No4 Mk1/2 Mk1/3 Mk2 and FTR

I would like to thank Peter Laidler who allowed me to reproduce an online post that he wrote that covers off nicely the FTR and subsequent upgrades. Peter was an armourer with the Australian Army during the late 60′s and served in NZ for some time at Ngaruawahia.

THE FAZAKERLEY FTR PROGRAMME OF 1948 TO 1951

I spoke at length to one of the now passed on but then very old managers at Fazakerly. This FTR programme started after the last production of new (No5) rifles had ceased. The Cold War was uppermost in minds, Maltby had closed and it was important to keep the large Fazakerley plant on stream. It was also pointed out that it was Fazakerley and not Enfield that had the expertise when it came to No4 rifles. While some were upgraded and FTR’d at Enfield, it was very few and even then, this was only to ascertain engineering principles and viability. Remember of course, that while it was a separate Ministry of Supply ROFactory, Fazakerley was always under the technical direction and control of the RSAF at Enfield.

The ROF-6 Ministry of Supply factory Fazakerley FTR and their later conversion to 1/2 and 1/3 programme was identical. The principal exception being that there was an additional sliding gauge used during the ‘in-inspection’ phase for the Mk1* rifles. This gauge went into the bolt-way on the Mk1* rifles and identified two points.
The first point was, that the gauge identified Mk1* rifles with an internally protruding part of the bridge charger guide. This little internal rib, under the charger guide would and often did strike the rear of the extractor spring as you were withdrawing the bolt out under the charger bridge while removing the bolt. The rib would strike the spring slap bang between the little recess that protects it and shove it out leaving you with no extractor spring. These rifles were marked with a big dob of yellow marker on the butt socket and were diverted away to a secondary machine shop where the offending rib was machined away on a horizontal boring machine
The second job of the gauge was to identify Mk1* rifles with worn bolt head slots. These rifles were marked with another unknown/don’t remember colour on the butt socket. These rifles were diverted to the welding bay where the slot was made good and then refinished in the machine shop. You can identify these rifles with re-made bolt head slots due to the fact that they are of a harder material and the material change shows up after phosphating. We saw hundreds of these during our Base Workshop FTR’s too.

The rifles came in from the main Ordnance Depot at Weedon but came from across the world. They came in wooden crates where they were just packed in, any amount to a crate. They were filthy, covered in mud and blood, bent, battered, smashed up, rusty, burned out………… in fact any condition.

First they were all put through a sort of industrial power wash process where the immediate no-hopers – about 15 percent or so – were sifted and sent for scrap. The remainders were totally stripped by unskilled female workers. Every part was inspected and sent through vast linishing drums where they were cleaned and phosphate then painted. There was little inspection, beyond the obvious of these small component parts because any defective parts would be immediately identified on the assembly lines. The main body and barrels were sent to the skilled ‘viewers’ who would gauge and view the barrels and examine the bodies with factory gauges. There was a set criteria for the body and barrels. The viewer had to confirm, by experience, ‘…that the body and barrel, after the FTR, conformed to and was capable of providing a further 80 percent life’. That is a bit of an ambiguous statement to me but I read it as stating that the gauging limits ALL had to be within 80 percent of NEW.

Woodwork that was went to a specialized woodwork shop where the expensive butts were patched as necessary. You’ll identify these perfect toe and heel patches with their perfect oak pegs. Strangely, the butt was more expensive to produce than the fore-end. As for the fore-ends, you will identify some of these by the internally patched reinforces and occasionally, when the need arose, small dovetail patches at the rear right hand side of Mk1 fore-ends to close off the bolt head catch opening to suit needy Mk1* ‘no bolt head catch’ rifles. Mk1* rifle type fore-ends were not produced in the UK. Converted yes, produced, no!

Apart from the initial gauging to ascertain faulty Mk1* rifles and the conversion of Mk1 fore-ends to Mk1* spec, there was no difference between the two types of rifle.

The Mk1 to 1/2 and 1* to 1/3 UPGRADING – 1950-54
These were completely different repair/rebuild programmes and while the processes were pretty well identical, EVERY rifle that went in was upgraded. So it could be that a damaged war-weary Savage Mk1* went in for FTR in 1949 was re-issued in Germany in 1950, then came back in 1953 for a further FTR. This time it emerged as a Mk1/3. However, I have been reliably informed that this scenario is the exception and not the rule

The same was true of the condition that some of these rifles went IN for the FTR Upgrading process. They too were extensively war damaged, this time from Korea and it is of this era that you will occasionally but rarely see a Mk1/2 No4T.

Once again for the upgrade programme, the fore-ends were extensively modified at the rear by cutting, patching and pegging to clear the new ‘BLOCK, trigger’

This time, in addition to all of the previous FTR processes, a quantity of rifles deemed beyond repair but aesthetically suitable were side tracked and sent to Enfield to be converted to Skeletonised training rifles. But even these were not converted at Enfield because they had their hands full with the FTR programme for Bren Guns. Mk1 guns for scrap or skeletonisation or DP, Mk2 guns to Mk2/1 and Mk3 for a full FTR. The Skeletonisation programme for the No4 rifles (and Brens incidentally) went to LIST at Dagenham.

