Help with markings No 4 Mk I

Can someone wise tell me where and when my rifle was made?
On the left side of the receiver are 3 very faint electro-pencil markings: No.4MkI(T) FTR/48 Y4145 and stamped T.
on the left of the receiver ring is stamped Y4515 ((note the 4 is very faintly stamped and looks like a 1 in the picture)) TR and FTR. Forward on the right of the receiver is stamped S
The wrist has the S51 Holland and Holland stamp; the wood is also stamped Y4515 horizontally across the underside of the forestock a few inches below the muzzle and Y4515 on the wrist though concealed beneath the receiver ring. The No 32 Mk I scope number 7996 is stamped across the top of the wrist.
On the right of the receiver ring is an inspection mark I cannot deciper: looks like broad arrow over H9 over A
At the back of the receiver are crossed pennant on the right and on the left are the letters N (or Z) and R

What I am after is the date and place of manufacture?
Many thanks, Rob

Here's a site provided by Amatikulu with some good information to bookmark for the future.

Lee Enfield Rifle Markings (click here)

Hope this helps somewhat... :)

Regards.
Badger

Y1515 would be a serial number that fell in the BSA manufactured block

From a survey I did on serial numbers I would estimate it was made in 1943

The FTR was done in 1948 at Fazakerley

Hawu, Amatikulu!
ngiyabonga kakhulu
Rob

Yes, I've often wonderered where Amatikulu came from. Now I still don't know!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobD

Hawu, Amatikulu!
ngiyabonga kakhulu
Rob

---

"exclamation of suprise - Amatikulu

I thank you very much

Rob"

Language = Zulu

Ah....! Suprising what you learn on this site

I would translate, in my Gaspé peninsula's best Quebecois French:

"Ah ben gériboire de bras d'ange de bâtisse, c'est-ti pas créyable c'que j'apprenions dans c'te site web là!"

Re. the rifle: geez sometimes I wonder if the markings on the receiver are made this hard to see on purpose! :)

Lou

There's something wrong with this picture...

Surpmil, that apparent sharp angle may be just be an artefact because I bucket-filled the white background to reduce the kilobytes of the picture - let me take more close ups of the front scope mount and post them again.
Thanks for being alert.
Rob

Surpmil, here are more pics of that front scope mount - does it look OK now? Can anyone explain some anomalies with this rifle (clearly what I am dreading is that this rifle was put together as a 4(T) by a civilian):
1. for a BSA it does not have the M47C on the buttstock ring (though it does on the trigger guard).
2. The number Y4515 is on the bolt, forestock, electropencilled on receiver and on wrist beneath the butt socket - yet the main serial number on the butt socket (see pics earlier on this thread) really does look like Y1515 not a mis-stamped Y4515?
3. Is it wrong for a 4(T) to have the forestock numbered across the wood and not down it?
4. Is it wrong for a 4(T) to have a short butt? The rifle comes in its transit case, the case is legit, so the rifle is half an inch short for the box, because of the butt.
Thanks for all the thoughtful posts.
Rob

I can take any more views you need, even take off the handguard if it will help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobD

1. for a BSA it does not have the M47C on the buttstock ring (though it does on the trigger guard).
2. The number Y4515 is on the bolt, forestock, electropencilled on receiver and on wrist beneath the butt socket - yet the main serial number on the butt socket (see pics earlier on this thread) really does look like Y1515 not a mis-stamped Y4515?
3. Is it wrong for a 4(T) to have the forestock numbered across the wood and not down it?
4. Is it wrong for a 4(T) to have a short butt? The rifle comes in its transit case, the case is legit, so the rifle is half an inch short for the box, because of the butt.
Thanks for all the thoughtful posts.
Rob

---

1. That is a problem, perhaps the biggest and most obvious one.

2. Not good, but not really relevant. Mistakes like this happen.

3. Makes no difference AFAIK. Originally forends were numbered vertically I believe.

4. No, depends on the sniper's needs. That would explain perhaps why the cheekrest is even farther up the wrist of the butt than usual though.

Other problems:

1. Lack of the Enfield examiner's marks on the top of the but socket.

2. "TR" stamps look VERY fresh indeed. Notice how the sharp edge where the metal is displaced around the letter is unworn? Have a look with a loupe.

3. Backsight modification looks like it was done last week.

4. The large gap under the front pad sans solder.

5. The too-short screws holding the front pad; they should be flush with the receiver wall on the bolt side. Notice how clean the ends of the holes are?

6. Never seen those milling/fly cutter marks on the face of a front pad before.

7. Edges of front pad are too sharp and face too large.

8. Scope numbers on butt obviously put on fairly recently from the condition and font used.

9. Is there any sign of milling on the receiver wall to prepare a flat surface for the front pad? I don't see any and if there had been, there probably wouldn't be that large gap under the pad.

On the good side, the "S" stamp on the cutoff boss looks right and the "T" stamp doesn't look like it went on yesterday either. Althougth it has too rounded a top corner to the crossbar compared to other "T" stamps perhaps.

