1944 BSA No. 4 Mk 1 (T) Less Telescope

What have I got? I have owned this one for just over 30 years. I have been meaning to post pictures following the lead of others who have contributed so much by doing so. This rifle is in very nice condition with a couple small dents in the wood and some chipped finish on the left side of the butt socket. Beautiful shiny, smooth rifling. Alloy butt plate. M47 marked on trigger guard, safety and bolt head. Magazine not numbered. Bolt cannot be removed without lifting the rear sight. The receiver has a course black finish as does the trigger guard and lower band which is marked "S126" in a circle. The bolt is finished a bit smoother as is the front sight guard and magazine. The stamped front band is shiny black. The metal end caps on the forend and front hand guard are smoothly blued as is the exposed portion of the barrel. There is a bit of both light and dark coloured grease on portions. I an expecting the pictures ( 25) to tell more of the story. An comments welcome. I also have a mismatched scope in a can, which I will also post in the near future. Thanks.

Although yours is marked as mfg by BSA, check the MKL and read this article by Advisory Panel member Lance, along with 165 pic photo montage to compare components:

1942 No.4 Mk1*(T) Savage Sniper Rifle (less scope)

The Transit Chest for "T.Less Telescope" as used when building and for storage of these partially completed snipers.

Regards,
Doug

Having been staked and given it's vintage, you'd think it would have had a telescope at some point. At least before the Suncorite was applied. (Probably when the staking was done.) Any signs of a "ghost" number on top of the wrist?

Might be hard to see but this looks like a good candidate to inquire: Any marking on the top of the forestock under the front pad?

I.e.:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...4d25afb2-1.jpg
In this location but on top of the wood.

Thanks guys for your input. The Savage," Less Telescope" referenced above also has staked screws. Yes, "X" marking found on the wood under the front pad. No trace of ghost numbers on the top of small of the butt. There are fine transverse scratches that are very suspicious. The wood there is still proud of the socket, but not as much as on the sides. Again, lots of pictures.

I have a VERY similar 44 BSA Less T No4 to you, also in it's chest. It's in great condition as well. The markings are pretty much exactly the same, pads staked the same, alloy butt plate, same finish to the wood. The action has a thicker coating on it, the carbanised looking type, Brunofix I believe it's called, can't see the action side markings on mine. My front band is not the pressed style as yours is but is the same manufacturer! it looks like you have a solid type foresight block band as do I which SEAMS to be a feature of these 44 BSA T's (I found that bit of info in a previous thread on this site) in fact pretty much everything I know about the BSA Less T came from here, it's a slog trawling old threads but very rewarding.
I've even got the ENGLAND import stamp on the breech like yours so I guess mine had a holiday in the States years ago.

Thanks for your post, nice to see another one of these uncommon rifles and FWIW I think your rifle is spot on original

" Trawling old threads" I found this one, that is very useful in this case, by searching, "less telescope".
Questions About My No.4 Mk1 (T) Sniper Rifle [Archive] - Military ...
Also 15 MK1 chest is stamped (T. Less Telescope) on the front. But tag on the end of the chest mentions the MKIII scope. I am unable to locate ...
Questions About My No.4 Mk1 (T) Sniper Rifle [Archive] - Military Surplus Collectors Forums... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RCEMERalf

Thanks guys for your input. The Savage," Less Telescope" referenced above also has staked screws. Yes, "X" marking found on the wood under the front pad. No trace of ghost numbers on the top of small of the butt. There are fine transverse scratches that are very suspicious. The wood there is still proud of the socket, but not as much as on the sides. Again, lots of pictures.

---

Is that a (19)'56 breaching date in the 2nd last photo?

I was just shown some pictures of an identically set up rifle, also in crate, marked the same, and it is serial number 37804.............

Ed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Enfield

Is that a (19)'56 breaching date in the 2nd last photo?

---

Unlikely as there's a distinct '44 marking in a photo just above and to the right.

:thup:Thanks for the supplemental photos. Very useful.

Would have to suppose the old scope number was removed when it was gone through and cased w/o scope.

I think your rifle was never set up with a scope and therefore didn't get the scope number stamped on the wrist or the T stamp on the action side, the cross grain sanded wood finish on the wrist top is exactly the same on my Less T rifle. Your rifle was put into Army stores as it is, less scope, in it's marked chest until it was disposed of. The scope my rifle came with is a very late 45 mk3 with unnumbered bracket which I believe were also placed in army stores to be issued as replacements, I have no scope info written on my Less T marked chest and I believe the scope was added to the rifle after it left service, unless anyone knows different. All this info is in Peter Laidlers book " The No4T An Armourers Perspective"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blurrededge

...therefore didn't get the scope number stamped on the wrist or the T stamp on the action side...

---

If there's no "T" under the paint, then blurrededge DOES seem to have the logical explanation. Wouldn't be hugely surprising in retrospect, given the large number of H&H conversions in '44. What would be odd then would be the finish and staking...Interesting!

The rifle I was just offered is as I said identically marked and only a few serial numbers off. I haven't had it in hand yet, only photos. However, there is one difference--its rearsight is a Mk III, one of those tinny ones without the fine adjustment knob. The ones I am seeing in this post and also in the MKL all have the more proper fine adjust rearsight with the battle aperture lopped off. Is it possible that those were added later, or has the one I'm looking at just been switched at some point? It seems odd to set a rifle up as a potential T and then leave the lower quality rearsight on............

Attachment 42000Attachment 42001Attachment 42002Attachment 42003Attachment 42004Attachment 42005Attachment 42006Attachment 42007

Ed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boltaction

Is it possible that those were added later, or has the one I'm looking at just been switched at some point?

---

Switched.

Odd to note that both rifles have the late rear swivel assembly, but no middle swivel. Very curious.

My Less T appears never to have had the centre swivel fitted either, as it was fitted from late 44 at extra cost (Laidler), it kinda makes sense it's not on these Less T's I recon. I'm thinking that when the post war instruction came round to stake all the 4T pad screws they just included these Less T's in with it, and they didn't stamp the T on the action because as before, no scope fitted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmoore

Having been staked and given it's vintage, you'd think it would have had a telescope at some point. At least before the Suncorite was applied. (Probably when the staking was done.) Any signs of a "ghost" number on top of the wrist?

Might be hard to see but this looks like a good candidate to inquire: Any marking on the top of the forestock under the front pad?

I.e.:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...4d25afb2-1.jpg
In this location but on top of the wood.

---

There is an X stamp there. Anyone have an explanation?

Have two or three suspicions. But the sample size is small. None that I know of on rifles without staked front pads so far. But don't read too much into it. Just gathering info at this point.

I also have a Lee Enfield No.4 Mk.1 (T) made in 1945 M47C Less Telescope rifle with chest, and a miss matched Mk.3 scope, I noticed that like the one shown in the picture https://www.milsurps.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=41938&d=1365628034 mine has an “I” at the end of the transit chest too, dose any one know what this means? Or can translate this into English?

Regards
DanL96A1

That big Roman numeral I could mean anything. Most quartermasters have their own numbering and control measures, and these vary between units and change. For example, I knew one QM that assigned rack space for each firearm. That lasted until the unit got new stock without losing the old ones, and there was no more spare room. If a box or folded tent is stacked on a rack, the idea is to make it easy to count at a glance.

I doubt the letter I is alphabetical or numbering. Instead, I would suspect it is a condition code. NS for nonserviceable, US for unserviceable, BLR for beyond line repair, I for inspected, S for serviceable, C for complete, etc.

No4T's without telescopes never even got out of the Ordnance Depots in the Army system due to the fact that a sniper rifle without a telescope is like a Taxi without a taxi sign...... It's just another Ford car - or in this case, another rifle. That's the reason why they'll rarely, if ever be modified. No swivel because who's going to use it in the single-point position? Not staked either as with no telescope, what sort of cenrifuge effect going to rock the pads to create the loose pad and screws.

If I had my grumpy Quartermasters hat on (nope, never was one but know how the tight fisted a------s think, believe me.....) I'd say that a sniper rifle in a chest without a telescope is just an expensive way of storing fresh air!

My first rifle was identical in every respect. N32239 1944 rifle, same staking, chest, markings, finish everything but the band.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

That's the reason why they'll rarely, if ever be modified. No swivel because who's going to use it in the single-point position? Not staked either as with no telescope...

---

So how to explain all of these rifles (including Surpmil's late entry in Post #20) with staking and rear swivels that aren't any advantage unless there's a center swivel?

There's a chance that they were in service with telescopes but were sold off without telescopes. There were roughly the same amount of rifles as there were telescopes, numerically speaking, telescopes went up to about 26xxx, which coincidentally is the approx amount of No4T's. The attrition rate of telescopes was greater than rifles so if we needed a telescope at Base workshop for an otherwise serviceable rifle, then we'd ask Ordnance for one. As they were not an issueable item per-se, (they were a 'starred item' or accountable item in their own right don't forget.....) there'd be a covering report with the indent request. The telescope would come in a long off-white/buff thich sailcloth type material bag with a tuck-in top flap (if you ever see one in your travels), tied at the top.

