Enfield rifle identification help

That is an Enfield No. 4 Mk I, made by BSA (Shirley) in 1943, in .303 British.

It has a Mk 3 stamped rear sight (the leaf is a Mk II, but the complete unit is a Mk 3)

The "No 4 MK 2" stamped on the side is 1) not correct, as you can plainly see it is a Mk I, and 2) done at some later dated as most wartime BSA production were not marked on the side of the receiver.

Not an Enfield expert, but looks like a No.4 Mk1 brought up to Mk2 standard after the war- hence the overstamp?1943 is probably an arsenal date return date- the original manufacturer factory and date is usually on the other side under the bolt.

It would have been chambered for .303 British originally, and very few caliber conversions were ever done, limited mostly to .22 rimfire.

lysanderxiii said:

That is an Enfield No. 4 Mk I, made by BSA in 1943, in .303 British.

It has a Mk 3 stamped rear sight (the leaf is a Mk II, but the complete unit is a Mk 3)

The "No 4 MK 2" stamped on the side is 1) not correct, as you can plainly see it is a Mk I, and 2) done at some later dated as most wartime BSA production were not marked on the side of the receiver.

Click to expand...

I dont doubt you at all, but what gives it away as a BSA?

Yes, No4 Mk1 (.303 caliber) made by Birmingham Small Arms (Shirley) in 1943.

No4 Mk2 rifles weren't made until after the war so your rifle likely underwent upgrade to
Mk 2 status (trigger mounted on receiver instead of the trigger guard) during a refurb at the Pakistani Ordnance Factory. If it had been upgraded by the Brits, it would have been marked No4 Mk1/2.

NIGHTLORD40K said:

I dont doubt you at all, but what gives it away as a BSA?

Click to expand...

M47 code
Midlands Factory #47

Well, there ya go.

This page has a useful and quick introduction to LE markings:

https://www.milsurps.com/enfield.php?pg=in2.htm

This one goes into more detail:

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/enfield-rifle-identification-help.883531/

With the forestock removed, you can distinguish the Mk. 2 differences -- I believe that a true No.4 Mk. 2 should have its trigger mounted to the receiver instead of the triggerguard.

Short Magazine Lee Enfield.

And if that green paint is below the woodline, it's factory during rebuild.

Conelrad

GlazingandAuto said:

Also I'm seeing magazines listed as SMLE no4 mk1.
I forget what the "smelly" designation is for. Figure one non converted would work the smoothest if the smle is compatible.

Click to expand...

Technically the No. 4 is not a SMLE. All No. 4 magazines are interchangeable. SMLE magazines (those for the Mk. III, etc.) are not interchangeable with No. 4's unless modified.

My memory indicates "smelly" as an affectionate and user produced nickname for SMLE which stands for [Rifle,] Short (barrel length), Magazine (fed), Lee (designer) Enfield (location of design and initial manufacture). Just for completeness, the predecessor rifle was the [Rifle, with initial long barrel] Magazine (fed), Lee (designer) Enfield (location of design and initial manufacture). It was affectionately called an "Emily".

When the No. 4 rifle came out, the British Army (or someone) get all serious and the official name was "No. 4 (and the 'marks" were alteration improvements; what in the U. S. system would be A1 or such).

Dave DeLaurant said:

With the forestock removed, you can distinguish the Mk. 2 differences -- I believe that a true No.4 Mk. 2 should have its trigger mounted to the receiver instead of the triggerguard.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Mr. DeLaurant. I have such a rifle. It had been 'rather altered' and I'm building it into a decent looking sporting rifle. But it has the trigger mounted on the receiver and the Mk. 1 forend is not right! Now I know this isn't something really goofy.

Dave DeLaurant said:

With the forestock removed, you can distinguish the Mk. 2 differences -- I believe that a true No.4 Mk. 2 should have its trigger mounted to the receiver instead of the triggerguard.

Click to expand...

No need to remove anything. See below

NIGHTLORD40K said:

Not an Enfield expert, but looks like a No.4 Mk1 brought up to Mk2 standard after the war- hence the overstamp?1943 is probably an arsenal date return date- the original manufacturer factory and date is usually on the other side under the bolt.

It would have been chambered for .303 British originally, and very few caliber conversions were ever done, limited mostly to .22 rimfire.

Click to expand...

It wasn't brought up to Mk 2 standards, you can tell by the forestock. The Mk 1 has a reinforcing strap on the back with rivets, the Mk 2 has a bolt, and the recess for the bolt is a simple hole not a "D" shaped cutout.

Besides, up-graded Mk1 was marked Mk 1/2 and would dave an FTR (Factory Through Repair) date following the new markings.

lysanderxiii said:

Besides, up-graded Mk1 was marked Mk 1/2 and would dave an FTR (Factory Through Repair) date following the new markings.

Click to expand...

That is true for British FTRs as I pointed out above. Not necessarily so for POF rifles that were refurbed. There is some explanation for the No4 Mk2 markings on the receiver (on a BSA made in 1943) and a POF refurb seems the most logical. The POF didn't always play by the "rules."

If the trigger is not mounted to the receiver and it is not a Mk2, I have no idea why it was marked No4 Mk2. As I'm sure you are aware, there were no wartime Mk2s.

I do agree with you on the MK 2 stock bolt. That is the giveaway. Here is a link to some pictures of the Mk 2 stock:
https://www.libertytreecollectors.com/productcart/pc/viewPrd.asp?idproduct=12544

I owned several Mk2s some of which I unwrapped new.

No longer have them, down to a couple Long Branch No4s.

Zimbabwe paint?

Not the right color for Rhodesia, but looks a lot like Zim.

If either, the "patina" would be historical, and worth more if preserved.

Bwana John said:

Zimbabwe paint?

Not the right color for Rhodesia, but looks a lot like Zim.

If either, the "patina" would be historical, and worth more if preserved.

Click to expand...

That is a point, Who knows what might have been done to that rifle in the far flung reaches of the empire.

GlazingandAuto said:

foregrip has been modified. I don't think this is from a factory upgrade. Ill check the trigger out.
View attachment 977679

Click to expand...

Looks like someone "sportarized" it. I looked again at your pics and that is not a Mk2 stock so the mystery of the No4 Mk2 marking continues.

The bolt is serialed to the rifle which is standard. As lysanderxiii and I mentioned before, that is a Mk1 stock so the Mk2 marking on the receiver is the stumper. From the picture, it looks like someone overstamped the 1 in Mk1. Is that what you see?

OK, you have a 43 BSA No4 Mk1 with the correct Mk1 stock. It is however marked Mk2.
You might never know why someone stamped Mk2 on the rifle.

Or, it was refurbed at some point to Mk2 by POF or as a local third world mod. For this to be so, the trigger would have to be attached to the receiver and not to the trigger guard. Further, someone would have had to bubba the Mk1 stock to get the stock to fit on a Mk2 rifle.

Personally, I think "Bubba" stamped No 4 MK 2 on it for reasons known only to Bubba.

Oh, and that is not a Pakistani refurbish job. They used an electro-pencil and used Brit nomenclature. (And, did a better job of marking things)