Printable View
Interesting it appears the "T" stamp on the underside of the barrel was part of the standard sniper conversion inspection/approval procedure by both Enfield and H&H. And following that procedure, H&H inspectors used a block "T" stamp were as the Enfield inspectors used the special serif "T". My Trials rifle was converted by Enfield so it has the serif "T" on the barrel. Ray
I have a rifle serial number OC864 which i am convinced was one of the early Savage rifles converted at Enfield to a No.4 Mark 1(T) but it is minus the "T" on the receiver side wall. Some years ago when researching this I was informed by a poster that I have since lost contact with that:
"The British issued instructions (Army Council Instruction 399 of 1944, dated 31 May 1944) which addressed the fact that some rifles had left the factories without the (T) designator. Units were ordered to apply this locally. It follows that not all were 'caught' at unit or depot level".
Does anyone have a copy of this document?
I've got that ACI somewhere. I'll hook it out.
Don't forget too that the 'T' stamp only had a finite life. But of the three 'T' stamps I took from the old Holland and Holland factore before it was gutted and re-furbished, one had the leg of the 'T' bent round through 30 degrees or so, one was sort of good and the other was perfect. But all had the curvatures at the ends of the arms and base of the leg. I wonder if anyone out there in No4T-land has a body-side marked with a bent legged T
The S51 fared a little better I should presume because when I rummaged through the inspection bay, I found a 51 but no S!
I wish I'd taken everything instead of just photographs!
New snaps to show the hand numbered handguards, the T, and the barrel/reciever index mark Roger Payne wrote about.
I'm curious about barrel wear. At what point were barrels rejected for service due to muzzle/throat erosion? Would the standard have been the same for a sniper rifle? Using a pin gauge I measured somewhere between .3030" - .3035" at the muzzle. I'm wondering how tight this is for an original, war vintage barrel.
Just some observations about the furniture finish. The external parts of the furniture are heavily finished. In fact, because of this, it seems it may be a bit too light reflective to be ideal for sniping. Do you think this finish may have been added on later? Should it have been matte in appearance originally? It's hard for me to tell for certain by looking at photographs of other rifles but they seem more matte in comparison. Maybe it's just the lighting. What really suprised me was the lack of finish applied to the inside. The fore-stock still has alot of dried wood debris from the milling process collected in the channels at the bottom. It seems possible no finish was ever applied to the inside of this wood.
Any thoughts?
Thanks
Mike
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...IC_00121-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...IC_00231-1.jpg
Judging from your photos, it appears that the stock has had a coat of varnish applied to it post military service. Personally I would just remove the varnish to bring it back to it's normal finish. I've found that acitone on a rag does a good job removing unwanted added finishes. A light application would dull it down or heavier would remove it all together, Ray.
The sniper rifle was gauged exactly the same way as the standard No4. The difference beinbg that, as an example..... If a No4 rifle failed a gauge test, say worn leed, then it'd be sentenced 'Z' for a new barrel to be fitted at Base Workshops. If the same applied to a No4T, then we'd ask the sniper what he thoiught. If he said it was perfect, then it'd stay. If he commented that he'd noticed it was getting difficult to group, then it'd be sentenced Z for a new barrel. In short, the barrel was sentenced when it failed the gauge test but for a sniper, when it failed the gauge AND accuracy test......not necessarily the same thing. But it did mean that when in doubt, the Armourers and snipers could spend a leisurely morning on Mere or Battlesbury ranges doing a spot of range testing from 300 or 400 yards as shown on the front cover of the No4T sniper book
All No4's and T's in service had lashings of grease XG-295 or 279 sloshed between the fore-end and handguards and metalwork......., usually carefully applied with an old shaving or paint brush liberally coated in the stuff. Then put together and the excess wiped off with a bit of rag that was kept in the Armourers overall pockets. It's this grease and the OX52 oil that gave Armourers overalls (and Armourers) that distinct smell that made them so appealing to the opposite sex.........., especially when they got their weapons out. Oh, the old ones are always the best!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The woodwork was always treated with nothing but linseed oil. At the recruit training regiments, such as Hadrians Camp or Houndstone Camp in Yeovil, the recruits would polish the woodwork up with highly brushed and polished brown boot polish. Nobody bothered about this really because while it was a bit of bull-manure, being beeswax, it was protecting the woodwork anyway.
Has that answered the questions in a long drawn out and roundabout way on a lazy Saturday morning from the Small Arms School at Warminster
Yes, I think you are correct. I will carefully remove it and apply linseed oil.Quote:
Originally Posted by rayg
Thanks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Yes sir it has and more, thank you!
By the way, I received my copy of your No.32 telescope book yesterday and I enjoyed reading it last evening. I wish I had a spare No.32 to tinker with. I would really love to take one apart with the help of your guide. The No4Mk1T Sniper book should arrive soon. I'm really looking forward to reading that one! Thanks again.
Apologies for resurrecting this thread.
Just reading through it having bought a 'TR' marked rifle from a pal.
The rifle was bought by him from Roger Payne a bunch of years ago as one of a bunch brought back from Rhodesia.
Having read all this, I'm rather alarmed to find that it should have a 'T' marking on the receiver wall between the two pads - this rifle has no such marking; (infact it's a magnifying glass job to even spot that there was once a serial number near that position too - until taking the No 4 (T) photo virtual tour I didn't even realise there was a number there!)
The receiver ring is marked
M 47 C
1944
M33920
TR
But the receiver wall is virtually bare (faintest signs of a serial number and no sign of a 'T')
I also notice that my bayonet lug proof mark is quite unlike that in the photo tour. Mine is stamped with 'BNP' under a crown. ".303" and then a small crossed sword stamp with 3 unreadable letters.
Dare I ask:
What have I got?
Are my markings 'within tolerance' or do I have a 'bitsa'?
I wish you had too Peter! But thanks for taking what you did. And for being so generous with it to so many of us. :cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler