Enfield No4 Mk2 Question

[Inuvik]

I have a really clean No4 Mk2 that I bought back in the early 90's. I have shot it a few times, but mostly it has sat in my safe since then. The condition of all the metal and bore is nearly perfect, but the stock is in issued/repaired condition.

Lately, I have been doing some research to figure out exactly what I have, and am not finding any information on serial numbers anywhere close to mine.

The serial numbers all match between the fore end stock, magazine, and receiver. The butt stock does not have a serial number marked on it. The markings on the receiver are as follows:

No4 MK2 (F) (c)
6/49 PF 14XXX

The date and factory where it was made are pretty obvious. From what I can find, May '49 was the last month of the MK 1/2 conversions, so a June date should be new production, but the 14XXX serial number seems way too low for new MK2 production. Does anyone have information on what I might have? I will try to post pictures soon.

Thanks!

[bruceflinch]

(F) is Fazackerly
There is a chart floating around here somewhere explaining the S/N's. They don't always make sense.
Bad Stock? You should better sell it to me as soon as I can scrape up some $$.

[Inuvik]

Thanks. As I said, the factory where it was made was pretty easy to find out. The thing I am still puzzled about is the serial number. Everything I have read indicates that a mid 1949 gun should have a serial number in the 100K range, not the 10,000 range. Does anyone know more about this?

By the way, the stock is perfectly functional, but does show wear as though it was issued. The rest of the gun is almost new condition. This and the serial number make me want to believe it is a refurbished/upgraded Mk1, but there are no additional markings to indicate that.

[bruceflinch]

I have a No4 MKII/3 Assuming the 3 came after the FTR in 1954.
I believe the Enfields were serialized at each factory, not cumulatively.

A quick Google search under "lee enfield serial numbers" found this

http://home.earthlink.net/~smithkaia8/theenfieldlists/index.html

[littlejake]

I have a copy of:

British Enfield Rifles, Lee-Enfield No. 4 and No. 5 Rifles, Vol. 2
by Charles R. Stratton in front of me.

The SN does not make sense compared with SN tables.

However, there seems to be an something in table F12 (page 171) that indicates the Fazakerley change over from MI to MKII in April 1949 began with approximate SN PF 8xxx. This seems inconsistent with the other tables.

[Inuvik]

I have a copy of:

British Enfield Rifles, Lee-Enfield No. 4 and No. 5 Rifles, Vol. 2
by Charles R. Stratton in front of me.

The SN does not make sense compared with SN tables.

However, there seems to be an something in table F12 (page 171) that indicates the Fazakerley change over from MI to MKII in April 1949 began with approximate SN PF 8xxx. This seems inconsistent with the other tables.

Thank you. That is the best information I have seen so far. If they began with the 8XXX range in April, it would be logical to find a 14XXX gun from June.

Next question; I have noticed a lot of guns without importer markings. Do importer markings detract from the value of the gun? Mine was marked by the importer who brought it into the US. I can't remember who (at work right now, but some outfit out of VA) but the receiver is marked with a name and address near the serial and model number markings.

[littlejake]

Import marks were required by the GCA of 1968. Perhaps not having import marks is a little more desirable. Personally, I do not find them to detract from the desirability of a C&R.

Some importers roll marked the barrels. Some on the receiver ring of the Enfields.

C.A.I. imported a lot of #4 and #5's.