The conversion programme to /2 and /3 (It’s not ‘slash 2 or 3’ in UK military parlance, but said as ‘number 4 mark 1 oblique 2’) was done not by brazing on a pre-machined block at the butt socket but by brazing on a SOLID partially machined block. The block was then finished when it was attached to the rifle. This ensured that the half circle recess to clear the new SCREW, tie, fore-end, the radial trigger slot and most importantly, the trigger axis pin hole was in the EXACT position. After the end of the upgrading programme, the ‘new-build’ PF- and UF55A- No4 Mk2 rifles were produced. But by this time, industrial relations at Fazakerley were best described as ‘tense’ and the factory began its slow inevitable decline. Even the offer of the secretive L2A3 Sterling and L1A1 rifle contract couldn’t sweeten or un-blinker the suicidal workforce. So while Sterling got on with making and selling its guns to the rest of the world and BSA stepped in at the last moment to rescue the L1A1 SLR, the remaining SLR machinery went from Fazakerley to Lithgow …………….. but that’s another story. I hope that’s answered a few questions. Oh yes, I forgot to mention it, but no, there was no differentiation between the marks as they went through the FTR and upgrading process.

As for the markings, well, as I have said before, the shallow, almost invisible pantograph scratch markings caused all sorts of headaches for Armourers and thousands of these almost invisible Fazakerley re-numbered rifles were later re-numbered with the ‘lost’ number format of SA60 A1234 and so on. One seen only last week reads SA63-A2253 indicating Small Arms, 1963 with the sequential number A-2253 while underneath a number that reads something like 53P xxxxx follows!

13 Responses to No4 Mk1/2 Mk1/3 Mk2 and FTR

  1. Jason Vaughan says:

    Hi, did you receive the pictures and documents I sent you ?

  2. Mark says:

    Jason, yes buddy certainly did just been rather full on at the moment with a few things but i promise to get those documents up as soon as i can, hey thanks for them too!

  3. MGO says:

    Thanks for this information. I have a 1954 No.4 MK1/3(F) FTR’d rifle and now know a little more about its history. Now if I could ony decipher all of those markings . . . .

  4. Mark says:

    Glad to have helped. what markings are you having issues with? flick me a photo of the ones causing you grief and i will have a look at them for you.

  5. MGO says:

    Thanks, Mark. That’s a nice offer. Unfortunately, due to local laws where I now live, my Enfield in not with me here. I will take some photos next time I visit where it is stored. In my State (here in the US) the firearms laws are very local so in one city you need to go through a lengthy licensing process to keep a rifle in your home while one hour away in another locality you do not.

  6. Mark says:

    No rush, when you get the chance, take a stack of photos, i dont really mind the number or the size, but just as long as i can see the markings! That way it is a lot easier for me to see what you have and properly help you. Thats got to be a pain in the Butt in regards to the storage of old rifles such as these girls. We are rather lucky with the firearm laws we have in NZ. But again just when you get the chance send me some photos.

  7. Jake says:

    Hi Mark, you’re article is very informative : ) .

    However I am confused about a rifle of my own and I cannot seem to figure out what type of Enfield it actually is, haha. Maybe you can help me out. On the gun itself near the action (on the barrel) it states that it is a No.4 MK.1 (This info is quite faded). The metal piece attached that wraps around onto the trigger guard reads AN(xxxxx) 1943. On the bolt it reads the same AN(xxxxx) but says MK.II. The information on the bolt is easily read and quite distinguished. Now, as odd as it sounds, the iron sights read MK.III and is a standard flip up sight with numbers from 1 to 12. The odd part being that it reads MK.III. On the other side of the barrel, it also reads “England”. To me, it seems this rifle has been FTR’d. There is also a custom flash suppressor on the end of the barrel (The barrel has not been shortened). It looks identical to that of the jungle carbine.

  8. Jake says:

    Kind of a confusing dilemma but I appreciate any help you can offer. If you need anymore information I would gladly send you it.

    Thanks Mark,

  9. Mark says:

    Jake, You have a No4Mk1, but it sounds as if it has been “altered” as No4′s never had the flash hider, that was soley for the No5. The other areas that you make reference too such as the bolt and the rear sight are the variations of those parts. For example the cocking piece you have will have three groves on it, this was the 2nd variation. This was the next progression from the “button” cocking piece. The stamping of MK3 on the rear sight indicates it was stamped steel rather than machined from solid steel, but have a look at the sight as it should go up to 13?? Send me as many photo as you can to admin@allaboutenfields.co.nz, dont worry about the volume, just get quality pics :) then i can help you some more

  10. Andre says:

    Hi,

    Need some help,

    Have a /52 AD11911 No4MK1/2(F)FTR

    I need more details, I know little about her, she started life in 1942, must have been used by Canadian soldiers as she was given to me here in Canada.

    Cheers

  11. steven says:

    Can anyone throw some light / ideas on a no4 mk2 PF218xxx that has a 7.62nato caliber barrel? regulated by fulton but has std battle sights and looks like a battle rifle. (Otherwise I’d conclude its an ex-target gun)

    I know its part of a run of 1800 from the serial number range. Just wondering if its a fulton conversion to 7.62 or if that 1800 were all 7.62 nato. There is reference to the L8 series of rifles but this has a PF serial number.

    thanks

  12. steven says:

    Second Q on no4 mk2. I have a PF230xxx its serial number range is listed as unknown ie no one knows where that batch went, could it be to NZ? ie are there other NZers out there with a similar number?

  13. Mark says:

    As to the background of the FTR markings, I’ve a section that covers “FTR” and No4′s which will help fill in questions in relation to that. The “must have been used by Canadian soldiers as she was given to me here in Canada” doesn’t really hold, it may have been imported at some stage post being sold out of service? are there any other marking?

Comments are closed.