Telescopes/brackets could only be fitted at Base workshops (that's not strictly correct of course as some of the big Command workshops were really large Field workshops but were capable of Base workshop repair standards). The replacement telescope came from somewhere of course and that was most probably from an unserviceable or used rifle up for disposal languishing in Ordnance. And, as I say, in this case, that rifle now missing a telescope then became just another rifle! Thereafter the rifle would be marked as 'less telescope'

So, Peter, that would then suggest that these rifles which are in cases "less scope" might have been ones with issues, or unserviceable, or just plain spare, or maybe all three were possibilities? I would expect that if they had scopes with them at some point, then they should have had the scope numbers on the top of the buttstock. The rifles pictured don't have scope numbers on the buttstock so those must have been sanded off? Do you know why would they be sanded off instead of just x'd out like ones are which are reissued a new scope? Is is possible that some of these were "spare" so to speak, waiting for scopes to be delivered for them and then none were, while others might have had scopes issued and then the rifles were damaged or whatever and the scopes swapped off? Maybe the unserviceable ones were never sold for surplus, or does anyone have one which has clearly definitely had a scope mated to it at some point? These rifles do seem to be an oddity. The one I posted pictures of is sold to someone else (I didn't want it because the price was too high for something with a switcheroo rearsight) so I'll never be able to have it in hand and look at it closely to see if the butt was sanded or not.

Cheers

Ed

Just had my Less T out for a good look at the staking on the pads through a jewelers loop and the Brunofix finish looks to have been applied after the staking of the screws, The finish is inside, coating the punched/disrupted metal. Now, as my Less T is in very good condition, with no real dings to the wood and clearly hasn't had any sort of hard life in service, I ASSUME it just sat in it's chest until disposed of, so I ASSUME it had no need to be refinished since it left Hollands, I'm therefore wondering if Hollands may have staked the screws on late war 4T's!
There's a couple of big assumptions there I know!
Also the area on the pads where the bracket contacts had a pretty much undamaged finish to them too, I wouldn't be surprised if the rifle never saw a scope until it left service.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blurrededge

Just had my Less T out for a good look at the staking on the pads through a jewelers loop and the Brunofix finish looks to have been applied after the staking of the screws, The finish is inside, coating the punched/disrupted metal. Now, as my Less T is in very good condition, with no real dings to the wood and clearly hasn't had any sort of hard life in service, I ASSUME it just sat in it's chest until disposed of, so I ASSUME it had no need to be refinished since it left Hollands, I'm therefore wondering if Hollands may have staked the screws on late war 4T's!
There's a couple of big assumptions there I know!
Also the area on the pads where the bracket contacts had a pretty much undamaged finish to them too, I wouldn't be surprised if the rifle never saw a scope until it left service.

---

I think your deduction must be correct. Does yours have the "T" stamp on the body side? Mine did not, nor have a number of others seen over the years. As Peter's books tell us this was the last operation performed at H&H, I assume these rifles were never fitted with scopes.

Why so many 1944 rifles? Could it be that there was a lag period when production of the MkI and MkII scopes ended and production of the Mk3 had not come on stream? Could it be that H&H to keep things rolling, continued to do the conversions and ship them, only without scopes?

The only other explanation I can see is that they were done after production of complete No4(T)s ceased, to 'use up' "TR" graded rifles that had previously been selected in greater numbers than the supply of telescopes or perhaps just the No4(T) contracts called for. It would have made sense to mark those rifles when they were found during the routine test firings, as if they were required later for conversion or some other purpose, they could not all be tested again.

TR rifles do surface that were never converted. I have on here at the moment in the X35--- 1945 range from which many rifles were converted to T specs it seems.

Here's a photo that just showed up in another thread:

https://www.milsurps.com/attachment....4&d=1365571734

Notice that the pad screws are staked and the rifle refinished before the "T" stamp went on as the finish flaked off went the stamp was struck. The only way that could happen is if the finish was put on at H&H as we know for certain that the "T" stamp was.

Yes, my Less T has no T stamp to the action or scope number on the wrist and never has had, believe me I've really looked for them :-)
That's an interesting picture Surpmil, if that is a late war BSA 4T with it's original finish from Hollands, as I guess it is, it does look like it was staked, painted, and then got it's T stamp.
I think these Less T's are a great resorce because of their reletive originality and lack of use in service.
I had wondered if the reason they didn't get the Enfield inspectors final stamp was because of the off spec solid foresight block band, if H & H converted the rifle but the foresight band was wrong they wouldn't be paid so maybe they just stored the rifle hoping to deal with it at a later date or at the end of production, only problem with this theory is that apparently there are plenty of late BSA T's out there with original "off spec" solid F/S block bands out there. Anyone got one like that?
Loads of risky speculation here again but I like this thread a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blurrededge

I had wondered if the reason they didn't get the Enfield inspectors final stamp was because of the off spec solid foresight block band, if H & H converted the rifle but the foresight band was wrong they wouldn't be paid so maybe they just stored the rifle hoping to deal with it at a later date or at the end of production, only problem with this theory is that apparently there are plenty of late BSA T's out there with original "off spec" solid F/S block bands out there. Anyone got one like that?

