New Look at Mark 4 #1* [T] After Reading "An Armourer's Perspective"

Hello and thanks for the look,
As many have mentioned before concerning their rifles this T has some contradictory marks also. Electro pencil on the left notes No 4 Mark 1* T. The band indicates M 47 C England 1943 the serial # and a TR. The scope mount N92, a Dalglish. The scope a Mark 1 #75xx just before the new model was issued. The examiners mark on the ramp next to the safety indicates Harrow Road Hollands, "Harry" Hardwick.The small s is on the right side of the action next to wood line. The stock is marked with an S which might mean Specification reject unless done after issue. The front sight is not the split block version which also is a Specification reject. Since the England on the left side butt socket indicates "for a foreign government" were some weapons converted regardless of the rejects? This is a contradiction for me since Peter Laidler indicates these conversions didn't allow "wiggle room". Anyway thanks to all for the information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Entry Level

Since the England on the left side butt socket indicates "for a foreign government"

---

The "England" is actually a mark required by the US Government. It is the country of origin of the rifle when it was imported to the US. In other words it has nothing to do with the British markings. I'll leave those markings to those who are more knowledgeable about them.

Hello - on the issue of the split block front sight this thread may be of use: Is my 4 (T) fake? the upshot seems to be that although it may have been regarded as specification reject a great many rifles seem to have entered service with a solid block.

On the issue of the stock and the * - pictures would be helpful!

Can you post some photo's? Unless evidence to proove otherwise has turned up recently theres no such thing as a BSA Shirley(M47C) Mk.1*. No.4 Mk.1*'s were only produced in North America by Long Branch and Savage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Entry Level

Hello and thanks for the look,
As many have mentioned before concerning their rifles this T has some contradictory marks also. Electro pencil on the left notes No 4 Mark 1* T A number of British No4MkI rifles have been observed marked as No4MkI*, though they are not what we know today as No4MkI* rifles~ it is currently unknown what it refers to. The band indicates M 47 C England 1943 the serial # and a TR. The scope mount N92, a Dalglish. The scope a Mark 1 #75xx just before the new model was issued. The examiners mark on the ramp next to the safety indicates Harrow Road Hollands, "Harry" Hardwick.The small s is on the right side of the action next to wood line. The stock is marked with an S which might mean Specification reject unless done after issue. What style of "S"? this could be a "S"outh coded wood manufacturer or a "S"avage contractor. The front sight is not the split block version which also is a Specification reject. I have yet to see a 1944 dated M47C No4T which has a split block~ call it 25+ No4T's Since the England on the left side butt socket indicates "for a foreign government" were some weapons converted regardless of the rejects? "England" is a postwar import marking, used in the USA (and other countries) to indicate national origin of an imported itemThis is a contradiction for me since Peter Laidler indicates these conversions didn't allow "wiggle room". Anyway thanks to all for the information.

---

Your rifle and it's markings sound fine.

---------- Post added at 11:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 AM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vintage hunter

Can you post some photo's? Unless evidence to proove otherwise has turned up recently theres no such thing as a BSA Shirley(M47C) Mk.1*. No.4 Mk.1*'s were only produced in North America by Long Branch and Savage.

---

I've seen several British No4MkI rifles which are marked No4MkI*

I'm interested in the ones marked No4MkI" which I've seen....

Thank you all, I am looking at the mark next to the 1 and it does look more like " than an asterisk. There is a small s inside a circle next to the trigger guard and a large S next to the top of the brass butt plate. I have included photos that might help.

Attachment 34394Attachment 34395Attachment 34396Attachment 34397Attachment 34398

Hi Entry Level. Your rifle is a perfectly good 1943 BSA Shirley T. The butt is a replacement of Savage manufacture & you will note the US ordnance acceptance 'flaming bomb' close to the S on the underside of the butt. The large S immediately in front of the butt plate indicates it is a short (rather than medium or long) butt.

I have also seen a few BSA 1943 rifles with what looks like speech marks after the receiver engraving. In fact I think I still have at least one. I'll go & look! To be honest I've never thought it had any particular significance & just thought maybe the guy setting up the engraver on that production run had an off-day! I think the same about the Mk1* marks on rifles that aren't. I think someone just goofed.................but I'd be interested to hear if anyone considers either of these variations indicate some subtle differences to the run of production......

Any chance of some more pix of your bracket, particularly of the other side, showing tha numbers & general details of the cradle caps. I'm curious....

Nice rifle.

ATB

The Crowned BNP mark signifies Birmingham Nitro Proof which was applied by the Birmingham Proof House at some point after it left service.

Maybe the little " is just a slip of the "scratchy pen" ?

Here are pics of the mount caps and id numbers. Thanks for all the info.

Attachment 34399Attachment 34400Attachment 34401Attachment 34402

A lot of '43 production british rifles have them. I've got them on a BSA, and either a Faz or a Maltby, can't remember which. Plenty of those that came out of Turkey recently had them and the ones I saw were more or less untouched. Plenty of manufacturing concessions too, I thought it may have to do with that.

Re " on the receiver wall - here's my '43 BSA T

Attachment 34404

Also in evidence the smaller T as mentioned by Roger in an earlier thread.

is that a savage marked rear sight prinz?

