Possible manufacturer of Canadian No.4 (T) cheekpieces

No.4Mk.1* (T) cheekpieces..

I received a small box of odds and ends from the storage sheds of Hill Clark Francis, New Liskeard, Ontario, CANADA a few years ago. The box was an accumulation of odds and ends and consisted mainly of odd bits of wood, some rusty hardware and two No.4 (T) cheekpieces: one finished and one unfinished. Both are unmarked and were in the condition that wood can be after sitting for 50 years in an unheated shed.. The pair were mouldy, weather-beaten and the unfinished cheekpiece was obviously a cull due to two major defects in the wood.

No markings could distinguished in either cheekpiece, but the interesting fact is that they both appear to be made by a company that has no record of making wood or furniture for the Lee Enfield rifle. It is known that Hill Clark Francis (HCF) made crates for the No.4 sniper, Bren, the Browning machine gun (all types) and the No.7 rifle.

HCF is found on the end of the bottom wood on the No.4(T) and also on the No.7 (.22) rifle as well as Canadian Bren chests.

I've attached a couple of photo's of the pieces with (Left to right) no.1 is the finished, albeit dirty and mouldy cheekpiece, no.2 is the unfinished cheekpiece with the defects and no.3 being a new, unused Canadian marked cheekpiece. A British manufactured cheekpiece (no.4) is included for comparison.

The unused Canadian cheekpiece (no.3) has what appears to be a tiny C-broad arrow and another marking that looks like a wood proof found on the wrist of the butt stock, but I am unable to see it clearly to determine if there is a number as normally found on Canadian wood acceptance markings.

It appears that some manufacturing tool marks are common to all three of the Canadian cheekpieces.

While it appears that HCF possibly did make the cheekpieces, this is just a guess on my part, as I have been unable to find any official records or contract listings.
I am not able to determine what the wood is with my limited knowledge of wood.

Another puzzle in the Lee Enfield sniper saga.

Cheers,
Warren

I think a point has been missed on these items as the end user could and did shape and contour these rests to custom fit them. I see an original rifle with a tall rest with sharp contours that havent been blended It says replacement and thats OK. Rifles never issued out like some of the Savage units will have original rests in full contoure. My original sets have all been shapped and blended. I also have several of Dr. Payne's from the 90's waiting to be fit to me.

Really nice find and good photos Thanks for the post.

..MJ..

Further to what Wheaty says, the original 'as issued' cheek pieces never fitted the contour of the No4 rifle butts because they were originally configured to the shape of, drawn up for and made for the Patt 14 T sniper which isn't the same contour as a No4 butt. It was only coincidence that they fitted the No4T butt, were fitted to it during the later trial period by the small arms school at Hythe (Bisley after June 1940) and thereafter became the norm aross the board. The rest as they say, is history

There, another useless bit of Lee Enfield history for you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wheaty

No.4Mk.1* (T) cheekpieces..

I received a small box of odds and ends from the storage sheds of Hill Clark Francis, New Liskeard, Ontario, CANADA a few years ago. The box was an accumulation of odds and ends and consisted mainly of odd bits of wood, some rusty hardware and two No.4 (T) cheekpieces: one finished and one unfinished. Both are unmarked and were in the condition that wood can be after sitting for 50 years in an unheated shed.. The pair were mouldy, weather-beaten and the unfinished cheekpiece was obviously a cull due to two major defects in the wood.

No markings could distinguished in either cheekpiece, but the interesting fact is that they both appear to be made by a company that has no record of making wood or furniture for the Lee Enfield rifle. It is known that Hill Clark Francis (HCF) made crates for the No.4 sniper, Bren, the Browning machine gun (all types) and the No.7 rifle.

HCF is found on the end of the bottom wood on the No.4(T) and also on the No.7 (.22) rifle as well as Canadian Bren chests.

I've attached a couple of photo's of the pieces with (Left to right) no.1 is the finished, albeit dirty and mouldy cheekpiece, no.2 is the unfinished cheekpiece with the defects and no.3 being a new, unused Canadian marked cheekpiece. A British manufactured cheekpiece (no.4) is included for comparison.

The unused Canadian cheekpiece (no.3) has what appears to be a tiny C-broad arrow and another marking that looks like a wood proof found on the wrist of the butt stock, but I am unable to see it clearly to determine if there is a number as normally found on Canadian wood acceptance markings.

It appears that some manufacturing tool marks are common to all three of the Canadian cheekpieces.

While it appears that HCF possibly did make the cheekpieces, this is just a guess on my part, as I have been unable to find any official records or contract listings.
I am not able to determine what the wood is with my limited knowledge of wood.

Another puzzle in the Lee Enfield sniper saga.

Cheers,
Warren

---

Warren,
I'd be interested to know if you or any of the other forummers have seen Long Branch 4T's (that haven't been refurbished) with anything other than walnut cheekpieces (something you don't tend to see on UK mfr rifles)? Obviously due to scarcity most of us will not have seen lots of Canadian T's, but of the ones I have seen I have noted three distinct variations of cheekpiece. On one or two early (1943) rifles I have noted examples that are very similar, though not identical to the UK type (which in itself shows several minor variations). On 44 & 45 dated rifles I have seen two other distinct variations, one of which is shown in your photographs as example number 3. The last type I've seen is rather broader in the beam & meatier. I'll try & get some pictures as I can. I'm not doubting you, but is the first example definitely Canadian? It looks to have rather more in common with example No4 than No3. It also does not look to be walnut, although they may exist in other woods, or perhaps it is walnut, but rather weathered.

