#4 trials "sniper"

Good morning:
Here's another rifle which I have also been offered from the same collection. The original owner has passed away and the rifles are being sold by another fellow; the provenance of the items is not really known. Again, I have not had it in hand yet, and the photos are a bit blurry (not deliberate). It is a 1931 dated #4, set up as a sniper. However, there are a few things about it which strike me as odd. All could be explainable, but I'd like some opinions from those who have probable forgotten more than I have ever known.

1. The rifle has a Mk I scope with sunshade mounted on it, which is fine. However, the scope seems to be completely devoid of markings from what I see in the photos and from what I have been told. I've run across a decent number of Mk I scopes over the years, but they've all had a maker mark and model number on them.
2. The mount seems to be unmarked as well--there is a small mark on the side of the mount which the seller can't make out. The rear ring seems to be stamped with a 257, or maybe a 4 digit number with the second one not really visible.
3. The screws holding in the front scope pad are not staked. I haven't seen a photo of the rifle with the scope off so don't know what the rear mount looks like.
4. The rifle does not have the waisted front sight protector, or the hinged bands. These of course could have been switched out in the course of the rifle's service, but from what I've read about these (pretty much all on this forum is where the info is) all others described have the early furniture. Maybe someone has one which doesn't but it just hasn't been mentioned.
5. The front band and the metal "shoes" on the front of the top and bottom forewood are quite worn, which is fine, but the sight protector and the muzzle aren't, making me think they were mated together at different times in their service life. In my experience, if the bands are worn in finish, so should be everything else around them.
6. The rifle does not have a cheekpiece on it. There is no number stamped on the top of the buttstock. Where the number should be, as can be seen in the photos, the top of the buttstock has been badly chipped at some point, like perhaps it was jacked back and forth in a rifle with the stock bolt loose.
7. The bolt is the correct early type, but is un numbered.
8. The marks on the buttsocket seem to be scuffed in the photos--have to see it in person to know if they've been messed with in some way.
9. The magazine cutoff seems to be the earlier milled pattern, not the later stamped type which are described as being on these rifle.

Attachment 42026Attachment 42042Attachment 42043Attachment 42044Attachment 42045Attachment 42046Attachment 42047Attachment 42048Attachment 42049Attachment 42050Attachment 42041Attachment 42040Attachment 42039Attachment 42027Attachment 42028Attachment 42029Attachment 42030Attachment 42031Attachment 42032Attachment 42037Attachment 42036Attachment 42038Attachment 42051

So, thoughts? Real, fake.....? Could one ever know? It is a 1931 #4, which is kind of neat in its own right. It has an early Mk I scope on it, although it is unmarked. One could postulate it was set up as a sniper along with the rest and had its furniture changed out at some point in its life, and either never had a cheekpiece (did that EVER happen?) or the buttstock was changed. Alternatively, it could just be a #4 trials which someone ruined by putting a set of mounts and early scope on. Actually, looking at my own list of things which might be wrong with this rifle, maybe I can answer my own question......

Ed

Moderator Edit: After you click on images to ENLARGE them, you may find they automatically size smaller in your browser's window making them harder to view. The auto sizing is your browser's way of keeping images entirely within the screen size you have set. Move your mouse pointer to the bottom centre of the pic and you will see an options panel appear. There will be a small square box next to the large X, which will have a pointer arrow sticking out of it. If it's illuminated, it means the pic you're viewing can be enlarged, so click on this box and the pic will EXPAND and open to its normal size. You can then grab the pic with your mouse (hold down left mouse button) and move it around to look more closely at various parts of the photo.

Im no expert but the bracket looks bad repro to me and muzzle/forsight looks refinished unless its got a complete new barrel fitted.

Like BP no expert, but the bracket to me looks rough enough to be original going by the finish marks, just odd size rear holder ? but for me I would be more interested in LEC or LMC that is in pics 6, 8 & 9.....

