No4Mk1T BSA 1944?

Printable View

08-08-2011, 07:29 PM
Toledobob

41 Attachment(s)

No4Mk1T BSA 1944?

Hi Everyone, I bought a BSA No.4 Mk1T 1944 in 2009 and I'm hoping someone can tell me about it if possible. I see the 1944 serial numbers do not list a letter D prefix . My serial # is D36701. Gun pictures are on the way just as soon as I can figure out how to send them. This Site really has a ton of information on it ! Toledo Bob

My inquiry is about the serial number on my No4Mk1T BSA 1944. Mine is D36701 and in the Article by Graeme"broadarrow 303" Barber ---From No4 Mk I (T) to L42A1 - Part 1 no mention is made of a "D" prefix. Only A, C, F, H, K, L, M, P, Q, R Will send more pictures if needed. thanks, Toledo Bob

Gun pictures are on the way just as soon as I can figure out how to send them. This Site really has a ton of information on it ! Toledo Bob

My inquiry is about the serial number on my No4Mk1T BSA 1944. Mine is D36701 and in the Article by Graeme"broadarrow 303" Barber ---From No4 Mk I (T) to L42A1 - Part 1 no mention is made of a "D" prefix. Only A, C, F, H, K, L, M, P, Q, R Will send more pictures if needed. thanks, Toledo Bob
08-09-2011, 10:49 AM
Peter Laidler

D serial number prefixes certainly did exist................ Question answered.

Might I respectfully suggest that you clean off the varnish. Totally un-original varnished fore-ends, rain or damp and sniping aren't things that seem to go well together somehow.
08-10-2011, 02:56 AM
jmoore

No scope? Or did I just miss it?

Varnish or too much boiled linseed oil? One's easier to rectify than the other. Regardless, NO sandpaper!

Have you shot it?
08-10-2011, 05:46 PM
Toledobob

I thank you both for the quick reply. I was excited to see the replies. Peter- I have a couple of your books. jmoore- thanks for the rectify info. I do shoot it w/lead bullets, VG, a No32MkI, NM, and a re-po scope mount. Thanks again! Toledo Bob
08-11-2011, 02:59 AM
Surpmil

As you probably know, the forend has been replaced at some point. What you have is MkI beech, circa 1941/42, not the usual walnut. Perhaps sporterized at one point and then restored?
08-11-2011, 04:32 AM
Peter Laidler

You've puzzled me Surpmill.......... If it's a 1944 rifle, why wouldn't it have a post 1941(?) beech fore-end that has the low right side mag cut off recess?
08-11-2011, 04:58 AM
Thunderbox

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

You've puzzled me Surpmill.......... If it's a 1944 rifle, why wouldn't it have a post 1941(?) beech fore-end that has the low right side mag cut off recess?

Apart from the fact that the forend has an old Fazakerley rifle number on it, I thought that all wartime BSA rifles - and especially those selected to be Ts - were built with walnut forends?

AFAIK, only Fazakerley started using beech during WW2, Maltby and BSA appear to have continued with walnut.
08-11-2011, 05:08 AM
jmoore

Early Maltbys seem to have some beech furniture, but they don't turn up often.

As far as a 1944 BSA No.4 Mk.I(T)? Beech would be a surprise. Low wood seems right out.

The rifle is also no longer blued, it seems, on this wretched monitor. Either suncorite or plain ol' black paint. So, some degree of rework has been done. If it's proper "in service" rebuild work, I don't see a problem with either a suncorite finish or a rwplacement fore stock. But, it's hard for me to tell what's what, Need input from those that can "see" better. May check back in over the weekend in a better machine for closer inspection, I'm relying on y'all for detail observations right mow!
08-11-2011, 08:41 AM
Peter Laidler

Yep, got that. It's a question of the Faz Beech and not the age of the fore-end! But as mentioned in another thread, when it went out of the Armourers shop, it went out with a closest match to what was on the shelf!
08-11-2011, 04:38 PM
Toledobob

Does the "Trigger" look original? If not, what would be the reason for changing it?
08-11-2011, 09:16 PM
Surpmil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toledobob

Does the "Trigger" look original? If not, what would be the reason for changing it?

SMLE No1 trigger put in for the fluted face: better grip or feel in someone's opinion.

Has an SMLE mag as well I see.

Peter, what I was going to say in answer about the forend has already been said!

I did have a Maltby "T" in the 11000 range that had the same MkI beech forend, and matching butt. The butt was definitely the original. Have seen photos here and elsewhere of a couple more 1941 Maltby "T"s that had the same, as well as the odd regular No4.

Shocking bit of grinding on the backsight!
08-12-2011, 01:32 PM
Steve H. in N.Y.

"Has an SMLE mag as well I see."

Very good observation there, Surpmil. I wonder, were magazines modified like that while in service or ...?
08-12-2011, 04:40 PM
jmoore

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve H. in N.Y.

"Has an SMLE mag as well I see."

Very good observation there, Surpmil. I wonder, were magazines modified like that while in service or ...?

I've never seen a No.4 type rib on an SMLE magazine body before- Very odd!

In fact, the whole thing is odd. Restoration seems likely as mentioned before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Shocking bit of grinding on the backsight!

Ummm,... yeah. The mod to remove the bolt without removing the scope, you mean. Shocking...

The low wood beech stock looks otherwise like a much later piece of wood, but don't ask me to tell just exactly how.

The receiver finish is also not what I would expect to see. Not the usual "blued" finish, nor suncorite, nor brunofix. Front pad is a bit wierd, too. Multiple strikes of the "S" on the RH side? New to me.

I'd really like a "hands on" examination of this one. Also a look at the inside of the fore stock, particularly in the action area, front.

Very curious, and that's using the good monitor. What a difference!
08-12-2011, 10:56 PM
Toledobob

I have to admit to doing the "Shocking bit of grinding on the Backsight" as I didn't want to remove the Scope each time I cleaned up from the range.
08-13-2011, 03:14 PM
Surpmil

1 Attachment(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toledobob

I have to admit to doing the "Shocking bit of grinding on the Backsight" as I didn't want to remove the Scope each time I cleaned up from the range.

Not a bad job for freehand, but as per Peter's previous posts, you didn't need to grind into the sight leaf, just the bottom of the sight body, then lift the sight slightly when withdrawing the bolt.

I've got a few sight bodies around here I bodged while doing that grinding job!

As for the finish, it looks like patchy wartime phosphating to me, not sure anyone could replicate that now! Someone's taken the emery cloth to the outside face of the front pad spigot.

One thing I've sometimes wondered about is why, "if" the pad mating surfaces were machined after the pads were attached to the rifle body, does one see so many "T"s with an angled gap under the rear pad where it meets the curve of the side of the body:

It suggests in a way that the front pad was machined on the body, then the gauge or bracket attached, and then the rear pad slipped under it, aligned with the bore then sweated on.

But that's not how it was done, was it Peter?
08-13-2011, 03:57 PM
Peter Laidler

Nope........... the pads were fitted to the bodyside partially machined THEN machined with the depth of the spigot of the front pad and the chamfered dovetails of the rear pad cut relative to the BORE of the rifle. This is what enables the exact collimation of the telescope with the bore of the rifle

The lower dovetail on the pad you illustrate looks to me like it's had two passes of the milling cutter. But it's a good example of what I say. The dovetails are relative to the BORE and not the BODY. I know we've been through this many times but when people say that all (?) brackets fit all rifles............., well, yes they might 'fit' but while most of the mismatched numbered ones might fit, they are mismatched mechanically too. They 'fit' as in 14" Ford wheels might 'fit' your VW, but they ain't the RIGHT fit!
08-14-2011, 05:03 PM
Toledobob

"Someone's taken the emery cloth to the outside face of the front pad spigot". I also "emery'd" the rear pad just to get "metal to metal contact" w/ my RE-PO mount, thinking it would help w/ the scope mounting.
09-04-2011, 12:04 AM
Toledobob

25 Attachment(s)

Attachment 26509

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Yep, got that. It's a question of the Faz Beech and not the age of the fore-end! But as mentioned in another thread, when it went out of the Armourers shop, it went out with a closest match to what was on the shelf!

