Looking for info on No4 mk 1/2 FTR

C

C.308

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
151   0   1
Location
Hamilton
Hi everyone,

I was hoping to get a bit of info on what I have here. I took this No4 Mk1/2 FTR on a trade a while back. Other than the dates shown I don't know much about it. I'd like to know if it looks complete/ original as well as it's approximate value as well as any other info one might be able to tell from looking at it. I'm happy with the trade I made, even if it turns out I didn't get full value as I really like the rifle. Im just curious.

The bolt and receiver have the same serial #. The bayonet was just one I found for a no4 mk2 at an antique shop.

If more pics would be more helpful I will gladly take more.

Thanks!!View attachment 341554View attachment 341555View attachment 341556View attachment 341557View attachment 341558View attachment 341560View attachment 341561View attachment 341563View attachment 341564
 
Originally made at the Maltby factory in 1942 as the No4Mk1. Received a "factory thorough repair" (FTR) meaning it was stripped down and brought back to as new condition in 1951 at the Fazakereley arsenal. It also received the trigger upgrade package making it a No4Mk2 likely at the same time as the FTR. Most rifles went through the FTR process so that's not unusual. Has a Mk 2 pattern rear sight. The front barrel band near the muzzle may be a replacement as the finish and wear looks different from the rest of the rifle though that may just be because of the picture. If you were to take the top of the wooden hand guard off youll see some of the factory and inspectors proof marks. http://www.allaboutenfields.co.nz/history/markings/ is a great resource for looking up the various markings and looking at the differences between various versions of the rifle. Everything looks to be there and assuming the bore is good you have a solid looking rifle that should shoot pretty well.
 
Thanks for the info. I wasn't sure if it was a cobbled together restoration or as it would have been issued. Bore is decent I'd say. The sights are a little high and left but no big deal. Just has some worn finish but otherwise in decent shape.
 
Restored sporter imho.

Stock is not a mk2 stock or an approved conversion of a mk2 stock. It's a mk1 stock where the tie plate has been removed and the inter-draw web cut out to fit. Someone could fit correct tie plate patches and machine in correctly tapered counter-sinks for the tie bolt, the fact they did not means the restorer was something of an amateur.

The trigger guard is also a no.5mk1 piece or late production mk2 piece from the look of it. Not a 1/2 conversion as it should have.

The rear sight is also dead wrong. 1/2 conversion included a fazakerley mk1 sight being fitted. This rifle's has been replaced with a mid-war expedient rear sight.

Mag is a mismatch, and is that buttplate steel or zamak? It should have gotten a brass gunmetal butttplate during a proper rsaf mk1/2 conversion, so if that is wrong then the buttstock is likely also a recent replacement.

Should shoot ok if the draws were well fitted (big if given the sloppy tie plate work) but collectible it is not.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the info. Good stuff to know. I took it because I felt it was a piece I should have in my collection, but I wasn't necessarily expecting a perfect example. I Just wanted a nice looking full wood no4. I don't shoot it much but when I do I have no complaints. I don't plan on getting rid of it any time soon but if i did, I would hate to unintentionally pass it off as an original if it wasn't.
 
Claven 2 is pretty much "spot on" - only way that you would "pass it off" as original is to someone who has done "0" reading or research. To some of us who have or have had correct, or originals, not really a "good looking" example either - general overall configuration might appeal, but it is all in the details...
 
Potashminer said:
Claven 2 is pretty much "spot on" - only way that you would "pass it off" as original is to someone who has done "0" reading or research. To some of us who have or have had correct, or originals, not really a "good looking" example either - general overall configuration might appeal, but it is all in the details...
Click to expand...

Right. It is in the details for sure. I have lots to learn but I'm happy with the rifle and the deal I made to get it. She's pretty enough for me ;) I'm glad I posted even if the rifle got roasted a little. Maybe I should have said "id hate to unintentionally TRY to pass it off as an original And get laughed out of the EE" ;)
 
C.308 said:
Maybe I should have said "id hate to unintentionally TRY to pass it off as an original And get laughed out of the EE" ;)
Click to expand...

As long as you don't try to pass off a drilled and tapped No.5 as pristine for $1000, or a run of the mill refurbed/reproduction wood stocked SMLE as a WW1 vet, etc., you'll do fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom