-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
-
07-22-2015 12:44 AM
# ADS
Friends and Sponsors
-
Odd to see with both piling swivel and the trigger guard swivel. No rear sight at all?
-
-
-
Legacy Member
I don't know and maybe it's just me, but the cut out on the stock for the cut off seems a bit off to me like the corners are too sharp. Most of the stock cuts I've seen, the corners were more finished/rounded. Maybe the stock was a replacement non cutoff one and the cut out was added. Just a thought, Ray
Last edited by rayg; 07-22-2015 at 10:05 AM.
-
-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
How interesting, Peter L has been out here so might know but @rayg NZers tend to have a no8 bailing wire mentality, ie roll your own stuff. I have certianly seen LBs at auction that had "T" Mods whether done ex-mil or target shooters is hard to know after so many years/owners.
PS many of the trials rifles were so converted to "T"s?
Last edited by ssj; 07-22-2015 at 05:57 PM.
-
Yep, looks like a Trials T. I would also agree with Ray's point about the recessing of the forend for the cut-off - it looks a bit sharp & 'angular'. Mind you I would imagine the modification would be considered permissible. I've seen Mk3* SMLE forends cut down low to accommodate the cut-off before now.
-
-
Contributing Member
It does indeed look like it is one of the early 1930s Trials No. 4 MK. I rifles converted by Royal Small Arms Factory to No. 4 MK. I (T). It would be one of the 1,403, most of which, but not all, were Trials rifles.
Indications of it being a Trials rifle are the brass butt disc, magazine cut-off and wood cut down for same, "wasp" first pattern foresight guard and stacking swivel. The early scope, retaining its sliding eyeshade is also an indication that it is an early rifle. The notch for the magazine cut-out is the same as on an early (i.e. 1941) forestock that I have spare. The sling swivel in front of the magazine would have been added late in WWII or afterwards.
The missing back sight is likely because on a Trails rifle was a problem as the standard No. 4's back sight was different and probably did not fit.
-
The Following 2 Members Say Thank You to Seaforth72 For This Useful Post:
-
.......or because a user wanted to be able to remove the bolt without removing the scope.
-
The Following 2 Members Say Thank You to Roger Payne For This Useful Post:
-
.......or because a user wanted to be able to remove the bolt without removing the scope.
An example below
-
Thank You to bigduke6 For This Useful Post:
-
Couldn't you just machine the backsight a tad to clear?
-
-
Advisory Panel
.......or because a user wanted to be able to remove the bolt without removing the scope.
No doubt correct.
Those who have a rifle that has been through the war as almost all trials No.4(T)s were, should have a look at the bolt face where they may find, as I did, the dents left by a cleaning rod being used from the muzzle, which was the alternative to removing the backsight.
“There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.”
Edward Bernays, 1928
Much changes, much remains the same. 
-
The Following 2 Members Say Thank You to Surpmil For This Useful Post:
national army museum (Waiouru) of a interesting No4 Mk1 "T" Looks like a very early rifle possibly a converted trials rifle, couldn’t get a closer look as it was in the display, but has the mag cut off and an early fore sight protector.
Information
Register To Reply
Originally Posted by 
