Help with a Number 4T

Hi Guys
I would really like to get some advise on zeroing my No4T please. I have just ordered "An Armourers perspective" but i still have to wait for it to come, and I'm confused, to say the least. Ok, I bought it last week for a very reasonable price (£1200 without scope) I bought it believing it to be a bitsa, no problem there. Honestly I am retired, and I can't warrant spending vast amounts of money on a toy, so I opted for one that I "think" is ok. The receiver is stamped for BSA and it has the TR stamp, plus the T on the action, although the woodwork has the S51 stamp, and the serial number stamped, it doesn't take a lot to replicate that, so I'm taking it with a pinch of salt. I'm pretty sure the pads are repro (they are not pinned either) The scope, I bought a few months ago, and yes sadly it is a repro, but at £300 I couldn't resist. Ouch, I hear the purists say, but until funds permit, it will do, or will it?

I took it to the range on Sunday to have a few sighters. I ended up scaling the distance drum to 500 yrds to get it anywhere near the target (50 metre range) and coming acrosss on the windage to it's limit. So, when I got home, I set about trying to adjust the drums. I managed to do the windage quite easily, but the distance one, well, for the life of me I can't seem to get it right, and the T bar looks far too low, consequently I've run out of travel at 400 yards (hope that makes sense.

In short, when looking through the scope the bar sits far too close to the bottom for my liking. I have a laser bore sighter and have "set" the sights on their lowest click. but it won't give me full travel up to 1000yards
I did read somewhere on here that it was possible to loosen the 4 retaining screws if the drum went tight, re-seat, then re-tighten. I hope this makes perfect sense to someone out there, as I'm getting ready to throw it down the range :)
Let me know what you think, I can take it I have broad shoulders :) Thanks

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.

Don't do anything with the scope until the pads are sorted! The front one looks way too high! Or the rear is way too low!

I agree with XL, there appears to be a slight issue with the front scope mounting pad - at least for the scope bracket being used. I wouldn't fuss too much with the mounting pads until you try a different bracket. I hate to say it, but the cheap bracket sold by the same mass merchandiser as your scope, is actually pretty accurately machined (in my own experience).

Jim

yep. what jimmiez said.

the mk I replica is a pain to zero. but possible. it took me awhile to figure it out but mine shoots accurately from 100 yards to 500 yards , that is the farthest i have shot mine.

the top drum adjusts elevation. up is down and down is up. meaning the reticle is moved up you will shoot lower and if you move the reticle down you will shoot higher. i take the adjustment tool. hold the outer ring tool steady and then move the reticle screw a little at a time until i like where it is.

the part i had trouble with is the scope will move in the bracket. i took some silicone strips and that stopped the scope from moving around in the bracket.


oh and take the sunshade off...

If I was going to be brutally frank, I'd say that you've been had there.......... I'd take it back. Then, if you really wanted to keep and use the repop scope and bracket, read and digest a series of articles about making a good useable, accurate repro No4T.

You could even use the duff pads that you have on the thing that you've got there........ or maybe not as you really don't need a climometer to see that the scope is canted upwards at such an angle that it'll never........... I won't go on but suffice it to say that in my humble opinion, there's bugger all that you can do to that rifle to get the bore to mechanically or optically collimate with the optical axis of the telescope. I could be wrong but..........
Now that I have said my piece, maybe those others not quite so diplomatic will enter the fray!

I'm not being grumpy Muffer, just saying it as it is. Call a spade a spade and all that although I've been told that we can't even say that now - or certainly not in Birmingham!

John B: I had a similar situation with my replica "T". You can see the scope tube on your rifle is angled up relative to the bore (amazing how sensitive the eye is to small angles). Your challenge is to collimate the bracket nearly perfectly to the bore as was done originally by H&H (see the book by Capt. Laidler). With the mechanics of the original and replica No. 32 scopes, there isn't enough useful adjustment built in to accomodate this much misalignment. I was able to physically modify my repro bracket (by filing) to get it very close and functional. Note that I was able to use a more modern Weaver K3 on it before the modification due to the greater tolerance of misalignment. Nice looking rifle- sure appears genuine. Good luck getting the scope properly set up.

