This One Has Me Scratching My Head

Why would anyone go to that much trouble to fake a rifle that is only marginally more valuable than a regular No4?

And where does one find an Enfield examiner's stamp?

And a rifle with apparently no markings on the butt socket to provide the starting point...stretches the bounds of credulity somewhat IMO. They look like they were stamped yesterday, but then that's how newish rifles look, whether they're from 1947 or 1907.

No "TR" on the butt socket? I see the photo is cut off above where they might be.

I have an uncompleted 1944 M47C in the X35---- SN range, from which many, many No4(T)s came. It has both examiner's marks as this one does and the "S" and the "TR". Why uncompleted in 1944? Why both examiner's marks when one was supposedly applied on completion of the rifle? Why the "S"?

We're too late, that's all.

I did some years ago see some Lithgow stamps for sale on that site so they are out there also some Mauser stamps as well believe me there are those out there just wanting to make a quick $ and stuff up the whole collecting game. Like I said Surpmil the Tiptaft stamps were a good example of how to increase the value of an un-named Australian Hat or Collar badge into quite a valuable WWI one there was a report on the net made about the case........

My only comment is regarding the off-site MoS/Enfield Examiners mark. The rifle has already passed every stage of its manufacturing inspections at BSA and been marked as such and been proofed as the final stage of its No4 rifle life. This was marked on the rifle by the examiner as proof that the rifle has passed his stage of the examination.

In the case of the No4T's, the out-inspection was by the MoS/Enfield off site examiner at H&H where the rifle agreed to the specification laid down to be re-designated (as a No4 Telescope) specification/standard was complete when it was marked with the D6E mark.

To mark, say, 100 or so in bulk beforehand would be a total disaster waiting to happen. And knowing how the system worked and how qualified the examiners were and the quality control of the era was, I'd say.......... Nope........... . It's difficult to think of another everyday example. But here's one. It'd be like 100 pistols going to be proofed. But, to save time, the proofmaster just stamps every one to say it's been done when in fact it hasn't. Then, later on, several fail........ and then the xxxx really hits the fan. Or at Uni where you don't actually sit your finals but miraculously pass..... Strange that....... weren't the medical students at Lagos treated to such a treat a couple of years ago........?
Or what about your mate at the passport office giving you a few unnamed blanks........

Gentleman,

As always, I appreciate all of the comments and discussion.

I have little experience compared to many who have posted in this thread but my thoughts on this rifle tend to follow those questioning "why" would something like this be faked?

Cinders brings up the well known about stamps being reproduced to forge markings on items to increase value and desirability, Mausers and German militaria probably being one of the leading items forged out there. With that, the value difference between a bog standard No.4 and a properly marked Mauser are light-years apart, with the Mausers being at least 3-4 times the value. Some less scrupulous people would suggest that to be a "value warranted" endeavor. I honestly feel the standard No.4 just doesn't fit this criteria of forgery.

We have 3 examples, virtually identically marked, by members whom I would think are regarded as very respectable in this community. Lee Enfield saw the M47 C 1947 markings on the butt socket and immediately asked if a D6E mark was present. With 3 known examples and the likelihood of there being more, that would suggest a very busy and intent individual engaging in the act of faking rifles that are of questionable gained value.

The D6E and "S" marks. Is it safe so suggest that these marks would be in the category of "advanced" knowledge markings? If so, would that not further narrow the field of prospects that a faked rifle would appeal to?

The M47 C 1947 marking. If these rifles were originally of BSA manufacture, I would think the M47 C mark would already exist so why linish it out only to re-stamp it? Does this suggest the rifle was not originally manufactured by BSA? I have no idea.

The only thing I feel that I can add to this discussion out of experience is concerning the electro-penned markings. Over the last 10 years, I have spent considerable time collecting and studying the post war BSA FTR rifles. Having said that, the only scrap of information I can offer is that the electro-penned markings are very consistent with post war BSA markings. The inconsistent aspect is the serial number. Better than 90% of all post war BSA FTR rifles I have owned or observed had all original markings scrubbed and were allotted a new "A" prefix serial number. However, a few examples with 1955 dates retained all original markings and the original serial number retained. With the earliest examples of post war BSA FTR'd rifles being 1952/53, these rifles seem to fit in a pre BSA FTR slot. The serial number suggests "new" manufacture following the correct sequence in the serial number range.

These are just my personal observations and are not meant to contest or convince anyone who has posted in this thread. I fully realize that the information that Peter has brought forth puts most theories into the shitter.

I think this thread could go on forever & we would still never get a satisfactory explanation to all of our questions. What really puzzles me is these rifles that bear the D6E marks yet weren't converted. I may well be wrong but I do not believe that they have all been faked up, & further, I also must admit that what Peter says above does make sense (not marking up rifles on the assumption they would pass muster), which is why I wondered if there could have been a change in policy over when in the conversion process to mark them. Unless more documentation turns up they will probably remain 'mystery rifles'!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

I think this thread could go on forever & we would still never get a satisfactory explanation to all of our questions. What really puzzles me is these rifles that bear the D6E marks yet weren't converted. I may well be wrong but I do not believe that they have all been faked up, & further, I also must admit that what Peter says above does make sense (not marking up rifles on the assumption they would pass muster), which is why I wondered if there could have been a change in policy over when in the conversion process to mark them. Unless more documentation turns up they will probably remain 'mystery rifles'!

---

I would suggest that several rifles (which share specific manufacturer markings and date) located in separate countries with an obscure specific marking(s) which really only interest what are really advanced collectors and are NOT easily reproduced it stretches the bounds of imagination to suggest that they are "faked".

The electro penned serial numbers were used on wartime production BSA No.4 service rifles. I just went and looked at a 1944 I still have that sports it's original blue finish and it's done just the same. I once had a 1945 that was absolutely mint and unaltered and it was the same. The serial numbers of the No.4T conversions are stamped and not electro penciled. I still have one virtually new 1945 V prefix rifle and it's stamped as is my very well used and heavily FTR'd ZF 1943 rifle that's had four scopes in it's career. Little details I never thought about!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

I did some years ago see some Lithgow stamps for sale on that site so they are out there also some Mauser stamps as well believe me there are those out there just wanting to make a quick $ and stuff up the whole collecting game. Like I said Surpmil the Tiptaft stamps were a good example of how to increase the value of an un-named Australian Hat or Collar badge into quite a valuable WWI one there was a report on the net made about the case........

---

Yes, there's a chap in Austria making excellent WaffenAmpt stamps I believe. However, this is neither a Mauser nor a Lithgow nor a badge and as yet we have seen no sudden increase in supply of RSAF(E) stamps on rifles have we?

And since there's no price premium on anything but No4(T)s I suspect we're not likely to in the future! One of the pleasures of collecting things that haven't been effectively faked.

Just my obtuse backward brain but what say the rifles were an almost complete unit up to say having the bedding sorted then sitting there and for some reason lost in the fogginess of time de-constructed who can tell and I stated earlier those that are the go to people are even at odds as to how these things happen. Is it unique we may never find out but as has been proffered here many times....
"Never say Never with Enfields." I find this a most intriguing thread

Cinders, the 1945 receiver I have is D6E marked & also bears the TR mark on the butt socket, though the T & R have been neatly barred through with official cancellation stamps.