Looks to be a Rose Bros bracket, is that a feint JG?

If the trials Sniper were not built up by Holland and Holland it makes sense hat the normal markings would not be there. That is the T, the TR , the S etc. I'm sure that Peter Laidlers' little blue book refers to some early scopes not being marked.

I agree with Simon in that it does look like there is a feint JG stamped in the mid of the bracket.

As to the darker finish on the fron sight and exposed part of the barrel, I would be removing the handguards to check if the barrel has been replaced. The foresight ears look like they are from a later production rifle.

Either way I would be happily parting with my cash to buy the rifle, it's just the price that would need to be determined.

Bolt action, do you want the acid test......................? Just mount the telescope and bracket on the rifle, set the druns to zero and see if the tip of the pointer is collimated exactly with the bore of the rifle at your diatant aiming point. If it ain't, then someones been playing around with it.

OR. Rotate the telescope and set the tip of the pointer to the optical axis of the bopre of the telescope tube. NOW mount it onto the rifle and do the same test as above. If it ain't correct, to within a few clisks left/right or a few mopre clicks up and down, then start looking more deeply

Just my starting poiint for these 'original, just as it left the factory' horror stories I've heard about. Not casting any aspersions on that offering at all of course. But always worth a chect

I would entirely agree with what Peter has said about assessing if the scope/bracket/rifle combo are genuinely mated, but going a little further to address the question of is the rifle/bracket/scope a fake then I'm pretty confident none of them are.

The lack of markings on the scope is far more likely to be because somebody has removed them at some point rather than for any other reason, like it being 'experimental' or whatever.

The bracket is probably a genuine JG marked Rose Brothers product, though I would concur the rear top clamp looks suspect & I think it has been heavily filed/linished, although has not had the numbers re-stamped onto it.

Within the limits of the photographs IMHO it's a perfectly real Trials No4 T but it has had many/most of its parts replaced over the years. The butt is most definitely a replacement as it is made out of beech. Not sure if the fore end is beech also & just a little darker. The butt marker disc looks as bright as a new penny, & as others have pointed out there is a considerable discrepancy between the remaining finish on the nose cap & the foresight protector/end of the muzzle. The barrel could be a replacement & the foresight protector clearly is. Maybe the vendor had a another needier Trials rifle & only one waisted foresight protector; or maybe he saw how much they make on that auction site!

It would be interesting to know if there is an EFD examiner's mark on the front pad & also whether the rear sight is of EFD manufacture (if it is is it a 4 or 6 click?). I suspect the pad probably will turn out to be examiner marked, & if the sight is EFD that it will be a 4 click - but I'm now sticking my neck out!

ATB

Forgot to mention but the bracket also looks to have been refinished.

A wild out of bounds question. Could that scope be a Bren telescope?

A "few" scopes from the same region of Canada have shown up with no markings and I suspect they were rusted tubes with the markings polished off. One such No.32 scope I recently checked out for a chap from the same area was an REL Mk.1 scope and again no markings. Once you get the scope in your hands and compare with a British and an REL you soon see the difference.
As to the trials rifles, I have three on the floor right now and all exhibit numerous different characteristics. The 1931 and 33's all show minor differences and does anyone have a 1932 that they can shoot me some pictures of or will they post them here. These trials rifles had so many reincarnations in their life time as a none standard arm I really doubt if two in 100 would be the same. One of mine came through India so "nuff said" on that one.

Thanks Warren. Out of curiosity, has anybody seen any Trials rifles with even year 1930's dates? It may just be the luck of the draw but every one I have owned has been a 31 or a 33, & others I have heard of have been 35 & possibly one 37 dated. What happened to 32, 34, 36 etc?!? I have owned 1930 dated No1 Mk6's, but here I am specifically referring to Trials rifles.

Pics of another Trials Sniper.

This one is on display at the National Army Museum, Waiouru, New Zealand.

