1943 BSA No. 4 Mk 1 (T) Less Telescope- low serial number.

[corco]

Do you think this is a real No 4 mk 1 (T) Less Telescope or is it a regular No 4 Mk 1 with a (T) stock and scope added to it? I am wondering if it is a very early No 4 mk 1 (T) Less Telescope that was set aside for later conversion?

The reason why I am suspicious is:

1) Because the scope number does not match what is stamped on the rear butt stock. Did they line out the old serial number and put a new one in if the scope was replaced for a FTR? If not then the scope was replaced before 1946. This may be the reason for the FTR stamp?

2) The scope pad screws are not staked so they don't turn. This was required after 1946.

3) Did Holland and Holland stamp the S on the front right of the receiver near the wood line on the partially converted rifles?

4) Did Holland and Holland stamp the buttstock handgrip with "S51" in the partially converted rifles?

5) It looks like the 4 digit serial number was added after the Suncorite finish was applied. Is this a common procedure?

6) From what I have seen the serial number is usually has a letter in front of it. Is this always true?

7) Additionally where the No. 4 Mark 1 is in the picture the rifles serial number is supposed to be there instead or in addtion to, correct?

8) The scope mount has a different serial number on it.

From the other post it states that a partially converted 1943 is not common -

Milsurps Knowledge Library - 1942 No.4 Mk1*(T) Savage Sniper Rifle (less scope)

"It is hypothesized that these rifles were placed on the side and which ever crate was on top that bunch of rifles were put into production during slow times. Near the end of the war this supply of rifles were partially converted by the addition of scope pads, modified rear sight, and cheek piece; but they were never paired with a scope or mount. Per the records over 3,400 rifles were partially converted at the end of the war mostly comprising of 1941-42 Savage Mk I and Mk I* and 1944-45 BSA Mk I (surprisingly a 1943 dated example has appeared recently!)"

Pictures at the following link:

1943 BSA No 4 Mk 1 T Less Telescope Photos by bsdncorco | Photobucket

Thank you for your input!

Corco

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.

[Ridolpho]

corco: This very rifle was discussed a few threads ago. Concensus was it's a genuine '43 T rifle. See the thread for details. I'd personally like to see a closeup of the second Enfield examiners stamp on the right rear (above the D7E stamp) as it looks like the stamp on my own '43.

Ridolpho

[Badger]

Old thread where this same piece was already discussed...

No.4 Mk1 (T) on GunBroker

Regards,
Doug

[corco]

Ahh so it is a bitzer made up from different parts. A picture of the butt stock removed from under the butt socket would reveal most likely a different serial number and also the serial number on the barrel under the front upper hand guard may also be different. Being that the pads are not staked BUT they appear to be installed very well is what makes this a difficult one. A picture of each of the points I made above would clear things up a bit.

Thank you for your replies.

[Peter Laidler]

Don't forget corco that every time your rifle went in and out of an Armourers shop, which they did huindreds of time in their service life, where amateurs like me and others would repair them and send them out again into service, they were 'bitzers' according to many people. But to the realistic pragmatists in the world, that's all part of the weapons rich history

[Brian Dick]

Was trying to put into words what Peter just said!

Just because it has replaced parts doesn't necessarily mean it was built in someone's garage post service.

[Peter Laidler]

I have a good example of a bitzer of my own Brian. I own the No4T that was used to test fire, very probably, every telescope that needed testing for 'fastness' following a repair to the erector or grat system. A slave in effect. It had a steel rod in place of the butt so that the recoil would be harsh, no handguards or anything else superflous. The bracket had been adapted to make swopping scopes easier. Rebuilt to spec for return to Ordnance when the workshop closed down.........

A TOTAL bitzer and not worth a light. Or a total bitzer with a known documented history - or what?

People ought to know that if a sniper came in with a butt that was too long, we fitted a shorter one that was in a big box of used/serviceable woodwork. Next bloke comes in wants a long butt, he gets the old one, re-numbered with tele number to suit an off he goes with a good excuse for a morning on the range. We don't waste stuff. It just gets used again

[Brian Dick]

I'd say your rifle is priceless with paperwork. I just had a call this morning from a bloke who just bought a No.4T off one of the online sales sites. He doesn't even have it yet and wants to completely restock it and refinish the metal. I told him that I'd be very careful about changing original woodwork, especially the forend! The metal I can do but not on the cheap. In other words, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Making it pretty could be more detrimental than practical.

[Simon]

Ah yes but folks think they looks real Purdy with unblemished wood and pimp shine on the metalwork

Personally I prefer the look of a rifle with a nice patina on the metalwork and genuine wear, tear and bruising on the woodwork. I guess its like a part of the rifles life story.

[corco]

Thank you all for your feedback. So the general consensus is serial 7282 that most likely should be A7282 is a genuine BSA Shirley No 4 Mk 1 less T that has had some history with all it's what could be called left over parts to put it together at a BSA factory and not in a garage. Does that sound about right?

Also, a friend of mine has a genuine Holland and Holland (T) that I compete with in the CMP matches put on in the South East corner of the States. Peter did a great job rebuilding his scope a few years back. My friend does very well with the rifle in the matches and he is hoping that there would be another T for him to compete against. If the very knowledgable members of this forum say the rifle is a real one then that is good news.

From another resource I found this rifle which I though was an early number is actually a late number as per what I've found which I am sharing below.

"No.4 and No.5 rifle serial numbers can readily identify manufacturers. British No.4 rifles have five numbers, usually after one or two letter prefixes. The same letter prefix(es) were used by Maltby, Fazakerley & BSA Shirley, A to Z then AA, AB to AZ, then BA to BZ, CA to CZ &c. Maltby rifle serial numbers commence with a number '1', Fazakerley with a '2' and Shirley with a '3', e.g. 1xxxx for Maltby, 2xxxx for Fazakerley and for Shirley, 3xxxx, after the letter prefix. Late Shirley numbers then supposedly ran A4000 to A7999 and with PS prefixes at the very end of production. Post-war Fazakerley No.4 rifles had PF letter prefixes. The only exception to the 5-number sequence for No.4 rifles was the initial BSA Shirley production which ran from 0001 to 9999 then went with A to Z prefixes (A0001 to A9999 to the Z prefix) and some early dual letter prefixes (e.g. AT 0303), but then went over to A30001, &c. So early M47C No.4 rifle numbers could be confused with the Jungle carbine in having four rather than five numbers."