, but most were Longbranch and Savage. The Longbranch, although a 2 groove barrel is concidered the most accurate. Savage made 4,5,and 6 groove barrels. Brit made were generally 4 groove. To say that all were equal is not true. If you were being bombed daily it shows in fit and finish, the Brit model suffers from this. Now the MKIII is a different animal, the WW1 models are better than the WW2 models for the same reason stated above. My Buddy has a 1917 BSA that has Brit acceptance WW1 stamps, Austrian Police Stamps from after the war, Nazi acceptance stamps from Germany taking over Austria and 1947 Brit acceptance stamps. She is a perfect rifle w/ allot of history. Sights, mag cut-offs, way to much info to pass on here. Gunboards is a great site and can give you more info than I can. jp Let me see if I got what you're saying: 1.) The World War I rifles (the No. 1's) are more elegantly manufactured than the World War II rifles (the No. 4's). That would seem to go along with machined parts vs. stamped steel. 2.) Among No. 4 rifles, are you suggesting I look for Canadian and U.S. made versions? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
ETA: If you can post the first part of the serial number of your No. 4, we can tell you who made it. -Mark The stampings on the buttstock band are somewhat light and a little hard to discern, but it appears to say: 1943 AH 110xx Your rifle was made at the British Royal Ordnance Factory at Maltby - commonly called ROF Maltby. -Mark |
|
Quoted:
Let me see if I got what you're saying: 1.) The World War I rifles (the No. 1's) are more elegantly manufactured than the World War II rifles (the No. 4's). That would seem to go along with machined parts vs. stamped steel. 2.) Among No. 4 rifles, are you suggesting I look for Canadian and U.S. made versions? SMLEs are certainly made to a different standard of quality than the No. 4s are. They were very labor intensive, and it shows. Even down to little things - the barrel band on an SMLE is actually hinged - an almost unthinkable luxury (and a godsend when removing it) when compared to other military rifles. Corners were eventually cut with the SMLEs due to wartime expediency - removal of the volley sights, etc. While I will concede that some quality differences might be attributed to wartime pressures in regards to No. 4 production, I would perhaps suggest that these differences are of little importance after 50 years of often hard use and the countless rebuilds most of these rifles have seen. Of note, however, are the No. 4 Mk 2 rifles - virtually all of these saw zero use at all and have a history that basically equals "we sat in a warehouse as war reserve until the Brits got sick of looking at us". As such, these rifles are basically "new" and make excellent shooters, and often command high prices because of this. -Mark |
|
Quoted:
I have a No.4 Mk.1* Longbranch. What's the deal with these? The Long Branch rifles were made at the Long Branch plant in Ontario, Canada from 1941 all the way up through 1956. They halted production in 1945, but resumed it again in 1949 until finally halting for good in 1956. Virtually all of the rifles produced here were of the 'wartime expedient' Mk. I* variant - these had a different method for removing the bolt (a cut in the bolt track vs. the plunger). -Mark |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your rifle was made at the British Royal Ordnance Factory at Maltby - commonly called ROF Maltby. Is that a good thing? It is what it is. At this point, virtually every Enfield is unique, and needs to be evaluated individually. If it's in good shape, unsporterized, and shoots well, then it's a good rifle, regardless of who originally made it. You should know, however, that Maltby used a large number of subcontracted parts, so an 'original' ROF Maltby rifle is difficult to define. ETA: I forgot to add this - much is made by people that don't know better about "matching numbers" on Enfield parts. Certain parts on SMLE and No. 4 rifles were serial numbered to match the receiver - some of these stampings were done at the factory originally, some were done at the unit level, and more still were done at rebuilds. Replacement parts were, by regulation, stamped to match the serial number of the rifle they were installed on. This, of course, means that a matching number on a part means absolutely nothing in regards to whether it is original to the rifle or not. It must not only be correctly numbered, but also be of the correct type and manufacture to be truly "original". ETA2: As an example, the bolt, forestock, and nosecap on my 1915 LSA SMLE are all correctly numbered to match the receiver. None of them are original to the rifle. -Mark |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ETA: If you can post the first part of the serial number of your No. 4, we can tell you who made it. -Mark The stampings on the buttstock band are somewhat light and a little hard to discern, but it appears to say: 1943 AH 110xx Your rifle was made at the British Royal Ordnance Factory at Maltby - commonly called ROF Maltby. -Mark Mind if I high jack my no4 mk1 receiver band says B 1942 B000x On the side of the receiver it says .303 British United Kingdom IAC ALEX VA then behind that is says No4 mk1 f(ftr)49 |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well I dissagree w/ the gentleman above. I am a No4 newbie after 15 years of collecting them. The models are No4mk1, No4mk1*, FTF'ed: No4mk1/2, No4mk2, No4mk1/3. The FTF models are trigger upgrades done from 1949..1955. A few were made in Briton, but most were Longbranch and Savage. The Longbranch, although a 2 groove barrel is concidered the most accurate. Savage made 4,5,and 6 groove barrels. Brit made were generally 4 groove. To say that all were equal is not true. If you were being bombed daily it shows in fit and finish, the Brit model suffers from this. Now the MKIII is a different animal, the WW1 models are better than the WW2 models for the same reason stated above. My Buddy has a 1917 BSA that has Brit acceptance WW1 stamps, Austrian Police Stamps from after the war, Nazi acceptance stamps from Germany taking over Austria and 1947 Brit acceptance stamps. She is a perfect rifle w/ allot of history. Sights, mag cut-offs, way to much info to pass on here. Gunboards is a great site and can give you more info than I can. jp Let me see if I got what you're saying: 1.) The World War I rifles (the No. 1's) are more elegantly manufactured than the World War II rifles (the No. 4's). That would seem to go along with machined parts vs. stamped steel. 2.) Among No. 4 rifles, are you suggesting I look for Canadian and U.S. made versions? 1: Yes 2: Yes if you are looking for a truely nice rifle, Longbranch is my choice! |
|
Quoted:
Mind if I high jack my no4 mk1 says B 1942 B000x Interesting. Do you see any other markings (M47C, perhaps) - or missing digits in the S/N? No 4 rifles are generally identifiable by the first digit in the S/N. It's definitely a British-made rifle, however - not a Long Branch or Savage. Possibly BSA Shirley. -Mark |
|
Other than the stuff I edited my post with there is a J and a crown with an N under and possibly another letter or number. on top of the receiver. To the right of that there is a funny mark that looks like it had a few letters possibly an X but it looks like somebody stamped it out. The very top of the stock against the receiver says B CO.
In front of the trigger guard carved into the stock is J.F. under that M.G. AHRNEM |
|
Well according to http://www.enfieldcollector.com/serials.html
The only exception to the 5-number sequence for No.4 rifles was the initial BSA Shirley production which ran from 0001 to 9999 then went with A to Z prefixes (A0001 to A9999 to the Z prefix) and some early dual letter prefixes (e.g. AT 0303), but then went over to A30001, &c. So early M47C No.4 rifle numbers could be confused with the Jungle carbine in having four rather than five numbers. So mine was just a early BSA production |
|
Don't forget the No.3 mk 1 and it's younger 30-06 brother, the U.S. Rifle of 1917.
There were some of the most accurate Enfield designed rifles and were used for sniping in WWI and WWII. |
Armory Sponsor