Enfield No4 (T) N92 scope bracket

[FlightRN]

Good Day,
My wife and I attended a local flea market (boot sale) on Sunday afternoon. Its a monthly two day event and rarely has any firearm related parts to speak of. As we drove there, I even commented to her that everything had already likely been picked over but it was a nice day to spend a few hours together. About halfway through I saw a table with a few items of military clothing and a small "junk" box with bits and bobs. I moved aside most of it (old shotgun parts, misc springs, other broken items, etc) and there it was. I hardly could believe it as I picked it up and asked the seller- how much? He looked at it and said "just some old M14 scope mount, how about $20?" My wife looked at me and said later that I had a LOUSY poker face as I paid him.
Please confirm that I have an original bracket made by Dalglish of Glasgow, Scotland. It has a wartime code of N92 stamped under the left front ring. If correct, it was originally mated to rifle number E35656 (struck thru) and later reissued to I2823. The rings on the right side are marked P431 and P432 respectively. Its not perfect as someone milled or faced the front of the mount. I can only assume it was to true it to the longitudinal axis of the bracket. That makes the length from the front of the forward ring to the back of the rear ring 3.672 inches. Would someone be kind enough to measure their bracket and tell me how much that shaved off the normal length? I doubt it but there is any chance this was a military approved modification?
Regards,
Michael

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.

[husk]

Good Day,
My wife and I attended a local flea market (boot sale) on Sunday afternoon. Its a monthly two day event and rarely has any firearm related parts to speak of. As we drove there, I even commented to her that everything had already likely been picked over but it was a nice day to spend a few hours together. About halfway through I saw a table with a few items of military clothing and a small "junk" box with bits and bobs. I moved aside most of it (old shotgun parts, misc springs, other broken items, etc) and there it was. I hardly could believe it as I picked it up and asked the seller- how much? He looked at it and said "just some old M14 scope mount, how about $20?" My wife looked at me and said later that I had a LOUSY poker face as I paid him.
Please confirm that I have an original bracket made by Dalglish of Glasgow, Scotland. It has a wartime code of N92 stamped under the left front ring. If correct, it was originally mated to rifle number E35656 (struck thru) and later reissued to I2823. The rings on the right side are marked P431 and P432 respectively. Its not perfect as someone milled or faced the front of the mount. I can only assume it was to true it to the longitudinal axis of the bracket. That makes the length from the front of the forward ring to the back of the rear ring 3.672 inches. Would someone be kind enough to measure their bracket and tell me how much that shaved off the normal length? I doubt it but there is any chance this was a military approved modification?
Regards,
Michael

I seem to remember that you have one or two No4T rifles, eh?

[FlightRN]

I seem to remember that you have one or two No4T rifles, eh?

I have a few British snipers but they are in longterm storage and I don't have access to them. :-(

[Seaforth72]

Jackpot! :-). I believe it is real.

I had a similar nice experience when I bought a No. 32 TP MK.I scope a few months ago. This is a custom military Lyman Alaskan one of 350 made for the Canadian Long Branch No. 4 Mk. i* (T) in 1944. It has the post and cross-hair. The seller threw in, for a token price, a "civilan" Griifin & Howe slide (what collectors call bracket). No, it was not the Canadian slide, as the mating surfaces of this slide were horizontal rather than angled. Later when researching U.S. Sniper rifles, I recognized it. There is an M1C Garand serial number stamped in the side of my slide in the correct location. :-)

[Peter Laidler]

I have its younger brother, rifle E-35666

[FlightRN]

Good Day,
One of our members measured his No32 Scope bracket and it measured 93mm or 3.661 inches. This is shorter than the one I have currently and has been slightly milled/faced and is 3.672 inches. Does anyone know what the tolerance was on the length of the brackets? Casting isn't an exact method but I wonder what was acceptable.

Thank you,
Michael

[Peter Laidler]

Surely, ALL that matters is the width of the front cradle. This secures the telescope between the turret and the segment cover rings so if the tele is a snug fit here, that prevents fore and aft and rotational movement, what is the concern? The rear cradle simply secures the rear end in a more secure horizontal plane.

The front surfaces would occasionally be cleaned up - just as yours is in pic 2 - when fitting another telescope, simply to cater for accurate/snug fit of the 'new' tele in the cradles.

The wisdom of the crowd and what I call the bleedin' obvious is that it's the real McCoy...... What else do you need

[bigduke6]

FlightRN, I doubt you could buy one of the knurled screws for $20.... looks a good bracket and for the price I wouldn't be worried about length (within reason) but if this is causing you concern I,ll pay you double what you paid for it

[Z28addiction]

Can u read the serial number of the gun the scope was issued too?

[FlightRN]

The front surfaces would occasionally be cleaned up - just as yours is in pic 2 - when fitting another telescope, simply to cater for accurate/snug fit of the 'new' tele in the cradles.

Good Day,
Thank you for answering one of the questions I poised originally- "is any chance this was a military approved modification? " I was unsure of why it was so modified having seen only a dozen or so brackets over the years and never one so "cleaned up". I'll be selling this one to raise funds for another project and I try to be thorough in my description. The most I was hoping for was to be able to state that "x" thousands of an inch were shaved off. Now I have a better understanding and as a bonus, Mr Laidler's response adds to the collective understanding of the No4(T) history.
Best Regards,
Michael