Hey Prinz,
Would I be right is assuming there is no 'S' on the cut-off block on your rifle? I've seen a few 43 BSA T's with Savage Mk1 rear sights. I just wonder if they would otherwise have been spec rejects that were saved from being so by having 'ex-stock' Mk1 rear sights fitted (& the supply of sights made available to H&H just happened to be a batch of 'S' made sights). Speculation, I know, but it would fit with a few I've seen/heard of............Anyone have any thoughts on the matter?

ATB

That's a very astute observation DRP! I wonder if the S sights could have been taken from those subsequently 'without telescope' Savages

Entry level, thx for the additional photo's of your bracket. The clamps look ok (I've seen a few where the spacing of the cradle screws is not symmetrical).....I was just curious about the fact that it looks to have been heavily linished up, yet the N 92 is very deeply stamped, but the front thumb screw does conceal some detail. Do you know anything of its provenance.....could previous markings have been linished off??

ATB

I stumbled into this find one day at the range, however, the owner has passed. I will look more closely when the scope returns. I sent the scope in bracket to BDL rather than scratch it up myself. The scope will be going to Peter L. after Brian sends it off for me. Maybe he will be able to look at it with a more practiced eye. I will try and communicate with the previous owner's wife to find more info. Thanks for the information. Oh yes, my rear sight also has an S and not the marks identified in Peter's book. I will post a picture with scope removed.

Attachment 34410Attachment 34411Attachment 34412Attachment 34413

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

Hey Prinz,
Would I be right is assuming there is no 'S' on the cut-off block on your rifle? I've seen a few 43 BSA T's with Savage Mk1 rear sights. I just wonder if they would otherwise have been spec rejects that were saved from being so by having 'ex-stock' Mk1 rear sights fitted (& the supply of sights made available to H&H just happened to be a batch of 'S' made sights). Speculation, I know, but it would fit with a few I've seen/heard of............Anyone have any thoughts on the matter?

ATB

---

Oddly enough it does have an S on the cut off block - the rifle itself is not 'as left factory' having had presumably an interesting career, being a '43 and also having had a trip to India. I suppose the sight could be a replacement - although the patina certainly matches the overall rifle's lack of general finish! For the record the front sight block is solid too.

Nice rifle Entry level. Nobsdave & I were getting some rifles ready last night for a gunshow over here in the UK next weekend. I have a 43 BSA T with Mk1 scope for sale & what d'y'know....it's a 'speech marks' rifle as well!! (AS prefix).

ATB

Ben,
Thx. I must be honest & say I've only owned/seen/heard about half a dozen 43 BSA T's with 'S' rearsights, but yours is the first one I've heard of that does have the 'S' on the cut-off block.
Mind, I suppose it could have been added after, or the rifle may have coincidentally had a replacement Savage rearsight fitted after the war...........

Never say 'never' & never say 'always' with Lee Enfields!

I think mine and Entry Level's 4ts with savage backsights and the S on the action make it two roger ;)
Mine has a new set of woodwork too so I don't doubt that the rear sight could well have been changed at some point - who knows what state it arrived back in the uk from the subcontinent! I do however know that the barrel is original.

Maths never was my strong point.........

Should I change it to an SM one though? Would that make it 'original' or 'correct' or whatever??? On the other hand there's even a slight chance it might be the original sight.

We'll never know for sure......but I genuinely think that SOME 43 BSA's were fitted with S rearsights intentionally, & the most plausible explanation that I can think of would be that they were otherwise satisfactory rifles for conversion but would have failed spec due to having a battle or fabricated rear sight....It would also explain why these rifles are encountered without the S; though clearly some of them do have it too!! I'm all ears if anyone else has a different take on it......I suppose S sights could have been delivered to BSA for run of production fitting if there had been a shortage of Mk1 sights here in the UK., but I doubt it, as there isn't a plethora of standard spec 43 BSA No4's reported as having Savage sights on them; I've never heard of a shortage of such sights reported by BSA; & logistically it would seem unlikely. Just dunno for sure!!

To go back to your original question; if it were mine, I'd leave it as it is. If it had had an obvious replacement fitted post-War such as a Faz made sight then I might consider changing it, but yours could well be the 'original'.

ATB

I think a lot of Savage spare parts were shipped along with complete rifles in '42-'43. I've seen several ROF Maltby rifles with Savage parts installed during new production. I've tried to talk some guys out of changing them because they think they're incorrect on a British production rifle. The same holds true for Long branch rifles produced after the end of Savage production in 1944. They shipped all of the remaining spares to Long Branch where they were used in new rifle production. Would it simply be a case of using spares as requisitioned? If they got a box of Savage Mk.1 rear sights, then modify and use them. I wouldn't change them. They're probably right as rain.

Since the scope is off for overhaul I shot the Enfield without. The S rear sight worked well, looks within requirements for group size. I tinkered with front sight also to bring strike to the right with some success. I include a pic of target. Disregard the Gibbs target it's just part of picture. One of the shooters was using a diopter on his glasses and said it helped with the focus on front sight and target. Has anyone used this device or have a comment? thanks for all the info.

Attachment 34435

Nice group. Nothing wrong with that rifle.