No4MK1 "T" RESCUED

[bros]

Well I just purchased another T. A fellow had a few Enfields for sale so I made the trip to check them out. Three were sporterized junkers.....rusty bolts, chopped stocks....holes drilled in the recievers etc. The exception was the T series rifle, it was also improperly stored.....bolt, barrel band, trigger guard have some light rust on....receiver is missing a lot of the original finish but the bore, after a good cleaning remains excellent.
It's a 1945 M47C BSA serial # is X333xx. The pads look great, screws have not been messed with and have only been staked once. Matching for-end, top had guard is the grooved type. I removed the buttstock and it matches rifles serial #also has the S51 stamp on the butt. No scope yet but the original is supposed to be coming...I was told the whereabouts of it are known. It has a matching bolt. It is stamped TR on the wrist, has the proper SM rear sight, has the S stamp on the mag cutt-off, receiver ring has the crown mark but no England stamp. It has the little D6E crown mark on the rear left side of the action and on the right side it's got a 7EE with the little crown. The only indicator that is missing is the absence of the T stamp on the left side of the action by the screw.
I'm sure this topic has been discussed before ( and I did try to find info from old posts) but sorry I was unable to locate the answers I was looking for so........again can you help me with the reason why this would be missing the T stamp on the left side of the receiver???? I also don't know what to do, the rifle looks a little ugly now because the way some clown had it stored....story was these guns were found in a wall of a house!!!! The wood is actually not bad and has a few scrapes but that's about it. The bit of rust on gun and bolt and receiver finish wear is kinda ugly. Would I de-value this gun by getting it professionally refinished???? If so left in this state it's not very pretty either. There is no real pitting with the exception of some real light pitting on the inside of the trigger guard and where the safety lever hinges on. I could have got this piece for a song but wanted to be somewhat fair about the deal so I gave him $700 canadian...the rest of the junkers he threw in. The deal is not really completed yet as he said he would just throw the scope in when he comes up with it. He collects old Winchesters and he really wants two of mine badly....he says he knows where there is another T series in the box complete and in excellent shape...when he comes up with that within the next couple of weeks the Winchesters are going to be a partial trade. Hopefully this all works out!!!!! I know you are going to want to see pictures but like i said in other posts I'm basically computer illiterate. I had another post about a T, I recently purchased but the pictures were posted by someone else so I'll try to do the same thing but don't hold your breath.Your thoughts or concerns would be greatly appreciated....my regards.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[vintage hunter]

........again can you help me with the reason why this would be missing the T stamp on the left side of the receiver????

A '45 BSA with no T on the sidewall is most likely one that was never completely finished by having a scope/bracket fitted.

[Roger Payne]

As VH says. However, (& forgive me if you've already done this) make sure you look really carefully at the receiver when you've cleaned it a little, as sometimes the side wall 'T' was so poorly stamped that there's only part of it there. I have several like that, but they're perfectly genuine.

As regards refinishing, photo's would of course help. In general, FWIW, my view is never to refinish unless the condition of the piece is such that there is nothing to be lost (historically & financially) by doing so. In other words, sometimes pieces are in such a sorry state cosmetically (but mechanically ok, or capable of being made so) that there is nothing to be lost in sympathetically refinishing - & in fact, potentially much to be gained. But the 64,000 dollar question is the condition it is in to start off with. If you can get any photo's posted I'll gladly give you my two cents worth!
If you do go down the refinishing route for the metalwork I would certainly suggest that you consider getting it done by Brian Dick of BDL Ltd as he is able to refinish to the exact British milspec using the correct bead blasting, phosphating & suncoriting technique.

Hope this helps a little.

[Seaspriter]

FWIW, my view is never to refinish unless the condition of the piece is such that there is nothing to be lost (historically & financially) by doing so. In other words, sometimes pieces are in such a sorry state cosmetically (but mechanically ok, or capable of being made so) that there is nothing to be lost in sympathetically refinishing - & in fact, potentially much to be gained......
If you do go down the refinishing route for the metalwork I would certainly suggest that you consider getting it done by Brian Dick of BDL Ltd as he is able to refinish to the exact British milspec using the correct bead blasting, phosphating & suncoriting technique.

As non-expert collector who has been carefully following the advice of the experts, I fully concur with Roger Payne on this. Especially consider that often "doing least is best" -- keeping a few dings and chips, while retaining the "historic character" of the gun is far better than an overly "refinished" gun that looks brand new -- unless you have a gun that as been so desecrated that it needs a total makeover to make it safe and presentable.

I too have a rescued "T" (Long Branch 1944) in far less complete condition than yours (basically a sporterized skeleton with butt stock, but no forend & no handguards). But the snipers are not just an "average" Enfield; for an "average" Enfield I'd do the work myself.

For a gun with a "sniper pedigree:" it's both historically unique as well as a valuable investment. Having an expert gunsmith do the work is a wise decision from both a restoration and investment perspective. I'm sending my skeleton "T" to Brian Dick next month for the right treatment -- I think it will augment the investment value as well if you can give a future owner a "certificate of authenticity" that the restoration was done by BDL, who is the #1 expert in North America in this field. Brian collaborates closely with Captain Laidler and Roger Payne, who are the Brits that really know the intricacies sniper history and restoration. Brian is also an expert in the proper legal procedures for getting historic Enfields across the US-Canadian border. IOW, think long-term.

As a collector of old Winchesters too, I like the idea that you might be able to swap some Winchesters for a sniper's chest and a lot of the accoutrements. Sounds like a fun and worthwhile arrangement.

