No4MK1 "T" RESCUED

Well, don't lose any sleep over it. But if you can get some photo's of your new acquisition posted on here I'm sure we'd all love to see it.

The reason why the split block was specified and insisted on by H&H initially was because the spec stated that the rifle must be as per the drawing with the addition of the pads. IE, with a split block and 5 grooves. So any that came through NOT to spec were initially rejected. But later H&H were (presumably) informed that these variations W"ERE the amended acceptable spec so were therefore acceptable.

The conversion specification stated that the letter T was to be added close to the rifle designation to indicated its change to telescope status and subsequent change in its Ordnance designation/classification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

if you can get some photo's of your new acquisition posted on here I'm sure we'd all love to see it.

---

bros: See this thread which might help you figure out the photo posting puzzle. Once you read it, it might seem easier. I struggled with it until I found this info:
What is the Photo Gallery for Members?
Good Luck!

Experts (Peter, Roger, Brian, VH, et al): Am I imagining this??... it seems from following some of the threads on the missing sniper "T" that there is a higher propensity of missing the "T" stamp in 1944/5 production lines than in 1943???? If so, perhaps the inspectors got a Directive making the stamp optional??? Just speculating here .... your wisdom may give us some further insights.

To learn more about about how to handle pics, please read this thread in the Q&A - Help Forums, which also appears as a "sticky" thread at the top of every forum on the site.

How do I upload pictures to my posts for storage on milsurps.com? (click here)

If you still have problems, email them to me at badger@milsurps.com and I'll resize them for you, then post them in the thread under your name

Regards,
Doug

1944 was the heaviest production of No.4T rifles at H&H in London. It's just common sense that more anomalies will be found in that production year. I doubt seriously that there were any directives eliminating any steps in the process since the standards were always met or the rifles were rejected.

The missing T was so common that a misc. instruction was issued to tyhe effect that if it were not present or in any other way illegible, the letter should be marked on the body side. I seem to recall mentioning this and the Misc Instr details some time ago. Anyway, it didn't specify how it should be marked........... Suffice it to say, stamping a bodyside was prohibited. So presumably it had to be engraved. But guess what Armourers really did......? Yep, gently mark it with a letter stamp. End of problem

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seaspriter

Brian is about to get another 1944 Long Branch sporterized sniper for restoration (Serial #71L0279). Solid-block front sight, no "T" designation, but with original scope mounting brackets, serial numbered on the top of the wrist behind the bolt, and mounting holes in the stock where the cheek pad once sat. And no one in the Long Branch factory was facing attacks by V-1 rockets from Antwerp or bombing raids or Messerschmitt fighters. The Long Branch factory (60% women) was renowned for its quality....so what's the reason why the "T" was left off? Perhaps it was because any dimwit could see the scope mounts and scope, plus the cheek pad, plus the special stock serial number, so why need the "T" (maybe they put the T in the place where the scope pads were eventually fitted?). Maybe the "T" was added after all the accoutrements were put on the rifle and some production manager didn't want to set up another post-production engraving/stamping position -- after all the LB arsenal was priding itself in 1944 on how it had lowered production costs significantly from the 1943 production year -- so: just move the damned guns into the packing and shipping department FAST, don't waste another step, engage another person, and create another bottleneck. To put this in perspective, the Long Branch Arsenal was also reducing staff in 1944. Savage had stopped production in June '44. Long Branch production hit a peak of 31,000 units in the month of October, '43. From there on production orders fell continuously to reach 1/2 that rate by December 1944. IOW, the plant was seeing the war coming to an end and its future was uncertain. Keeping production costs low and quality high was a way to attract new orders. I would think that the plant manager was clear that adding another person/step in production was not a smart business move.

Why a solid block foresight? Maybe the rationale was that the scope adjustment was a far better means of adjusting for accuracy and they just didn't want anyone fiddling and diddling with the foresight and screwing up the scoping process? Anyone have any other logical guesses?

I've learned from following lots of Enfield threads on this site that there are still many mysteries, contradictions, and anomolies that we have yet to unscramble (Like the Maltby No.4 MkI* etc., etc.). Being too-tightly-wound about Enfields can produce lots of constipation and little enlightenment. You must have some tolerance for ambiguity, a very inquisitive nature, a dose of humbleness, a love of history, and a sense of humor if you want to enjoy Enfields. Devoid of any of these, and your Enfield passion will diminish proportionately. (I'm not implying you or anyone else is deficient in these traits, just observing and musing :bow:.)

---

Does your rifle have a (replacement) British barrel?

Are there any Long Branch markings on your front sight block?

And Peter's comments would also explain why we see perfectly genuine rifles with 'suspect' T's on them, because they are slightly different to the norm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Enfield

Does your rifle have a (replacement) British barrel?

Are there any Long Branch markings on your front sight block?

---

Lee Enfield: Here's what I can discern:
Barrel: 2 groove
Barrel Markings on the Knox form (that are discernible): /45, "Broad Arrow", "Crown","QXC" ( a little fuzzy), "C", "4?". There are a few other markings that are poorly stamped or illegible
Stock Scope Serial Stamp: 16539 on walnut stock (no other stamping on butt stock)
Foresight Block: Solid stamped "62"

Hope this helps unravel more of the mystery.
Robert
(P.S. I teach at UofAlberta -- the "Republic of...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

And Peter's comments would also explain why we see perfectly genuine rifles with 'suspect' T's on them, because they are slightly different to the norm

---

In an attempt to apply some logic to the anomaly: It's certainly logical that the receiver stamping/engraving station (where the specialists worked) was located in the middle of the assembly line (where it's easier to stamp/engrave a receiver devoid of barrel, furniture, etc.), not at the end of the assembly line. If there was a rush on a sniper order, at the end of the assembly and final inspection line, the completed rifle would have gone directly to packaging and shipping, rather than cycling back into the middle of the line for special stamping, or for a one-off (I think the Brits call it "bespoke") stamping/engraving, which would have forced someone to be pulled off the line, thus abandoning his station, slowing down production. If the line was slow at the engraving station, then pulling the engraver off to the end of the line was no problem. But if the work was backlogging at the engraver's station, there was no time to pull the person to mark the "T" at the end of the line. (And remember, in the days of the 1940s, people & unions made a big deal out of specialized work; a grievance could be filed if someone without proper certification did work a certified labourer could/must do.)

For the "suspect Ts", Peter's and Roger's observations makes sense, because to stamp or engrave a gun with all the accoutrements added requires a different work jig (or perhaps no jig at all) to perform a custom stamping/engraving function. Thus the "added T" was likely done by a different person at a different time with different tools at an improvised work station.

Of course, this is just speculation, but it's logical. Any thoughts.....?