Ridolpho

Peters post appeared while I was writing mine- hence the restatement of comments he made. I will add that your misalignment does appear quite a bit worse than the one I dealt with and in the end I almost ran out of material on the bracket before it came close to alignment.

i did not notice that before. but yeah some has to be done to bring the front lower.

Phew. There's quite a bit to digest there. I think I'm going to have to read the posts again, and understand fully what needs to be done. And I feel quite gutted to be honest. I mean, the pads are on, drilled and tapped, so there's absolutely no chance of moving them

Peter, are you saying the rifle is a nail? I was under the impression that it was a "T" but a bitsa. Now I'm confused? As for taking it back, it can't be done, my honour is my word Arte Et Marte and all that :)

it is not the pads, i think it is the bracket. if the pads are original. it is like they tapped and threaded the bracket hole too low. just my two cents. the sarco bracket fit my 44 BSA t like a charm.

Mr B, I think it IS the pads. Either the front too high or the rear too low exactly as XL says - and between us, we've seen one or two of these. But that's only my opinion

i will go with what you said......i am rather new to these.......it is the pads, sir.

Although it's a 1944, there's a 130 picture virtual tour of the 1944 Enfield No.4 Mk1(T) Sniper Rifle (Mfg by BSA Shirley - M47c) displayed in the United Kingdom - Milsurp Knowledge Library.

Here's close ups of correct pads (note rounder edge shape) and location vis-a-vis receiver on it…

http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...20_Medium_.JPG(Click PIC to Enlarge)http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...20_Medium_.JPG

Hope that helps ... :thup:

Regards,
Doug

Its the front pad, this is a repro one were you can take the meat off so it can be lowered, problem here is, its been fitted to the original holes, you need a new front pad. you can see it in the pics (the back of the pad is sky high on the body)

Start again or make a new one or get one of the front pads from AAS......

But Peters advice is the best, take it back as the price for the rifle is way too high.

Ok now I'm really confused:surrender:

I've attached a few more photos, don't suppose they will help, but i have measured it from "known points" and there is only a small difference Arrows in Blue, and if I pack the underside marked in red, with some thin sheet metal (something like a feeler gauge strip) will that not bring the back up?

And Peter........you still haven't answered my question about the said piece. Is it a nail? IYO:thup:

Well at least it's got some opinions going, if nothing else:dancingbanana:

John,
I am not an expert - but from what I can see, I think it's the bracket that's wrong.
In the pic below I have put yours above a genuine T from the Knowledge library. I have then drawn lines between various points and it all lines up just the same, as far as I can see.
May I suggest you try your bracket on another rifle, and another bracket on your rifle?
Another question for the experts is whether the rifle is a genuine T. Nothing I have seen on it looks wrong.
If yours is a genuine scopeless T with repro pads then £1200 is by no means a terrible price to have paid...

John, your known points are not datums and its not a point to take a measurement from, its all to do with the scope and the barrel you could see this by bore sighting , the issue here is the pads, (I say front one ) it can be fixed but, you shouldnt have to do this after spending what you did.

Whats wrong is you have been sold something thats been knocked up badly, someone has thrown on a set of pads and new timber and thinks it worth a kings ransom, its not.... if you cant take the rifle back then at least send the scope back, believe me the scope makes all the difference, and with a bit of time and effort you could have a good set up, I was out Sunday and early morning Monday with a repro L42, but it has an original scope on board and a few other original bits and its a real pleasure to shoot, in fact its the dogs reproductive organs.....

Well, here's a quick update, and can I say how thankful I am to everyone for the help and knowledge that has been given to me.
Well, I just happened to have another front pad, and as you can see by the photograph, my "other one" is different in as much as it's lower where the thread for the scope mounts. I know that my datum points were not true points but i was rushing, and really wanted everything to be right.
However, with a laser bore sight,at the same distance and position, the new pad made the sighting go up an awful lot, which means I can now, hopefully turn the drums to at least hit the target. I am pleased with what I bought, I've seen worse for more money, and in the future, I will get an original scope, it will still be a codge up, but for the moment, I just want to have some fun with it, so I'm up to the range tomorrow, with my fingers and toes crossed tightly. The distance on the screw thread between the new and "old" was 1mm