If this was a very early T, before M47/M47C was used exclusively, one would not find the "T" of course, unless an armourer had added it later as sometimes happened, we know.

The fact that it is a Fazackerly rifle and lacks the Enfield examiner's marks (apparently) are the biggest problems.

The only way this can NOT be a fake is if it is a very early T, which had it's front pad replaced (and by who with that workmanship?) and even then, how do we explain the lack of the examiner's marks which I believe are found on all genuine No4(T)s and of course are almost impossible to fake?!

Maybe I should chime in every morning with "MANGWANANI MDALA" as most of us are getting up to "mdala" status around here.Not too many piccannins in our hobby/affliction or so it seems..

Mkulu Baas John R.

The rear sight not only looks too freshly done, it doesn't have the typical "look" of a Hollands' job. Not that it matters particularly, as it was a '48 FTR, but they surely wouldn't have left it "white" at that point.

The rear pad also looks newer than the receiver- no pitting or refinish as is evident on the body itself. These almost never get replaced, so that's another concern.

I, too, find the whole front pad area suspicious, and for most of the same reasons as Surpmil posts. Additionally, the countersinks seem a bit deep. Again, the FTR program indicates that even if it was replacement/ repair, they should have finshed the job w/ Suncorite or similar.

S/N on the fore end doesn't matter, unless it doesn't match! It was a post- war inventory convienience, according to Captain Laidler. The short butt is OK and may be why the scope S/N is odd, however, that would indicate the very worn "S51" is bogus- they are quite inconsistent with each other.

Pull the handguards and check the insides.

Can't comment on the new receiver marking pics, sorry, these monitors are just too dark- and can't be adjusted any more. Will be at a better viewing location friday.

M47 marks are BSA, 1943 rifles may not have the "C" for some reason, but all the '44s I've seen do.

The "T" could be OK, as well as the "S".

I'm wondering if its a rifle that's been restored.

You ought to shoot it and zero the scope to see how centered the aiming point is in the field of view. More than about five minutes Right or Left from center would be another clue. (Don't worry whether the numbers on the dials are "correct"- what you're checking is to see whether the post itself is optically centered.- Peter Laidler has many posts on this subject, plus a whole series of more substantial writings.

W/out seeing it in person, its looking kind of scary, depending on the price and your expectations. Of course, the rifle is the "cheap" half of the equation these days. Scopes and brackets seem to be the pricy bits.

RobD, I see you mention on another forum that the "S51" code is present on the butt. Could you post a photo of that please?

Isn't that an Ishapore FTR stamp below the "TR", by the way? Does the forend had the Ishapore cross screw?

The "S51" is on page one of this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmoore

The "S51" is on page one of this thread.

---

I see only four photos on the first page. None of them show the underside of the butt or the S51 that I can see.

11 photos on page two, not one of them either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobD

I can take any more views you need, even take off the handguard if it will help.

---

I've heard that the Enfield examiner's marks were sometimes placed on the Nock's form of the barrel. Might be worth posting some photos of that area too.

I wonder if this was a genuine early T, which someone added the "TR" stamps to later in an attempt to make things 'fit'. The "TR" stamp is awfully fresh looking...

The front pad is still a problem, perhaps the back one too - I haven't seen a decent photo of it yet.

Perhaps an early rifle that was stripped of pads, and then refitted by some enterprising person, who may have added the "TR" stamps. The "T" stamp may have been there longer by the look of it.

Clean around the front pad and see if there is a machined flat on the receiver wall; it's usually a little larger than the pad itself.

The "S51 " is in the 12th post, first picture

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amatikulu

The "S51 " is in the 12th post, first picture

---

Ah, thanks. Didn't look at that one closely; assumed it was just another shot of the handguard.;)

Is the rifle SN on the tongue of the butt?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

I wonder if this was a genuine early T, which someone added the "TR" stamps to later in an attempt to make things 'fit'. The "TR" stamp is awfully fresh looking...

The front pad is still a problem, perhaps the back one too - I haven't seen a decent photo of it yet.

Perhaps an early rifle that was stripped of pads, and then refitted by some enterprising person, who may have added the "TR" stamps. The "T" stamp may have been there longer by the look of it.

---

That's my guess. Not so sure that the "TR" is added, but too many things don't add up. The most telling issue is that the bracket number (on the other thread) does not match the S/N whilst the scope S/N placed on the wrist DOES match. If this rifle was rebuilt in service, the bracket number surely ought to match even if the old number had to be crossed out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmoore

That's my guess. Not so sure that the "TR" is added, but too many things don't add up. The most telling issue is that the bracket number (on the other thread) does not match the S/N whilst the scope S/N placed on the wrist DOES match. If this rifle was rebuilt in service, the bracket number surely ought to match even if the old number had to be crossed out.

---

Agreed JM, except that the mis-match of bracket and rifle isn't really related to the genuiness of lack thereof with the rifle itself.

