Post re-direct .... British No.4 Mk.IT .303 Rifle (Belgian Issue)

From the Commercial Auction and Sale Forum

Perhaps of interest to some of our Enfield community ...

Original posting .... British No.4 Mk.IT .303 Rifle (Belgian Issue)

Regards,
Badger

The rifle is an AS 1943 T & the serial has clearly been overstamped on the butt socket - though could be the original number stamped on over the original engraving. What made me sit up & take notice is that the scope is a UIC Mk1 --- could not read the serial with absolute confidence but looks like 115. Unless anyone has got number 1 to 114 this could be the (or is certainly one of the) earliest surviving No32 scopes. Just thought it worth a mention.

ATB

Had a 3057 once, which I assume was HBM Co.'s 57th production scope, it was dated 1941. The question of which is earliest would come down to when production actually started at each of the factories, or rather, when their deliveries actually began.

I assume this rules out "U.I.C." being other than "United Instrument Corp." as per the SIMA Handbook?

If so, one wonders why they made so few MkI's or were they allocated the 0001 to 3000 serial number block?

And of course, why did they end up making the Mk2/1 scopes when they did?

I did a lot of homework on the fortunes of United Instruments Surpmil. They were a get-together/wartime gathering together of the outwork sub contractors who sub contracted for Vickers Instruments. CTS were also large sub contractors to Vickers Instruments too. No doubt that most of the Instrument business dealt within themselves. There were some instruments made by Ross and Kershaw too. Clearly a joining of forces of the faous ROSS of Glasgow and Kershaws of Leeds. Most of it is published in bits and bobs on this site. I seem to think it was about the time when you identified one of the lost No53 makers...............

DPL do you still feel it to be the case that UIC were involved in a lot of the 'proving'/early production work? I based my remarks on that belief. If not, then I guess they still have the lowest serial numbers (save for REL's)! I'd love a 'straight' UIC Mk1 but the nearest I've got is a Mk2 built on a re-engraved Mk1 tube). One day.......

ATB

If UIC were so early in the game, I wonder why we see so few of their MkI scopes, or even the numbers thereof, on the No4(T)s built on Trials No4s?

That's correct DRP. As I understand it, from a long talk to the CTS archivist, the scenario was Vickers were allocated a number batch of 0 to, say 999. They farmed this small batch work out to UI who did the early trials and prototypes and set the standard, drew the drawings and sealed the pattern. Job done, drawings sealed and dusted, the contract went out to the other instrument makers who were more readily available. That's probably the reason why there's so few UIC Mk1's. When a more refined Mk2 was required, once again, these other manufacturers don't have the capacity for trials and development, so it goes back to Vickers who ask their subbies to do the necessary and out pops the Mk2.......... also in small numbers. Once again drawings sealed and those already in production do a simple re-tool for the Mk2. Same presumably with the Mk2/1. Make a few to set the standard and pattern, seal the drawings................ Then comes along a simpler and far less expensive alternative, the Mk3. Why continue with the Mk2 and 2/1 (don't forget that here was also a Mk 1/1 prototype on offer too.........), so out pops the Mk3 with the simplified Mk2/1 drum assemblies.

There's absolutely no point in wasting these UIC prototypes. They're built and assembled to the same drawings as the originals so they're used up. But it's not that easy because some of the UIC telescopes are visibly hand fitted using selected parts. Interchanging drums with production spares is ALWAYS a bit fraught and UIC Mk2/1 index plates are not the same as standard Mk2/1 production index plates as found on the Mk3 telescopes. It gets complicated so I'll stop here.