Cased No 4 Mk 1 (T) $79 ?

[HOOKED ON HISTORY]

Spotted the picture of Jimmy Doolittle on the cover of a 1967 American Rifleman and picked it up based on that alone. I found the adds for the surplus arms and the prices in 1967 to be interesting. I hope you do as well. I for one will use the large increase in value from then to now as a rationalization to expand my collection. What are those No 4 Mk 1's going for now?
$5000.00?

317403174131742

[Buccaneer]

I wonder how much $79 would have bought in 1967???

[Peter Laidler]

Put my name down for one at that price HonH. Tell them not to worry too much if the numbers don't match. And I'll send you one of our £2:35p (Two pounds seven shillings in old money) Sten guns

[frankderrico]

Gas in the U.S. was about .25 cents a gallon. They pump it, check your oil and cleaned your windshield. 16 times higher now. That would put the rifle at $1,264 less shipping. Looks like the best deal on those pages and probably no import stamps in '67.....Frank

[HOOKED ON HISTORY]

Gas in the U.S. was about .25 cents a gallon. They pump it, check your oil and cleaned your windshield. 16 times higher now. That would put the rifle at $1,264 less shipping. Looks like the best deal on those pages and probably no import stamps in '67.....Frank


Thanks for doing the math. Still a pretty good investment I suppose. I wish my dad would have put a few away for me as I was only 7. I guess he was busy feeding and clothing me and my 3 sisters ,in addition to having no interest in firearms after being fired upon by some unfriendlies at Okinawa.

[Bill Hollinger]

That is probably about the same as the average mortgage payment in 1967.

[frankderrico]

Bill, you got it right. Bought my first new car in early '72, a jeep CJ5, my monthly payment was around $47.00. Yesterday I filled up my GMC 1500 paid $105 for gas!!! Still those (T)'s would have been a good investment.....Frank

[enfield303t]

I think Kleins in Chicago? had them in 1964 for $59.95 and a few months later for $64.95.

IF only money and foresight were two of my assets in 1967

[paulseamus]

;)Interesting a complete No4(T) for $79 when a No5 sells for $39 and No4Mk1 sells for $24.

Given that a good No5 now sells for around $600 to $700 and a good No4 sells for around $400 to $500 .................all you blokes with a good complete No4(T) should be selling them for between $1350 and $1450.:eek:

PM me if this sounds like a deal.:D

Seriously though, it shows that the strongest growth in value is on rifles that are limited in number - Relative scarcity equates to better capital appreciation

[Bill Hollinger]

Seriously though, it shows that the strongest growth in value is on rifles that are limited in number - Relative scarcity equates to better capital appreciation

Paul, I feel like I just heard on of my old economics professor's lectures. :rofl: :super:

[HILLBILLY-06]

I wish my dad would have put a few away for me as I was only 7.

My Dad and Uncle both are still kicking themselve's for not buying CMP rifles when they were $125.00. I let them look at the downloaded catalog last year and they couldn't believe how expensive they are now, especially to get one of the really good ones. WOW... Of course everything is more expensive now, even chewing gum is not what it was back in the 1960's... "My guess is" if we can't afford to buy one of those No.4 MK 1 (T) rifles now, immagine what 50 years from now they will cost. Time to stock up while supplies last I guess....

[arado]

I was there. My first car, 1948 Plymouth club coupe cost me $75. My first surplus arm, an AC42 P-38 cost me $100. Still have it. The car is long gone. Rock and Roll was invented when I was 13. lucky Gary

[HOOKED ON HISTORY]

Planing a trip to Anniston soon to get a Garand before they are all gone. If I have any funds left. Had a No 5 Mk1 Jungle Carbine find me yesterday.My gunsmith refered the fellow to me as someone who might be interested. Interested? Well yea. Could not pass it up. 12/1946 Faz I would say 98% on the metal 95% on the wood. Paid a bit more than $39.50 but think I did Ok.

31762

[smle addict]

Hello all,

Lurked for months, finally gonna post one. My no 4 (T) still has that Hunters Lodge receipt in the box. And it was as listed, $79.00. I bought it back in 1992 for $1500. The man I bought it from orderd it from HL back in the '60's. He said he ordered it with the crate, and asked for a excellent condition scope, an option, he explained, the company offered by hand selecting the best scopes. That might explain why the scope doesn't match my rifle. Anyway, when his rifle arrived, he didn't know how to adjust the scope, and put it back the crate, and squirreled it way for 30+ years. He never fired it. Now it's in my gun safe, and comes out a couple of times a year. What an outstanding weapon.

[enfield303t]

Talked to a friend from this site yesterday about the 4 LB consecutive serial numbered No4's and he told me about a elderly gentlemen he "knew" IIRC. This gentleman bought 25 LB T's with full kit for $100.00 each and sold them for $250.00 so a tidy profit. NOW to make you really drool 7 yes 7 of the LB T's were consecutive serial numbers. Just think what those 7 would sell for today. Pretty obvious at least the 7 were never issued and would be matching and perfect.

I would venture all 25 had never been issued.

[rayg]

Here's some more from the early 60's. Ray

326833268432685326863268732688326893269032691

[rayg]

32692326933269432695

[PrinzEugen]

Thanks ray: I love the hyperbole on the sg43 (mp44?) description: "These noisy and efficient burp guns turned the tide of battle against the Allied armies more than once and only because they appeared late in the war did they not completely annihilate the invading Allied forces."

[Thunderbox]

It does make me wonder why old surplus military rifles are so expensive today: most Lee Enfields in civilian ownership today are the very same rifles that Sam Cummings bought off the UK government for between 2 and 7 shillings each - thats about $2 max at the time.

[Beerhunter]

Still the same old "Royal" Enfield error - or was it deliberate?

[Peter Laidler]

Seeing those old ads was interesting. I remember seeing some of those old US magazines when I was in the sick-bay at my boarding school (with bruised ankles from a game we called hoocker which was a sort of rugby played with hockey sticks and as football I seem to remember. I don't seem to recall it being an olympic sport played outside the school somehow......) in the early 60's and seeing the Lanchesters. As my school had a COMBINED Cadet force (that is the Navy, RAF and Army cadets were combined), we had 6 Lanchesters in the school Cadet Armoury. The Navy cadets were always away on boat trips, sailing and nautical jollies while the Army were shooting blanks everywhere, doing drill competitions and slogging around the ferocious assault course that would be banned now. The RAF section did their usual cookery and needlework classes, but I digress! We did shoot the Stens and Lanchesters on our 25 yard range but used Sten magazines in the Lanchesters. After reading these magazines in the sick bay I learned that the Lanchesters SHOULD have 50 round magazines and not the shorty Sten magazines.

I told the OC - whose name I forget but he was head of Chemistry - that the Lanchesters should have 50 round magazines and he told me to '....go away and not to be so silly' But being the early 60's when there wasn't such a thing as political correctness, his language was probably a little more colourful. When we came across Navy Lanchesters from the Sembawang dockyard at the big Base Workshop in Singapore I was the only one of the Military Armourers who a) knew what they were and b) how to strip them