Hello, here are pictures of the "Faz Beech" & other markings I found . Also-- the picture with the SHIM on the ruler, I don't know where it fell out from. Thank You.
09-04-2011, 01:48 AM
STG-98

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...te_large-1.jpg

Lucky...
09-04-2011, 06:36 AM
Peter Laidler

That shim on the ruler looks like it was used as a bodge to increase the height of the reinforce bearing in the fore-end. Uusally we'd just machine the low bearing out, patch and repair and do it properly. Anyone else seen a bodge like this. Still, if it works and all that ....................
09-04-2011, 11:12 AM
Roger Payne

Sorry, I must have been dozing not to notice this one...
Here goes:
Rifle is genuine but has been got at:
the forend is early as people have said. It bears the down-cut on the R side for the (redundant cut off). It also has the characteristically early cone shaped machining on the inside of the forend for the front trigger-guard screw. It does bear Faz mark & may be of Faz mfr but I have seen a lot of early LB forends like this.....it's possible that it could have started life there. All of the ones I have have a 'B' (I think within a circle IIRC without looking) on the rear of the forend tie plate; but you'd have to take the forend off to see this. Another thing that makes me wonder if it could have started life in Canada is that the removal of the wood for the bolt release catch looks rather amateurish & done by hand. This would only have occurred if the forend was originally intended for a Mk1* rifle, & was subsequently modified. I may well be wrong on this as the pictures are quite good but handling it in the flesh would make life so much easier....

As an aside early T conversions manufactured by both ROFM & BSA tend to be fitted with beech wood; AFAIK the walnut seems to have come on stream by 1943 & became the norm.

The front body pad looks like a real one but IMHO has been refitted & may well not be the one that originally grew there. Look carefully at the right side profile......it has been got at presumably with a file to put a gradual radius down to the bottom corner....I suspect because it did not quite fit into the existing front pad milling here on the receiver sidewall. The general look of the screws & centre punching also looks to me to be recently done....certainly not from 1946 anyway!

The rear pad, aside from the gap, does not look obviously recently refited to me, but again seeing in the flesh is the ideal.

The batch my friend & I bought in 1997 had been partially stripped as I believe this one had been....we bought a lot, but I gather quite a few that we didn't manage to hoover up went in to The States....
We spent ten years gradually putting rifles back together & I've no doubt we weren't the only ones.
ATB

PS. Mag is scarce but not ultra rare. I have a couple of SMLE mags that appear to have been modified carefully by grinding off the lower part of the locating rib on the rear face of the mag casing. The two I have were well done & I wonder if this was officially sanctioned??
09-04-2011, 01:44 PM
Toledobob

1 Attachment(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

Another thing that makes me wonder if it could have started life in Canada is that the removal of the wood for the bolt release catch looks rather amateurish & done by hand.

Thank you for your reply-- I have admitted in another Post that I removed metal on the backsight for the bolt-relase, no wood was touched. I just noticed there appears to be a "43" stamped in the forend metal cap. Picture included. Thanks again
09-04-2011, 03:57 PM
Roger Payne

Ahh. Thnks for letting me know re the bolt release catch work.....I'd not noticed your reference. This would suggest it is indeed of North American origin.

ATB

Sorry, just re-read your post ToledoBob......not what I originally assumed it to say. Just means my original comments still stand. Cheers.
09-04-2011, 04:50 PM
Simon P

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

PS. Mag is scarce but not ultra rare. I have a couple of SMLE mags that appear to have been modified carefully by grinding off the lower part of the locating rib on the rear face of the mag casing. The two I have were well done & I wonder if this was officially sanctioned??

BSA were contracted 1942/43 to convert approx 137,000 SMLE magazines to fit the No4 Rifle.