You can view the page at https://www.milsurps.com/content.php...r-Trials-Rifle
Printable View
You can view the page at https://www.milsurps.com/content.php...r-Trials-Rifle
How can I find the rough value of one of these? Mine is not perfect, but it all matches...Roy
What a beautiful rifle, complete with scope case to boot! The most accurate rifle I've shot to date was a 1921 SMLE.....I can't imagine what a 4T shoots like!
Hi from the sunny Gold Coast in Oz,
To go through every point made in reference to the No.4 Mk I(T) Enfield conversion from a trials 1933 rifle and comment would be a major effort however Badger's and other comments are not far from the mark. You guys are learning well although it lets the forgers know how to do their work better too.
My main comments concur...
This was not the original scope on the rifle (production dates and absence of cancellation stamp on 1161).
Obvious faking of Enfield logo on the backsight.
Foresight protector and replica... working on the Faris collection catalogue we noted differences in the No.1 Mk VI and trials No.4 Mk I frontsight & protector, and rearsights.
A 1929 dated magazine cut-off plate would be for a No.1 Mk VI, not trials No.4.
The No.1 Mk V cut-off was a casting (S.A.I.S. #23, Lee-Enfield Parts Catalogue) while the No.1 Mk VI and trials No.4 cut-offs were folded sheet metal... usually with view marks and production year.
I see an ENGLAND export mark and London proof on the receiver (action body) ring.
Regarding production figures and serials for the trials No.4 Mk I rifles, I quoted 'approximately 2,500' made at Enfield. This was over about a 4-year period and any attempt to rationalise serial numbers is fraught with fustration, and from experience, almost inevitably incorrect.
RSAF Enfield did not just do a run of troop trials rifles serial A0001 to A1xxxx or whatever. No.4 trials rifles evolved from the No.1 Mk VI in the late 1920s and there were batches for troop trials, assessments, parts updating, manufacturing trials, &c. over more than 3 years.
Whether cut-off plates remained in the No.4 Mk I(T) rifles after they left Enfield is debatable. Is they/some did, no doubt some were removed in service anyway. It's not worth making a big fuss about, however a 1929 dated cut-off is not kosher. The 1,403 figure of trials No.4 rifles cond. to (T)s at Enfield early in the war is per contract records, so that is certain.
While I may be a registered valuer for the Australian government under the Taxation Incentives to the Arts Scheme, I don't like putting prices on hard-to-get items. The value of any item is what people are prepared to pay, so buyers at auction can be lucky sometimes, or have bids run up to astronomical figures when 2 or 3 cashed up chaps want an item.
Brian Labudda intends to do a paper on the 'Non-Interchangeable' features of troop trials No.1 Mk VI and trials (both troop trials, test and production trials) No.4 Mk I, as a result of working through the Faris collection. He had 6 transitional rifles in the No.1 Mk VI to No.4 Mk I period from 1926, as well as 'regular' No.1 Mk VI, wartime Fazakerley assembled No.1 Mk VI and trials No.4 Mk I rifles. The fact that Brian and I have reached a consensus on the timeline and progression as evidenced in Faris' collection, is not going to be far out.
Happy birthday everyone!
As a former owner of this rifle I can confirm that when it was sold by me, it did not have the second scope number on the wrist of the butt! Why anyone would deface such an important artifact in that manner is beyond me. Utterly pointless. I obtained the rifle without a scope or bracket as I recall, and again, as I recall when I sold it, it was sold with an un-numbered and very early (presumably) Rose Bros. bracket, which I recognize as being the one currently shown fitted. Without going back and looking at notes, I cannot say what scope was sold with it, but not this one! I have photos showing the butt before the second number was added. Likewise, there was no backsight when I sold the rifle. The magazine cutoff however, was fitted to the rifle when I got it and I personally would not consider it outside the realm of possibility for a cutoff from a No.1 MkVI rifle to have been fitted in service, perhaps even originally. We have certainly seen quite a few No.4 Mk.I trials rifles fitted with No.1 MkVI cocking pieces for example, which are easily identified by the cross-screw below the firing pin. It goes without saying that the label added to the scope case (Case, No.8 Mk.I) is entirely spurious and a recent fake done using an original piece of a form or more likely, a facsimile of one produced on a computer and then varnished over to look "antique".