---

At least one from '44. Probably more, but it's so common, I quit noticing! All have had scopes and have been "low mileage".

ETA: Two albums with wartime "T"s one has 95 photo, the other 30 some odd- No front sight photos!


But one, an "A" prefix '44 BSA has always baffled me by having it's matching scope being several years older than the rifle. No sign of it having had another scope assigned:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...tuff0151-1.jpg

Stock is Hollands' marked, and goes with the rifle...

The plethora of '44 scopeless rifles reinforces the theory that scopes may have lagged rifle production, so some few either went without or had scopes pulled from earlier unservicable units to fill the need. Have seen at least one other '44 rifle with the same sort of "mismatch" in scope vintages, whilst otherwise appearing "correct".

This is proving an interesting thread & I'm learning a lot! I must admit that I've always assumed (& it is an assumption) that the 44 scopeless rifles were converted at the very end of the production run, so as to use up any rifles still on hand. Why the rifles seem to be 44's rather than 45's I don't know, but I know Paul Breakey's theory re 'first in last out' would certainly make sense here. If, in the meantime, the loose pad problem had declared itself then it would be perfectly reasonable for H&H to be informed to stake pads on all rifles before they left the factory.

I don't think the lack of a D6E is related to the solid foresight block, though I could be wrong. I say this simply because I've seen a lot of 1944 T's over the years & I cannot remember one off the top of my head that DIDN'T have a solid sight block, apart from one which was an obvious replacement. Most of these rifles bore the typical markings, including the examiner's stamp. However, go back a year to 1943 & you will see lots of anomalies!

I have seen a few TR rifles that were never converted. I have a receiver of one awaiting a rebuild at the moment. As with Surpmil's mine is also a X prefix 1945 body. The other two or three I have heard of were also all X prefixes. The 'TR' is neatly lined through on mine, yet it bears the D6E examiner's mark - so I guess there's another anomaly to throw into the melting pot!

ATB

I like that last in first out theory, I can imagine those '44 rifles being stacked against a back wall at hollands or elsewhere, awaiting scopes and filling up a store room, then MK3 32s coming into the factory in increasing numbers as well as '45 rifles at the same time, they could have just carried on production and used the 44's as a fallback if the 45's arrival slowed down.

"stick 'em over there with them Savages, they'll all get used up in the end, who knows how long this bloody war 'll last"

Like most other wartime contractors, H&H were told one day that rifles completed by a certain day would be paid for and that work in hand would be paid for on a pro rata basis. Raw material that was supplied, such as telescopes and brackets for example would be removed. Incidentally, this material that was supplied to complete the job was called 'embodiment loan' material, (such as, say, the Pyrene CTC fire extinguisher supplied to Bedford to be fitted into trucks during manufacture). BUT if the contractor wished to retain this material, such as brass sheet or other valuable strategic material for example, for post war production, they could purchase it for a nominal fee. Any other material bought in would be paid for too. No doubt H&H made hay while the sun shone and completed all that they could and their job don't forget was converting rifles - not making telescopes which were simply an embodiment loan to complete the job don't forget. Well, wouldn't you do the same................? Nett result loads of useless rifles sent back wothout telescopes and loads more sent back, partially completed with absolutely no value or worth whatsoever.

I often wonder if it was these partially completed/now worthless rifles that are just an expensive way of storing fresh air were those we occasionally see turned into DP or Skeletonised rifles

So they just completed all they could and the rest of the stuff, in fact TONS of the stuff just stayed in draws and cupboards until it was eventually dumped when the factory closed. That's how I ended up with the boxes full of half machined brackets and pads and thumbscrews and...... and............. which you see pictured in the book.

An almost identical scenario manifested itself when production of Sten Gun parts came to an end. Production will cease on XYZ day to allow work in hand to be completed and paid for. Embodiment material purchased, taken away or mutilated (with thick white paint poured over in the case of one Sten gun parts contractor) and bought-in material paid for. All spelled out in that little book 'wo' I writ......' a few years ago. And a very good read too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

.....

I have seen a few TR rifles that were never converted. I have a receiver of one awaiting a rebuild at the moment. As with Surpmil's mine is also a X prefix 1945 body. The other two or three I have heard of were also all X prefixes. The 'TR' is neatly lined through on mine, yet it bears the D6E examiner's mark - so I guess there's another anomaly to throw into the melting pot!

ATB

---

So does mine Roger. One examiner's mark on either side of the bolt way. It also has "S" on the cutoff block, does yours? The TR stamps were later struck through, but are still clearly visible.

Sounds like ours are pretty much identical. It came to me years ago from where I can no longer remember, & it has been in the 'when I get round to it' pile for that long too! I suppose now I've little excuse, so I must assemble it into a complete rifle; it is worthy of a place in the rifle rack in its own right, I guess??