[For those of you who haven't seen the Canadian version of the History Channel's "Canadian Pickers," it's a great show with fascinating characters doing trades and swaps for old stuff. Bros -- somehow I see you in the Yukon doing the same thing ;-).]

(P.S. I'll be in Yellowknife NWT twice next month -- wish it were in the Yukon -- would love to see your collection and swap stories.)

[bros]

Thanks so far guys for your input!!!!! What I am wondering about, Vintage Hunter is the scope number is stamped on top of the butt just behind the wrist, so how could this T not have had a scope and bracket attached at some point???? I'll do my best to get some pictures posted when I find somebody to do that for me.

[vintage hunter]

Well bros you failed to mention that in your first post, or else I over looked it. I'm not the one you should be asking about this as there are others here what know way more that I do. My speculations are if it has a scope number on the wrist then it must be as Roger says, the T was lightly struck and hard to make out, or, it was refinished at some point and the T partly obliterated and covered over in the process , or, some previous owner hunted up a scope then in the attempt to ''improve'' things stamped the number on the wrist to make it appear to be a matching set. Pictures of the rifle and scope when it arrives would be a big help in figuring out which case it is.

[Brian Dick]

I've had several complete, original 1944 No.4T's without the finish "T" stamped on the left hand side of the body. I've also had several 1944 No.4T's with solid foresight blocks. Both of these are a no-no in the eye of purists and I can't vouch for 1945 production but my explanation is and always will be that there was a war on and sometimes things simply weren't done exactly as the book says.

[bros]

Yes Brian I agree....don't know exactly which area the V-2 rockets were coming down in regards to where Holland & Holland was converting the T's but can you image just getting ready to strike that T stamp on the left side of the receiver when suddenly a V-2 explodes in the vicinity.............yes I can understand how some minor details could be overlooked. Yet in our infinite wisdom as collectors 80 some odd years down the road, we would write something off as not being authentic just because someone dropped the hammer and stamp as the bombs were falling and later forgot to put that T on. If it wasn't a bomb hey it could have been whatever.......it was war and these people were only human. My eyes are pretty good but I'm going to look again for that T stamp....this time with the aid of a magnifying glass

[Seaspriter]

I've had several complete, original 1944 No.4T's without the finish "T" stamped on the left hand side of the body. I've also had several 1944 No.4T's with solid foresight blocks.

Brian is about to get another 1944 Long Branch sporterized sniper for restoration (Serial #71L0279). Solid-block front sight, no "T" designation, but with original scope mounting brackets, serial numbered on the top of the wrist behind the bolt, and mounting holes in the stock where the cheek pad once sat. And no one in the Long Branch factory was facing attacks by V-1 rockets from Antwerp or bombing raids or Messerschmitt fighters. The Long Branch factory (60% women) was renowned for its quality....so what's the reason why the "T" was left off? Perhaps it was because any dimwit could see the scope mounts and scope, plus the cheek pad, plus the special stock serial number, so why need the "T" (maybe they put the T in the place where the scope pads were eventually fitted?). Maybe the "T" was added after all the accoutrements were put on the rifle and some production manager didn't want to set up another post-production engraving/stamping position -- after all the LB arsenal was priding itself in 1944 on how it had lowered production costs significantly from the 1943 production year -- so: just move the damned guns into the packing and shipping department FAST, don't waste another step, engage another person, and create another bottleneck. To put this in perspective, the Long Branch Arsenal was also reducing staff in 1944. Savage had stopped production in June '44. Long Branch production hit a peak of 31,000 units in the month of October, '43. From there on production orders fell continuously to reach 1/2 that rate by December 1944. IOW, the plant was seeing the war coming to an end and its future was uncertain. Keeping production costs low and quality high was a way to attract new orders. I would think that the plant manager was clear that adding another person/step in production was not a smart business move.

Why a solid block foresight? Maybe the rationale was that the scope adjustment was a far better means of adjusting for accuracy and they just didn't want anyone fiddling and diddling with the foresight and screwing up the scoping process? Anyone have any other logical guesses?

I've learned from following lots of Enfield threads on this site that there are still many mysteries, contradictions, and anomolies that we have yet to unscramble (Like the Maltby No.4 MkI* etc., etc.). Being too-tightly-wound about Enfields can produce lots of constipation and little enlightenment. You must have some tolerance for ambiguity, a very inquisitive nature, a dose of humbleness, a love of history, and a sense of humor if you want to enjoy Enfields. Devoid of any of these, and your Enfield passion will diminish proportionately. (I'm not implying you or anyone else is deficient in these traits, just observing and musing .)

[bros]

As VH says. However, (& forgive me if you've already done this) make sure you look really carefully at the receiver when you've cleaned it a little, as sometimes the side wall 'T' was so poorly stamped that there's only part of it there. I have several like that, but they're perfectly genuine.

As regards refinishing, photo's would of course help. In general, FWIW, my view is never to refinish unless the condition of the piece is such that there is nothing to be lost (historically & financially) by doing so. In other words, sometimes pieces are in such a sorry state cosmetically (but mechanically ok, or capable of being made so) that there is nothing to be lost in sympathetically refinishing - & in fact, potentially much to be gained. But the 64,000 dollar question is the condition it is in to start off with. If you can get any photo's posted I'll gladly give you my two cents worth!
If you do go down the refinishing route for the metalwork I would certainly suggest that you consider getting it done by Brian Dick of BDL Ltd as he is able to refinish to the exact British milspec using the correct bead blasting, phosphating & suncoriting technique.

Hope this helps a little.

Looked for that darn little T stamp...this time with the magnifying glass, it's not there.