Converted pdf file.
On page 3 an image of Italian soldiers armed with Lee-Enfield rifles. We are in the years
1944 - 1945.
Printable View
Converted pdf file.
On page 3 an image of Italian soldiers armed with Lee-Enfield rifles. We are in the years
1944 - 1945.
giove,
Sorry but can only make out a Thompson in photo 3 above.
In thread #24 I have zoomed in on the image and can see a T I believe at the end of a number starting NE 4 *3 T. The bracket is stamped clearly C17863
Could you give us a clearer shot of that number please with what appears to be a correct T?
You are correct Gil Boyd, I was fooled by the caption. The correct image is this:
http://www.esercito.difesa.it/storia...e/mantova.aspx
No T must be present; the T was neves stamped on these rifles.
Giancarlo, did you mean that the receiver side wall 'T' was never stamped on 4T's set up by Italy? That would make sense to me. We know that most British ones did.
Yes, no "T" was stamped on the receiver side wall. As far as I know, the letter "T" was, in general, stamped by Holland & Holland after matching the scope with the rifle. H. & H. has no connection with the "Italian Lee-Enfield sniper rifles", so nothing "T".
The Scopes: I think they are almost all, No. 32 Mk I reworked here, for this reason, I think, they maintein the slide shade. Italy also used the Mk III scopes (but not on these snipers) without adding the slide shade.
This is my Long Branch.
The mark on the butt-stock is that of the arsenal of Terni, followed by the conversion year: Star/FAT/50.
Note, on the nock's form, the Canadian marks with the Italian FAT 1950.
The bracket seem to me an original one (British).
What do you believe is the history of that rifle?
Do you think it was converted by or for the Italian military?
IMO you have an Italian produced MkII scope and a genuine UK made bracket, but as for the rifle it has a number of early production features which would not normally appear on a 76L rifle would they?
And so the question is, who added them, when and why?
The finish appears to be perfect and yet the stock is well used and of the earliest pattern.
There is more, but those are the most salient points I think.
A bit of literature:
Sorry, this was missing: