No. 4T questions

Recently purchased this mismatched No.4T and No.32Mk1 scope joined by an aftermarket bracket from a local collector known to me. He indicated that the cheekpiece is a replacement and that the previous owner had polished the scope within an inch of its life, including the steel tube and its markings. Mainly concerned with the rifle which is BSA Shirley #A1A8470. Very nice condition with very good bore. Has all the standard H&H markings except S51 on butt. As you can see the serial# and another number (3380-C) are stamped on the upper surface of the butt which I've not seen in any references. The serial# and other now unreadable things were stamped on the forend adjoining the front band. Inside the forend channel there is crudely marked "IVE". Markings on the barrel (which doesn't match the mottled finish on the action body) don't look like BSA marks to me but somewhat resemble the marks on the Enfield replacement barrel on a "42 Savage T less scope" in the Library. My questions to the experts are: 1)Does it look like a genuine No.4T, and 2)Are the butt, forend, and barrel replacements? Hope I'm not missing a bunch of obvious things but I'm fairly new to this game. The rifle has obviously been the object of some bodging (rear pad is definitely a replacement). Thanks, in advance, for any comments.

Ridolpho

It's always agonizing to comment on purchase of a much sought after Enfield.

Best to start with a couple questions. 1) is the a small "S" on the right side bolt rail? 2) Is the barrel serialized to the rifle?

I suspect the pads have been replaced or added to the rifle. The pads look repro, screws are incoorect for the front and not staked. Easy way to tell is to remove the front screws and see if the are soft soldered to the rifle body. Both butt and forend have been replaced.

I'd see how it shot and then correct some of the rifles deficiencies.

rgg 7: As shown on the not to well focussed photo there is an "S" on the cutoff boss and the serial number does appear on the barrel. I suspect you're right about the pads and while I haven't gotten it to the range yet, it does look like whoever worked on the pads did it to align this aftermarket bracket with the bore.

Ridolpho

I'm not happy......... And I'm not convinced that it's the real McCoy either. Keep your money in your pocket is my advice

Thanks for posting the additional info. I see the receiver is stamped "England" showing it's been exported for commerical sale....does the barrel bear any British proof marks and proofing info? Ron (Canada)

The U stamped on the barrel looks like a South Africa property mark.

Thanks for the comments gentlemen. Charlie- according to "The Broad Arrow", the South African "U" has a diamond inside. As I mentioned there is a picture of a similar "U" in the article on a '42 Savage that was re-barreled (in the Lbrary on this forum). rgg 7- I've tried to show everything on the barrel and none of the marks look like BSA proofs on my #1 Mk1 or MkIII's but so far I've been unable to find a picture of marks on '43 BSA barrels. What there are seem to be view marks. Peter- if I showed photos of whats been done to the scope you'd really be unhappy! I thought I'd leave that for another time. What features of the rifle do you find questionable? The "T" didn't seem to have exactly the right shape to me but could it have been a later addition. There have been many comments made about H&H markings not standardizing until well into production. What I do like about it is the mottled carbonaceous? looking finish on the action-body. Greame Barber's article on No. 4T's in the Library indicates they were heated to red hot then quenched in oil leaving such a surface. Actually that article had me wondering- surely they didn't attach the pads (including solder) then heat the assembly to "red hot". In any case, the money's already spent on this one so it just boils down to deciding if it could be real and what to do about the poor old scope.

Ridolpho

It is possible that you have an original "T" which someone stripped the pads off of long ago, and someone more recently tried to refit some poor replicas. If you unscrew the front pad and find the typical machined flat this might well be the case. Although from your photos this looks very unlikely.

The "T" stamp is obviously not one of H&H's, but the rifle might predate that becoming an SOP there. Such things have been seen before, though I can't say whether on M47 1943 rifles or not now.

Sometimes armourers did add various "T" stamps retroactively, to make the rifles they worked on conform to the later specifications.

As you must know, the pad screws are wrong and the overall fitting looks very crudely done. The cheekrest is not an original either.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, if that is what it is.

Surpmil: Thanks for the comments. When I get a chance this week I'll attempt to take the front pad off and have a look. Did all bodies have machining done on them in preparation for mounting the front pad? It's been a while since I read Peter's book and I can't recall. Can you comment on the barrel markings? I didn't actually pay a huge amount for this rifle (including the real but disfigured No. 32 scope) and if it's an original 4T that's been "worked on" I'd be happy enough.

Ridolpho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rgg_7

I see the receiver is stamped "England" showing it's been exported for commerical sale.

---

Nope that is a pre-1968 GCA import mark required by the US. We don't have export marks.

The rifle is also carrying a Gunmakers Company (London) civilian Proof mark.