It is also possible that the butt is not original to the rifle (we'll see when we get photos of the tongue, though that is not conclusive either) After all, weren't the rifles all shipped from H&H with Normal butts? So was this butt shortened or has someone added the "S51" at some point?

There was apparently a transitional period when H&H were getting going when there was no "TR" stamped, or "T". I'm guessing the "S51" came first, and as I've mentioned before, I have seen a different but undoubtedly genuine "S51" on a very early butt that Peter rescued from a DP rifle many moons ago.

Still need photos of under the handguard RobD if you can? And some brighter closeups of the top of the butt socket on either side of the bolt-way.

It's a tangled web alright.

Yours in anoraksia! ;)

OK, so here's what we know:
it's a BSA of ~1943 (acc to the serial number)
the serial number on the butt socket is Y1515 and all the others are Y4515
it lacks the M47 designation (which is odd).
it has a short butt
the right of the butt socket has been partially scrubbed
it was FTR'd in 1948, but not in India, because the FTR stamp on the butt socket is accompanied by electropencilled FTR marks on the receiver.
There is no evidence of an Ishapore screw.

Under the handguard are one or two tiny stamps on the nocks form, but my camera died and I don't know what I am looking for.

Have a look now at the butt markings again, and at the scope mounts again - yes, there has been metal milled away under the front mount.
Yes, the scope lines up optically perfectly with the range zero (and boy, is this rifle accurate!)

Personally, I think there is an honest explanation to this rifle, if we can find it. Sure, I'm biased in favour - but
(a) the deep/recent-looking butt numbers argue against fakery (surely even a cretin of a forger would make the stamps as shallow as the S51 is)
(b) I think the TR stamp is not recent - under the loupe it looks OK
(c) the receiver was milled for front pad, and the scope lines up, so I think this was an armourer's work not bubba's
(d) the mismatch of the number on the scope mount - seems too honest for a forger to have left that alone.

Rob

I'm reckoning that the receiver's a real No4 (T), but at this point its seen enough use and an FTR to give up on saying WHERE its been or what's happened to it since 1948. Some things just need hands on to get a real feel for 'em. If it shoots well and everything works as it should, I wouldn't fret too much.

Enjoy it and shoot it!

It comes down to this for me: there are apparently none of the marks on the metal that cannot be fairly easily faked: the Enfield examiner's marks.

There is the slight possibility that it is an early No4(T) that was stripped of its pads and later 'rebuilt' by someone.

Looking at the latest photo, the butt '51" looks fairly convincing in size, font and condition, but I see a double strike of the "5" rather than an "S", with what looks like a "C" over that. Again, no explanation as to how the (S)51 got onto a short butt.

The cheekrest is a home-made reproduction and is set too far up the wrist.

The font is wrong for the stamps on the butt wrist and tongue. Rather sloppily done too.

The rear pad looks off-kilter and rather rough and crude, particularly the hole for the thumb screw.

Without better photos of the top of the butt socket and barrel reinforce/Nock's form, can't say more than I have already.

I will hearily agree w/ the above w/ the possible - minor- exceptions of the cheekrest and the font argument on the wrist (I've seen different fonts there- but only on rebuilt/replacement stocks without the S51 below. That or the old scope S/N had been removed or lined out before the new S/N was applied.)

Again, the death blow for the scope number on the wrist being original is the lack of the rifle number match on the bracket! Mutually exclusive, especially on a post war rebuild. Parts is parts, but "improved" gear is annoying. If it doesn't match- so be it, just as long as it works and parts aren't changed to suit the sellability. Who knows, the matching bits might turn up one day!

Some equipment was used so heavily that it had to be retired, downgraded or scrapped. Problem being, that its now profitable to bring it back from the dead just to make a buck.

My first No4(T)'s mismatched bracket was on at least two rifles prior to it residing on its current platform, but after twenty-five (roughly) years, it still doesn't "match". I likes it anyways.

I'll be happily proved wrong, but it will require PROOF.

Thank you, gentlemen. I have learned a great deal about this gun, which I'll enjoy shooting. In closing this thread, I am sure you are all familiar with the Punch cartoon of 1895:

This showed a timid curate having breakfast in his bishop’s home. The host says: “I’m afraid you’ve got a bad egg, Mr Jones”, to which the curate replies: “Oh, no, my Lord, I assure you that parts of it are excellent!”.

Thanks to you, RobD!

Not only did you learn more about your rifle, it increased OUR knowledge base as well. Plus, all the folk who read this junk might get something out of it as well.

I just hope not to step on toes or turn people off this subject. The more the merrier, anybody is welcome to join in. Just expect a bit of wrangling from time to time, as we all are still "ciphering" over the fine nuances of Rifle No.4 history and details.

Enfield MKIII SMLE Sniper Rifle w/Cheek & Scope Pc : Semi-auto at GunBroker.com


Interesting comparison, note the FTR mark and S51