Need info on this lee enfield sniper

[Skyrimjoe]

Wondering if I could get some info on the no4 T I have. From the reading I have done online I understand they came out in 1942. However some were made earlier in 1941 for the commandos use. Mine is matching numbers and the mk1 scope is dated 1941. Any experts on the Enfield snipers would appreciate help on mine.

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.

[Roger Payne]

Could you get a few photo's showing the body pads with the scope & bracket off? Even with the photo's you've sent us so far I am afraid, at least IMHO, your rifle has been made up.


The scope is a genuine Kodak No32 Mk1 but has been painted at some point in its career (in fairness this could have been done in military service - though Kodak scopes left the factory blued).

The bracket is a modern Pacific Rim copy that has had what I presume is your rifle serial number stamped into it.

Assuming the above is correct, & from the receiver side wall, it looks like your rifle is an early Fazakerley rifle. Whilst not true to say that no Faz rifles were converted to T specs, almost none were. Original examples are extremely scarce.

The S51 on the underside of the butt I suspect is bogus.

It is straining my eyes to make it out, but I think the butt is actually dated 1950 (F50).

The centre punch marks on the front pad look fairly recent-ish to me, & I suspect the rifle itself is also not a genuine 4T, though I would like to see more photo's showing the side of the body/receiver with the scope & bracket off, & also a view showing the butt socket markings, to be more sure.

I am sorry if this is not what you want to read, but I think it is the case, & it is better that you know. Perhaps others might chime in & have different views....

[Brian Dick]

I’m with Roger on this one. I fear the whole rifle is cobbled up and haphazardly stamped in a poor attempt to pass it off as original. I think it’s totally bogus except for the telescope itself. A Fazakerley rifle legitimately converted early on wouldn’t have the stamps that we expect to see on post 1942 conversions. The markings weren’t standardized before that. The inspectors stamps would be present only. Even the body side “T” stamp looks dicey to me. The lengths some will go to is disheartening.

[Surpmil]

Normally staked pad screws and a fragment of a "T" stamp would be good signs, but the staking doesn't look right to me. More photos needed as said above.

[Daan Kemp]

Claim for commando use? Not impossible but sounds improbable. It looks like the rifle is good and the telescope also, but the combination isn't.

[CINDERS]

I agree with #2 #3 ~ The S-51 looks entirely wrong, the T looks also incorrect in every way see my pics of my T and S-51 stampings.

I know my No.4 T is correct as it is in Peters book about the T and the Holland & Holland connection along with its original scope as being used in front pad trials you cannot get better authentication than that from the author himself.

[Roger Payne]

A note to the OP:
I see that you & I only live about 15 miles apart. When all of this corona virus business is past, if you wish, feel free to call in to see me & I will have a good look at your rifle 'in the flesh'. Just pm me if you'd like to take me up on the offer.

ATB

[Skyrimjoe]

heres the extra pics of the scope attachment

[Roger Payne]

Thanks. The bracket is definitely a modern copy & the cradle clamps have been numbered on the wrong side; the sequential numbers should be on the right side of the bracket as you pull the rifle into your shoulder & look through the scope. Unfortunately I still can't see clearly the receiver side on in the area of the front pad, as it would be nice to see if there is a milled flat onto which the pad sits, & which closely follows the outline of the pad. Also, any markings on the butt socket (the metal 'strap' at the back of the receiver that the wooden butt screws into) would be helpful, as useful clues may be found there. But I'll gladly have a shufty in person so long as you're not in a hurry.

[Roy W]

Looks like the rearsight was filed down with a 3" belt sander.