Listen carefully Ridolpho........... My words have sometimes been taken as undiplomatic but in the same breath, truthful and to the point. I have seen one or two No4T's in my service since 1963. You can convince yourself that it might be one of them and it's an original that's been worked on. But in my honest opinion, it's not. It's been made up......... Yes, I know that they were ALL made up, but that one is well.... You get my drift. Anyone can sweat the fake pads on and those pads just scream fake. I mean, just look at the ...... I won't go on and on. And I would very much doubt that a perfectly collimated telescope on a correct bracket would collimate with the pads you have there. That is always my acid test. You can call me an old cynic and all that but............. I wouldn't mind betting too that some other forumers, less foirthright than me are also thinking what I'm saying

Are you seriously telling the blokes on the forum that someone (not you, I appreciate that.....) has stated that the No4T bodies were heated to cherry red and oil dipped? What about the heat treatment of the steel?

Anyway, fair enough if you got it at a good price and a No32 to boot, but a No4T it definately ain't. How can I tell? Well it's like being abroad and you get back to your room and there's a few letters on your bed where the post Corporal has left the mail. You pick the pile up and spot one letter that's from your mum. You just KNOW it's from your mum because you just know everything about the way she writes, even if the envelopes she uses this time is wrong or the post mark is different. That's how I can tell a Fazakerley Sterling SMG, an Inglis Bren, a BSA L1A1 and a fake No4T. You can just tell.......................... You might not like the news but there it is

Too much that is questionable/incorrect/scary about this rifle. But if the scope's servicable, then you probably didn't get hurt monetarily.

The action finish is not what came out the factories at the time. Unless BSA was having a particularly bad day! Your photo showing the action body and top of the wrist from the rear does NOT show the left hand side markings if any. Too much shadow.

Peter and jmoore: Thanks for the frank and candid comments. To continue my learning process, a couple of questions (jmoore- there is an image of the left body unless you're referring to something I don't understand).
1) In person the finish on this rifle is quite attractive. What was BSA's standard finish during this period and how did H&H finish actions when they were done with them?
2) I thought (hoped) that Enfield examiners marks were tough to duplicate. Not having read your book, Peter, the previous owner was not even aware of its existence. Is the one on my rifle (right side of bolt channel) obviously faked? "TR", "T" and "S51" certainly can all easily be reproduced.
3) The previous owner was a Canadian Forces armourer and probably more than capable of getting a bracket to align with the bore. When I optically align my old Weaver K3, as per instructions, and put it in the bracket and on the rifle it points very, very close to a "distant aiming point".
Again gentlemen, thanks for your input. I have no doubt that for novices like me the best advice is to avoid 4T's but when you walk into a dim, dingy hall and see one on a table it's tough to think rationally. I see two for sale on a prominent dealer website priced at $6,500 and $10,500 that are not being snapped up.

Ridolpho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ridolpho

3) The previous owner was a Canadian Forces armourer and probably more than capable of getting a bracket to align with the bore.

---

I believe you have the answer right there. BTW, had i seen Peter Laidler's post on page 2 (I was pg 1) I probably would have not piled on. He covers the subject far better!

I hear exactly what you're saying about collimation of the bracket (not the scope) to the bore against the target and fitting a telescope but to be fair, not many Armourers understand the principles of optics and of optical aberration when using the outer edges of lenses - unless they were Instrument Technicians as well. And to be fair, once again, speaking from the soul, if that pad and the fitting is the work of an Armourer, then the least said the better! But that's only my opinion

Gentlemen: I reluctantly reopen this thread with a couple of specific questions. I certainly don't question Peter L. or JMoores conclusions that the rifle is a faked "T" but as someone trying to learn the ropes, I would like to know what specific details might have tipped me or another novice off. As pointed out at the outset, I didn't pay a lot for the rifle and the No.32 is serviceable. Needless to say I would have preferred the rifle be genuine but I don't buy these old guns as financial investments so it's no big deal. It also won't be resold as a "T" because my collection will be going to a nephew a few years down the road. So, the specific questions:
1) Is the Enfield examiners mark on the rear of the action body something found on all BSA-Shirleys of this period and not specific to H&H conversions? Please note I own and have read Peter's book and seem to be missing something.
2) Not specifically related to the "T" or not "T" question, can anyone tell me what the barrel markings indicate? Is it a BSA barrel?
3) The rifle serial number is stamped on the upper side of the butt and under the forend in what, to me, appears an atypical manner. Does this look familiar to anyone? Is it a style that was used in arsenal refits?
4) There is another number on the butt below the serial- this could, of course, be part of some bodgery but any ideas what they were trying to accomplish? Does this resemble any N0.32 scope serial numbers? Unfortunately, this number was also (recently) engraved on the poor old scope in a half-hearted effort to make it appear to be a matching set.
Thanks, in advance, to any answers to these questions.

Ridolpho

Ridolpho,
Try looking at the front face of the action at 6 o'clock (- the flat surface up to which the barrel breeches -by the front face the front trigger-guard screw boss assembly); one consistent finding, at least IMHO, on H&H 4T conversions, is a crudely (it ooks like it has been done with a chisel) vertical breeching up indexing mark. If absent then I'm afraid it would lend further weight to the rifle being made up. The general fit of the pads is not great & as others have pointed out the screws are wrong. The serial is also most ubusual for a 43 BSA - I would have expected it might possibly have been AA followed by a 4 digit number. I'm really not sure where the '1' appeared from between the A's. No matter, someone has religiously copied it onto just about every major part. I would concur with surpmil re looking for the milled 'window' into which the front pad sits. They are generally only a few thou deep, but almost invariably present on the real McCoy. I hope you find one..........

ATB

Hi Ridolpho,
Sorry, but I posted the above reponse a bit prematurely, before I noticed JM Peter & Surpmil had dealt with things pretty comprehensively!
However, the indexing mark is always a useful thing to bear in mind when looking at purported original 4T's. You will generally find two enfield examiner's marks - more often than not one either side of the bolt way. IIRC there will be a crown E7E which I have always believed to be the mark of the examiner at the BSA factory. Usually on the other side, you will more often than not (though by NO MEANS ALWAYS) find the crown D6E of H&H. As mentioned before though, this is not invariable & is often not present on earlier conversions. It may sound weird, but I have owned several early (1941 dated) rifles that bore the D6E on the KNOX. I have never seen any reference to this anywhere, but I have seen more than one.

If the barrel is original (highly unlikely) you will find it bears an indexing mark at 6 o'clock, mating up to the indexing mark on the front lower body.

I don't recall seeing the serial configuration like yours on other 1943 dated rifles. Looking at the butt socket the stamping is a mess & looks to be double stamped - possibly how the '1' in between the A's got there. The more usual serial configuration would have been an 'A' followed by another letter from the alphabet (in this case another A) followed by a four digit number.

I would have said the number on the butt was the scope number & was indicative of an REL scope, as the number ends with a C. However, REL never made anything like three thousand odd scopes, so I'm afraid I don't know where that leaves us!

If it shoots well, came with a functional No32, & didn't cost too much, then I guess you've still done ok!

ATB

Roger: Thanks for the additional and very useful comments. As you may have noticed the goofy serial number (A1A? prefix) is also stamped deeply and crudely on the barrel. I hope to get to the range with this thing soon but I'll be using a Weaver scope on it rather than the much abused No.32 Mk1.

Ridolpho

Peter, Roger, jmoore,rgg 7, surpmil: You guys were bang on! Stripped her and took off the front pad (first hint of trouble was how easily it came off) only to find an awful epoxy job. Honestly, I could have done a better job installing a pad. Cleaned it up a bit and, as you can see on attached photos, there were some marks directly beneath the pad. I'm pretty sure I see, in electo-pencil, FTR surrounding a large M. There is milling evident at the front of the flat (and it was done much more professionally than the work on the pad) but I have a sneaking suspicion you guys are going to tell me it doesn't resemble the machining done at H&H. Also, Roger, no indexing marks on action body or barrel. So, I guess I'll be returning this to the seller who I'm pretty sure will take it back. Many thanks to all of you for all the detailed info and help. I'm beginning to wonder if I'll ever see a genuine "T" but after all of this I suspect I may actually know it when I do.!

Ridolpho

The thing is that when you've seen plenty, you can just smell the real ones a mile off. I won't mention my thoughts of the RCEME armour connection....................

Something of note from the second picture you show Ridolpho is that the mark under the front pad looks to me like a Maltby FTR - not that common in my area of the world.

Amatikulu: Yes, that is what it appears to be. There is an old thread that discusses this mark beyond which I know nothing (as Sgt. Schultz would say). I am still curious about the barrel markings- in light of this Maltby FTR could they be related? Also, as a final note, the seller of this rifle, when presented with the evidence relating to its origins, has agreed to take it back.

Ridolpho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ridolpho

Also, as a final note, the seller of this rifle, when presented with the evidence relating to its origins, has agreed to take it back.

---

Good for you Ridolpho, it doesnt always end with a happy ending, at least next time you will be armed with more info etc.

I think the scope always takes the shine off everything else, remove this and you can see the detail.

Its similar to a recent thead regarding a bayonet that was thought to be a 1907 Quillion, it was a Japanese Arisaka bayonet, Roger pointed out and I do the same myself, when you see a quillion in among a table of bayonets it does stand out from the rest, the first thought is a 1907, that kid at christmas feeling lasts for seconds until you see the pommel......

I feel its the same seeing a No32 scope on a No4.....

A bit off the direct subject but I would like to comment on the very civil & thoughful dilaouge contained in this post. The detailed back and forth on what could have been a very contentious issue will prove helpful to novices like myself if we are every fortunate enough to find ourselves standing in front of the elusive T.