Sorry, no serial or year details.

Appears that there is no scope number on the wrist, but it is fitted with both a centre sling swivel and an extra one on the front band - as per No1 MkV.

Attachment 42159Attachment 42158Attachment 42157Attachment 42160Attachment 42161Attachment 42162Attachment 42163

Tell that little boy standing by the grand old Centurion, that he is a little boy of good taste.

Here's another interesting Trials sniper.
31 dated yet it appears to be stocked with later British furniture and has the X marking on the top of the forend. No cut out for the cut off and an "Ishapore screw". The butt has the remains of a S 51 as well as several other Indian (?) markings. None of the markings are similar to the ones on my other Indian No.4(T). As you can see, no staking on the screws.
The finish on the receiver almost looks sandblasted or wire brushed. You get that pebble grain finish if over zealous with a wire brush and that is how the receiver and about 6 inches of barrel appears..
Attachment 42242Attachment 42234Attachment 42235Attachment 42236Attachment 42237Attachment 42238Attachment 42239Attachment 42240Attachment 42241Attachment 42233

Hmm. I wonder if it was refurbed by the Indians along with other 4T's & upon reassembly ended up wearing some other old girl's clothes?

The old girl has more mixed parts on it that the car in John Cash's car song.
The forend, even though marked with the X has the holes and cuts for the grenade launching sight. Parts run the gamete.
Trigger guard is LB and rear sight is F. Just cleaning the gunk off the wood right now so should have it back together in a couple of days to a week. It's been sitting here for a coons age and time to get the grease cleaned off it and in the rack.
No doubt it was severely overhauled by the Indians and what a mixed bag.

Non-original parts:
1. bolt
2. trigger guard
3. safety lever
4. magazine
5. trigger
6. backsight (the plunger has been thinned significantly so as to clear the shallower recess. The trials rifles were all spring and ball - no plunger, and as this is not the original sight, but a regular No4 one, the plunger would not fit in it's normal state. The sight has been ground to match as well by the look of it.)
7. cutoff
8. foresight protector and probably foresight block.
9. barrel (probably a 1950s Fazakerly)
10. butt and forend.

The scope is a bit of a mystery I must say. I had about 30 No32 MkIs I picked up in the UK in 1986/87 in various states of disrepair and all had the usual markings on them. If those were the ones you refer to Warren, this ain't one of them. I polished a few that were smooth enough to do so and had them reblued by J.P. who passed on those spare brass eyeshades to you at the time. Anyone who saw one of those tubes would know immediately they had been reblued! Most were too pitted to polish and one would have to be pretty stupid to polish off the markings in an effort to get a smooth tube when the correct finish for a rebuild was phosphate and Suncorite! In the end, that is what most of them got, but that was after they went back to the UK. I certainly never polished the markings off any. Did someone else have a stash of No32s out here?

Polishing the tubes would thin the markings somewhat, especially on W. Watson tubes which had shallow markings, but to completely erase them you would have needed to remove a lot of material. That would show up with a vernier, if not just by eye.

I see no signs that this tube has been polished; look at the wear and colour on the bluing, it corresponds exactly to the colour and wear patterns you would expect and those on the rest of the tube.

There is a problem though: if it were an early tube that went unmarked for some reason, the fitting of the drum plates or covers would be better IMO: notice the misalignment of the drum plates or covers. It was noticeable on those scopes I had that the earlier scopes had better fitting and finishing than the later ones. You could also see just from that small sample, the slight differences in manufacture: KL for example had a particular style of knurling on the drums and solder-filled markings thereon. W. Watson beveled the knurled edges more and had rounded corners on the drum plates like these. HBMCo. had a finer convex knurl and sharper corners on the drums and plates etc. etc. Same with the locking segment covers and screws: minor differences in manufacture and screws used etc.

Notice the different diameter locating pins on the drum plates: someone has grafted on one of the drums from a spare. Certain makers used a thick pin and certain ones used thin pins: they didn't mix. Could just be a service repair of course.

The drum block or turret is too rough cast or finished to be REL, nor do the details of the casting correspond, so it must be a UK made tube. My recollection is that KL had similar rough castings. HBMCo. and W. Watson smoothed theirs, at least those I've seen.

Would a scope have been accepted for service without markings? Seems doubtful. It should at least have some sort of acceptance mark or stamp; normally the Broad Arrow.

Overall the rifle has been massaged: the wrong cut off, the beech butt with marking disc carefully inlet LOL. The lack of a cheekrest...yes, someone has gone to some trouble!

Pads are right IMO, unstaked just means left UK service early on if I remember my reading correctly.

The bracket is close to being as smooth as an early Rose Bros. (going from the vast sample of two I had), but the rear cap is obviously a replacement. The gaps around the screw heads suggest they may not be tapered or in tapered holes.

If it was an ex-Indian rifle you'd expect the Royal Cypher to be ground off and the various other abuses we're used to seeing.

What of the Case, No.8 markings? Anyone?

Probably just another sporterized No4(T) that was carefully "restored" to as close as original as the owner knew or could get.

The scope is a mystery though!

Bigduke, the RNWMP LEC is a nice one, but sadly a mismatching bolt. I saw it at a local gunshow last Sunday. Asking was 2.5G CAN.

Quote:

---

The scope is a bit of a mystery I must say. I had about 30 No32 MkIs I picked up in the UKicon in 1986/87 in various states of disrepair and all had the usual markings on them. If those were the ones you refer to Warren, this ain't one of them. I polished a few that were smooth enough to do so and had them reblued by J.P. who passed on those spare brass eyeshades to you at the time. Anyone who saw one of those tubes would know immediately they had been reblued! Most were too pitted to polish and one would have to be pretty stupid to polish off the markings in an effort to get a smooth tube when the correct finish for a rebuild was phosphate and Suncorite! In the end, that is what most of them got, but that was after they went back to the UK. I certainly never polished the markings off any. Did someone else have a stash of No32s out here?

---

I've done a number of scopes from out west without markings and some I know came from the Edmonton area. Others farther west. They MIGHT have been part of the stash that a a guy got from Wainwright some years ago ( late 70's early 80's). Most of the scopes I had the chance to look at had been turned, polished and blued were finished with what appeared to be cold blue by the thickness and wear. Not the high quality blue that JP does. I also got one or two from the Winnipeg area. A possibility is someone who worked at REL or stores in Montreal 25 COD moved to the west with a trunk of "retirement goodies". Never did get any sun shades from JP so not sure where they went but it sure was not here.
The scopes that were sold off by Crown Assets from Wainwright were British and I cannot recall seeing a single REL in the lot. Most were well used, no mounts and just wrapped in brown paper with the usual duck tape type sealing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Bigduke, the RNWMP LEC is a nice one, but sadly a mismatching bolt. I saw it at a local gunshow last Sunday. Asking was 2.5G CAN.

---

I used to own that RNWMP carbine many years ago. It's a nice one, but I've advised the seller for the estate that it is likely not RNWMP. There is some variation, but for the most part, the Ross and Enfield rifles/carbines owned by the RNWMP were stamped with an oval stamp, not a crescent shape. This one has a crescent shaped mark, which is not described in Phillips' book and was as far as I recall only used on the Winchesters, which were of course NWMP. The "Royal" designation was added after their time. There is no stippling around the edges of the stamp. The carbine has had its stock lightly sanded and a coat of varnish put on, and that was another issue with the stamp. The Canadian Forces' M&D stamp and the rack number are rather faint, but the RNWMP stamp is deeper and newer. Since the stamps, if correct, would have been applied around the same time, they should all be equally faint. There is a faint other mark visible. IMO, the carbine may well have been in the Mounted Police service, based on the number stamped on the butt, but it has been massaged; I believe the RNWMP stamp is a fake. Others may disagree, but there are a lot of MP fakes out there. It is a sweet little carbine, mismatch bolt but otherwise complete and in nice shape. I have three, so didn't want it back even with a lower price, but if I didn't have one, I would buy it as a carbine, not as an RNWMP item. I believe the seller is going to lower the price.

Re: the sniper. I have decided to take the plunge and purchase the trials sniper. Even with several replaced parts, it is still a 1931 #4. Once I own it and have it in hand, I will disassemble it, take lots of photos of everything, including the mystery scope, and post them here for everyone to admire or castigate at will.

Cheers

Ed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warren

I've done a number of scopes from out west without markings and some I know came from the Edmonton area. Others farther west. They MIGHT have been part of the stash that a a guy got from Wainwright some years ago ( late 70's early 80's). Most of the scopes I had the chance to look at had been turned, polished and blued were finished with what appeared to be cold blue by the thickness and wear. Not the high quality blue that JP does. I also got one or two from the Winnipeg area. A possibility is someone who worked at REL or stores in Montreal 25 COD moved to the west with a trunk of "retirement goodies". Never did get any sun shades from JP so not sure where they went but it sure was not here.
The scopes that were sold off by Crown Assets from Wainwright were British and I cannot recall seeing a single REL in the lot. Most were well used, no mounts and just wrapped in brown paper with the usual duck tape type sealing.

---

That's interesting Warren. One thought that crossed my mind was were some unmarked scopes sent out as samples to REL when their production was getting going, the way some No4 MkI trials rifles apparently were?

But of course the Canadian Army in WWII were supplied with their No4(T)s from UK stocks, so most were UK-made rifles and scopes. I assume we brought them home again in 1945 and if these came from some retired weapons tech/armourer then he might have been concerned to cover his tracks and so polished off the markings. I have to say though, that even if they were cold blued at that time, perhaps even 30 or more years ago, that wear looks more like the result of long use to me.

Of course there was a story going around 10+ years ago of some 200 No4(T)s being destroyed in the Toronto area. If someone saved something from that lot they might have been keen to cover their tracks as it was probably all recorded to the last digit.

You'd think they could have done a better job of cutting and smoothing the magazine cutoff relief in the stock!

https://www.milsurps.com/attachment....9&d=1366023169

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boltaction

I used to own that RNWMP carbine many years ago. It's a nice one, but I've advised the seller for the estate that it is likely not RNWMP. There is some variation, but for the most part, the Ross and Enfield rifles/carbines owned by the RNWMP were stamped with an oval stamp, not a crescent shape. This one has a crescent shaped mark, which is not described in Phillips' book and was as far as I recall only used on the Winchesters, which were of course NWMP. The "Royal" designation was added after their time. There is no stippling around the edges of the stamp. The carbine has had its stock lightly sanded and a coat of varnish put on, and that was another issue with the stamp. The Canadian Forces' M&D stamp and the rack number are rather faint, but the RNWMP stamp is deeper and newer. Since the stamps, if correct, would have been applied around the same time, they should all be equally faint. There is a faint other mark visible. IMO, the carbine may well have been in the Mounted Police service, based on the number stamped on the butt, but it has been massaged; I believe the RNWMP stamp is a fake. Others may disagree, but there are a lot of MP fakes out there. It is a sweet little carbine, mismatch bolt but otherwise complete and in nice shape. I have three, so didn't want it back even with a lower price, but if I didn't have one, I would buy it as a carbine, not as an RNWMP item. I believe the seller is going to lower the price.

---

I thought I would include a few pictures of the LEC carbine including the buttstock for interest sake, so others can see what I am referring to. That stamp also has the appearance of being doublestruck. Nice little carbine though and would probably shoot very nicely.

The last three photos are of the RNWMP stamp on the butts of my Ross carbine and my LEC carbine. You can see that the stamp on the LEC is somewhat oval, while the one applied to the Ross is circular. Both are correct, and have a fine line of stippling around the edges which has not been accurately replicated on fake stamps. The LEC's stamps are faint because it too has been varnished at some point, but it can be seen that the RNWMP and M&D stamps are equally faint. Actually, the M&D stamp is a little deeper so shows up better. Must have been given a better whack with the hammer when being applied.

Attachment 42323Attachment 42335Attachment 42334Attachment 42333Attachment 42332Attachment 42331Attachment 42327Attachment 42324Attachment 42338Attachment 42336Attachment 42337

I picked the rifle up this weekend, and have taken it apart. Here are some photos of everything.
The buttstock is definitely a replacement--no screws for pads, no serial number on the inner socket. The picture I took of its only mark didn't turn out, so will redo it, but it was an SZ.

The front wood is un-numbered, but does appear to be an original low cut one for a cut-off, or if it isn't, it was quite well done quite a long time ago as the edges are worn as smooth as the rest of the wood.

The front sight ears are just standard, and not marked at all, and as I stated in my original post, very blue compared to the metal finish on the wood.

The barrel is a replacement, but I am not certain about the date of it.

The receiver is a nice original 1931 with quite crisp markings on it, but not stamped with a T. The scope pads are original as well, with an Enfield proof on the top of the front one. The cutoff is an early pattern one not later stamped so may be a replacement. The rearsight looks correct to my eye, but utilizes a standard plunger underneath it, so not sure if that is right or not.

The bolt is a replacement--no number, solid bolt handle. The cocking piece is a correct button style but interestingly is an early Long Branch one from a Mk I.

The scope seems to be in an original mount, I think, but the scope itself is completely unmarked. I've included lots of pictures of it, so those who are more familiar with these than I am can comment.

Any questions, or anything anyone wants closer pictures of, let me know.

Thanks.

Ed

Attachment 42708Attachment 42709Attachment 42710Attachment 42711Attachment 42712Attachment 42713Attachment 42714Attachment 42715Attachment 42716Attachment 42717Attachment 42718Attachment 42719Attachment 42720Attachment 42721Attachment 42722Attachment 42723Attachment 42724Attachment 42725Attachment 42726Attachment 42727Attachment 42728Attachment 42729Attachment 42730Attachment 42731Attachment 42732Attachment 42733Attachment 42734Attachment 42735Attachment 42736Attachment 42737Attachment 42738Attachment 42739Attachment 42740Attachment 42741Attachment 42742Attachment 42743Attachment 42744Attachment 42745Attachment 42746Attachment 42747Attachment 42748Attachment 42749Attachment 42750Attachment 42751Attachment 42752Attachment 42753Attachment 42754Attachment 42755Attachment 42756Attachment 42757

of the trigger guard.

Attachment 42759Attachment 42758

Thanks Bolt Action. It is a genuine 31 Trials T alright, but it has been extensively through the mill & pretty much all of the parts on it are replacements - many from Fazackerly, including the barrel & trigger guard. Having said that, the most important bit - the body with the pads on - is correct. Well loved, but correct! The rear sight is a Singer made (SM = Singer Manufacturing) replacement I'm afraid. You can see where the plunger has been messed about with a bit in order to make it fit; a common problem encountered when trying to restore one of these rifles. The F56 on your barrel is the place & date of manufacture.

Enjoy it!

ATB.

Thanks for the information, Roger. What do you make of the scope? I don't think I'm going to do anything too much with the rifle, aside from maybe getting a replacement cheekpiece and putting it on the butt so that the height is correct for shooting. I'm happy to have an original trials #4, although I probably paid too much for it. Hard to know I guess when some of the replacement parts were put on, but not a biggie. I'm going to get it checked out for headspacing and such, and then see how it shoots.

Cheers

Ed

Thx BA. I must confess I'm less sure about the scope. It's clearly a run of production item that has either lost its markings or for some other reason was not marked. I know from previous comments in this thread that both Surpmil & Warren are aware of a history of some unmarked scopes turning up in Canada some years ago & I really can't comment on this, but in my experience it is far more likely that the scope is a standard Mk1 that has been skimmed rather than something very rare or 'experimental' that was never marked. If so, I'd admit it doesn't look to have been done recently, but depending on the storage conditions, something done 30 years ago can soon become difficult to tell from something done 70 years ago. You could get hold of a micrometer & drop it across the tube. Oh I also forgot to mention that the bracket is also a genuine (refinished) Rose Brothers example & you can indeed still see the 'JG' examiner's mark on the central 'strut'. The rear top cradle clamp is, IMHO, a 'home made' replacement, or at least, a very heavily worked over piece from another bracket. Note due to the heavy filing or linishing that there is some encroachment into the tapers for the cradle screws. Even so, you have a pretty rare rifle. Maybe some fellow forummers North of the parallel can comment on the scope?

ATB

My honest opinion of the scope, looking at the file marks across it is that, yep........, the markings been filed clean by a butcher as a quick micrometer check will show! You can occasionally see the original serial number of the scope on the OG lens housing or scratched into the stop-down shutter of the erector cell

Thanks Peter:
Presumably that would have been done because the scope was being "liberated" out of service on a dark and stormy night? Maybe one of the scopes someone else (was it Warren?) was referring to which were allegedly removed from sniper T's being sent for destruction? Does anyone have the correct micrometer measurements for a Mk I scope so I can compare?

Thx

Ed

The outside diameter of the No32 tube is an easy one to remember. Exactly 1"

Interesting question as to why the number has been obliterated. I never understand why one would obliterate a serial number because it's just a sure-fire way of saying that I have got some stolen property! And anyone stealing a telescope 'in service' would really be taking a HUGE chance because the telescope, being serially numbered to the rifle AND of itself AND being a what we call WOCS (War Office Controlled Stores) item is highly controlled and all that goes with it. Loose one and the proverbial would hit the fan before you could.......... anyway! Then there would follow a what we call a Board of Enquiry as the start of the Army judicial process. To learn about that, something that I experienced at first hand, read the article about the Centurion Tank titled 'Revenge, extracted in full'

But, that being said, we did have a scope and bracket appear in our Armourers shop one day, found on the 600 yard firing point, presumably left by the snipers the day or week before. Only some judicious book cooking can cover a loss like that and if the long serving Quartermaster would cook the books to cover such a loss, then......... Anyway, I never came across one!

The rear "cradle cap" (isn't that a childhood disease? ;-) is a replacement.

File marks on the tube are obvious as Peter pointed out, sad but true. From those beveled screws on the "cover, segment, locking, cell, erector" or words to that effect, and the rough casting I would bet this was a KL scope, before it met the mill bastard, so to speak. The knurling on the drums is right for them, despite the lack of solder in the numbers.

The 1956 Faz barrel probably came from the same rifle that donated the trigger guard and sear. Could be one of those UF56 rifles that were sold by Parker Hale in the 1960s. Quite a few of them seem to have turned up out here. The sale mark is not normally seen on Mk2s AFAIK.

The Long Branch MkI cocking piece is worth a few bucks now.

Forend looks right and UK production(?) Handguards are LB obviously, the rear one at least.

The fitting of the pads looks a tad rougher than other trials "T"s with lower serial numbers: file marks on the top of the front pad, slightly off-center threaded hole in front pad.

The marks made by the shell mill cutter on the front pad are interesting. The mating surface on the front pad needs to have its edges carefully dressed to remove the burrs that have developed around the outside edge.

The edges of the receiver underneath look rougher and less well dressed than one normally sees on trials No4s also.

The setting pointer on the elevation drum is a nasty bodge compared to most others.

I can't be as sure as I thought I was in my previous post about the originality of one of the drums to the scope. Could be either way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

...file marks on the top of the front pad, slightly off-center threaded hole in front pad. The marks made by the shell mill cutter on the front pad are interesting...

---

Had noted that, previously but keep getting distracted, so no comments until now. The threaded hole has the worst concentricty to the spigot that I've ever seen! Which would imply that the hole was cut in a completely separate operation on this early conversion. Would have to think that the bulk of the spigots and holes were formed in a single operation in H&H production. Easy enough to incorporate a drill in the center of the shell mill when new cutters were made.

The circular marks on the face of the pad are indeed odd. But other machine marks are consistant with Enfield manufactured front pads.

As far as the rest of the rifle is concerned, it seems most appropriate to keep it's WWII or later guise. Just "lose" the cut-off in this case.

ETA: Thinking a bit further, if it was mine, I'd probably set it up to reflect the latest major parts installed. So a birch Post WWII Fazackerly forestock (they seem to be most common, and ought to bed up better than the early WWII "funnel" fore stock). And probably a late Fazackerly cocking piece. With the late barrel, those two items seem more like "artificial enhancements". The scope is kind of expensive to do a swap out, but then a Mk.3 scope would about complete the picture.

But it is what it is. An "Enfield Trials Rifle" action with Enfield scope mounts and most of an unnumbered bracket! The rest is optional and can't easily linked to the military history of the core.

ETA2: The sear is kinda cool, too. Lightened on the underside.

Thanks. My feeling is that the rifle is an original trials one, which probably in the course of its service lost its scope and was just reissued as a plain #4, or else was "sporterized" post war. Someone then tried to bring it back by the addition of the cutoff and a early scope with an original but repaired bracket. If I were to leave this rifle as it is, it is not correct because it is a marriage of miscellaneous parts. If I were to try and get it to "sniper" configuration I would have to get a new butt and a replacement cheekpiece, which would not be original either. I don't feel that this rifle should still stay as a "sniper" rifle, since it has lost pretty much all of its original "sniperness" except the pads. I would be inclined to get a nice stock which matches the finish on the barrel (the most recent addition), and that would include a new butt which doesn't have chips whacked out of the comb and nice furniture. I would switch the rearsight for a late war or post war rearsight. I would switch out the bolt cocking piece, since this rifle would never have had a reason to have a Mk I Long Branch on it. I would remove the cutoff, since it would have been removed in service anyway, and then one wouldn't have to fit a low rise stock. I would ditch the scope and mount completely, since they are not original to the rifle. That would leave me with a trials receiver and action fitted out with late war or post war stock and furniture, and it could then be kept or in future sold as what it is, which is a nice well used Enfield trials rifle.

Does anyone have any need for the bracket or the scope?

And, does anyone North of the border have a nice stock set from a Brit #4 l(preferably Faz) lying around (including butt?). I hate to trash another full wood just to get the stock................

Ed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boltaction

I thought I would include a few pictures of the LEC carbine including the buttstock for interest sake, so others can see what I am referring to. That stamp also has the appearance of being doublestruck. Nice little carbine though and would probably shoot very nicely.

The last three photos are of the RNWMP stamp on the butts of my Ross carbine and my LEC carbine. You can see that the stamp on the LEC is somewhat oval, while the one applied to the Ross is circular. Both are correct, and have a fine line of stippling around the edges which has not been accurately replicated on fake stamps. The LEC's stamps are faint because it too has been varnished at some point, but it can be seen that the RNWMP and M&D stamps are equally faint. Actually, the M&D stamp is a little deeper so shows up better. Must have been given a better whack with the hammer when being applied.

Attachment 42323Attachment 42335Attachment 42334Attachment 42333Attachment 42332Attachment 42331Attachment 42327Attachment 42324Attachment 42338Attachment 42336Attachment 42337

---

Just posted on Canadiangunnutz.
Gord.