Would be glad to get comments from other observers!

ATB

Roger,

For what it's worth and to get the ball rolling, here is one example.

My unissued, 1945, Longbranch No. 4 Mk I* (T), 90L8086, scope 69-C, also has a walnut cheekpiece, and, as you mention, appears more like Warren's example No. 3. It differs in that the contours are all nice and sharp and the location of the deeply counter-sunk screw holes lines up almost top dead center on the cheekpiece, (directly below the point of the front contour), and top of the butt.

On a different point, out of my three BSA'a and one Enfield ex-Trials 4 T, only the 1944 BSA has an oak cheekpiece. As this is obviously too small a sample to deduce anything, I was wondering if you have any idea how commonly used oak cheekpieces were?

Thanks,

Terry

Here are a few pictures of mine, a walnut butt and cheek piece. A 1943 (T), matching REL scope to butt. My M47 was buried to deep to get to quickly.
Like Terry, mine has the screw holes directly in the top of the butt, and it similar to #3 of Warrens samples. The grooves/filets on the leading edge are similar as well.
limpetmine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Terry Hawker

Roger,

For what it's worth and to get the ball rolling, here is one example.

My unissued, 1945, Longbranch No. 4 Mk I* (T), 90L8086, scope 69-C, also has a walnut cheekpiece, and, as you mention, appears more like Warren's example No. 3. It differs in that the contours are all nice and sharp and the location of the deeply counter-sunk screw holes lines up almost top dead center on the cheekpiece, (directly below the point of the front contour), and top of the butt.

On a different point, out of my three BSA'a and one Enfield ex-Trials 4 T, only the 1944 BSA has an oak cheekpiece. As this is obviously too small a sample to deduce anything, I was wondering if you have any idea how commonly used oak cheekpieces were?

Thanks,

Terry

---

Terry,
Thanks for yours. On the note of UK mfr T's I was always under the impression that the cheekpieces that appear to be oak, are so, although I remember talking to Tony Hallam (of the now defunct Charnwood Ordnance) that he believed them to be ash. I'm notoriously hopeless on woods & I'd be glad to see what others think. I've spent much time comparing pieces of both oak & ash & find them almost indistinguisgable! Certainly the oak/ash 'pieces seem to predominate on 44 T's & beech on most others, although I have seen a sprinkling of them in what appears to be stained birch (similar to Savage wood), particularly on earlier conversions. However, my observations are purely anecdotal, from the T's & L42's I've seen/handled/owned.

ATB

I don't believe that they were oak either. It was Beech, Birch and if I had to go out of the box a bit, I'd say ash - at a push. Oak rots steel screws like they're going out of fashion, hence the reason why Armourers use it only for the wooden plugs and a patch, if it wasn't subject to a steel screw. Ash doesn't like the wet but beech and birch seem to thrive everywhere.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

I don't believe that they were oak either. It was Beech, Birch and if I had to go out of the box a bit, I'd say ash - at a push. Oak rots steel screws like they're going out of fashion, hence the reason why Armourers use it only for the wooden plugs and a patch, if it wasn't subject to a steel screw. Ash doesn't like the wet but beech and birch seem to thrive everywhere.......

---

DPL,
You have said exactly what Tony Hallam did re the damaging effects of oak on steel screws! Many (?most?) 44 BSA's that I've seen though, have had ash cheekpieces, but most of those of earlier & later mfr seem to be beech. Beech certainly seem to be the most commonly encountered over all. I presume the manufacturer(s) just used whatever wood (of those deemed suitable) was available at the time.....

ATB

Gents,

Well, from what Peter tells us, mine certainly can't be oak, as the screws exhibit no sign of rusting. Having made a lot of oak furniture in my time, the identical grain pattern in the cheekpiece on mine led me to make the erroneous conclusion. I'm not going to saw into it to see if it releases the typical dog poo aroma that oak usually disseminates when cut , and it certainly doesn't have the blah grain pattern of beech, so I'm thinking the next runner-up would be ash, then perhaps birch.

Cheers,

Terry

Isn't Louthepou something of a "wood" guy? I haven't seen any posts from him in a while. PM away.

He he he... Well thanks for the raving review jmoore, but... I'm still a newbie, relatively speaking, when it comes to wood varieties.

What I can offer as limited insight is: if I had to fabricate a cheek piece, I would tend to use walnut as a first choice. Why? Simply because from a carving point of view, you can work it like butter. Oak is a bit of a pain, isn't it.

Oak has a usually very distinguishable grain (well, the oak I have seen here in Ontario and Quebec), and the two varieties I have seen are North American white and red oak.

To add to the difficulty, once you stain a wood piece it's even harder to tell.

Here's one website that shows some clear close-up views of a few hardwood varieties, I like the pictures in there, they tell a lot in my opinion. Note that, without paying attention to color, walnut and red oak can look similar:

Power Tool Hardwood Information | Professional Power Tool Guide

---------- Post added at 09:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:00 PM ----------

Oh and sorry for being a ghost, this past half-year has been somewhat difficult here. But I'm still around (and thanks jmoore for coaxing me out of my cave)

Lou