I agree, I wonder if it is in fact an '0' that has either been poorly stamped/stamped with a damaged punch, or been 'smudged' by something gripping it tight & then rotated (like an attempt to remove the barrel, for example).
ATB
Printable View
I agree, I wonder if it is in fact an '0' that has either been poorly stamped/stamped with a damaged punch, or been 'smudged' by something gripping it tight & then rotated (like an attempt to remove the barrel, for example).
ATB
Or the bottom part of a 3?Quote:
Originally Posted by gsimmons
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...439f40bb-1.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjolnir2
Or maybe the "C" is actually a damaged number "zero" punch? Roger, gsimmons and mjolnir2 make a good point. I did not know there were numbers behind the "T" barrel mark.
And thank you Peter for your very helpful info about the Canadian Bren butstocks. So it makes sense now how the Canadian made but Enfield examiner stamped fore end came to be installed on the rifle. The original fore end was damaged/warped they took a fore end from their inventory, slapped it on the rifle without adding the rifles serial number and sent it out the door. I wish they would have taken the time to properly fit the fore end and add the serial number. :-(
I suppose what we do know is that it was a forend which was put in store after being examined by an enfield examiner. Whether it was changed in service is open to question - those stores could just have easily been sold off and then it was fitted to the rifle in civilian ownership.
It wasn't only Bren butts but Mk5 Sten gun butts and pistol grips too that came over as cut-to-shape blocks. Made from an oily maple type wood that was impossible (?) well...., you could if you were really desperate) patch
I saw a stack of new in the wrapper Canadian made Sten Mk.5 buttstocks at Knob Creek several years ago. I was a bit confused to say the least since Canada didn't build the Mk.5 Sten per say. However, I read somewhere that they made the butts on an RCAF contract for whatever reason. Sure enough, as Peter mentioned above, they were made of maple which is very distinct looking. I should have bought a couple but they were priced pretty high if memory serves and I passed on them.
I know of one around here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Found this in a book called "Out of Nowhere"
"Despite the efforts made to supply them with their own rifle during the fighting in 1944 and 1945 most Canadian snipers used the Enfield made No. 4 (T), as only 1,141 Long Branch sniping rifles were constructed in time, with a further 350 still awaiting assembly by end of hostilities."
-"Out Of Nowhere" Authored by Martin Pegler. Page 235.
ISBN 1 84176 854 5
So the stock was a Canadian field replacement and returned to England after the war in which it got the Enfield examiner stamp.
The "C" is probably a "zero". After looking at many Picts of other T rifles they all have a single digit number at that location.
I believe with the history of the English made rifle being used in Canadian service makes this hypothesized conclusion not beyond reasonable doubt.
Additionally to help prove this hypothesis if there is anyone out there that has a Candadian made forend with an Enfield examiners mark on it please post your info and photo here. I believe that such likelihood would be improbable... But never say never. Such info would prove my hypothesis true or false.
Thanks!
The curves don't match a "C" IMHO. More likely a damaged "0".
The oft-seen "T" is another matter as yet unexplained AFAIK.