Thats good news John, but it hasn't got to be a "codge up"

For some 1mm does not seem a lot, but when I was serving my apprenticeship I was taught to file within 0.001 (one thou of an inch) now I can get it spot on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigduke6

For some 1mm does not seem a lot, but when I was serving my apprenticeship I was taught to file within 0.001 (one thou of an inch) now I can get it spot on

---

Now you're talking, that takes me back to my apprenticeship, filing and filing to get it right, and when i didn't get it right, it was thrown in the bin.........oh happy days :)

I really do appreciate the help and advice given today. fingers crossed I'll update tomorrow
And Mr Peter Sir, I do not mind straight talking, I prefer it that way, I'd just never give you a map, that's all;)

Thank goodness - it appears you're on the right track now. If your replacement front pad doesn't solve the issue to your satisfaction I've got another I could send you (gratis). the other one I have I believe to be an armourer's replacement for his field kit - the "meat" of the front spigot is a little more generous and has latitude to offer more adjustment options when hand fitted.

Jim

Right, once again, lets cut out the crap......... It is all rather academic whether a) it's the front pad that's high or, b) the bracket that's faulty or, c) the rear pad that's low because, cutting out the superflous crap again, you CANNOT alter the geometry of the rear pad because there's a bloody great 1/4" BSF hole drilled and tapped.
You cannot alter the bracket because the mating recess and thumbscrew is where it is - so forget it.
All you can do is to alter the front pad by bringing the bracket mounting spigot - the part upon which the bracket rotates - down so that the mechanical axis of the telescope tube which is (or should be) optically matched to the mechanical axis aligns with the bore of the rifle.

There really is no more to it that that. John, you've been sold a pup and I suspect that you have a bog standard No4 that's been made to look like a T. That is only my opinion I have to say. Others with more experience might choose to disagree and I don't mind at all.

What do you do to correct it................? Mmmmmmmmmm. There's only ONE thing that you can do and that is to listen to Big Duke when he says that a couple of mm's error on the rifle/pad/bracket fiting equates to many yards out at 200 yards when you take accumulative error into account and even then, we're not talking linear here, we're talking logarithmetical curved scales. So all you can do is to
a) make a new front pad that mates up to the bodyside and existing screw holes AND
b) ensure that this new front pad is very accurately machined so that when you screw up the front thumbscrew, the collimated graticle falls in the exact vertical linear plane of the bore of the barrel and
c) That the same accurate machining does the same, but this time brings the point of the collimated grat slap bang onto the horizontal linear plane of the bore.

How do you do that and rectify what you've got? You can't. That is why I say in the paper that tells you all in very simple laymans terms how to make a good repro that the first thing to do is to FIT TTHE FRONT PAD, secure it and work from there. You can tilt the front pad left and right by fine hand fitting before you secure it. But you can't do the same with the rear.

Now, please............ let's not have any more cr............. OK, I've said my piece

Oh, and Jimmie Z. There was NEVER, ever, never a replacement pad in any Armourers kit, never, ever, regardless of what anyone has ever told you. In fact, the pads were NEVER, ever even obtainable even from Ordnance. I appreciate that those more experienced than me will dive into their parts list and gleefully point them out together with the part number, but you tell them that Peter said that the parts list was just that. It was a list of PARTS and not a list of AVAILABLE parts.

And RobD. Look at the geometry of those crap and 'real' front pad photos again. You STILL think that this one is the same height? Go on, be honest!

Thanks Jim, I'll let you know how it goes tomorrow :)

Peter: Just purely as a matter of historical interest, what was the typical armourers procedure for fitting a used bracket from another rifle to a No. 4T in for repair? Were pads often removed and reshaped or was the bracket itself commonly modified? I know from posts on this forum that brackets fitted to two different rifles are fairly common and I own one that has three serials on it, including that of the current rifle (a well used '43 BSA). I can't be certain it's all genuine but I can say for certain that this very well used bracket is perfectly collimated with the bore on this rifle. Were original tolerances in the brackets (and in the pad installation at H&H) so tight that many were nearly interchangeable?

Ridolpho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

cutting out the superflous crap again, you CANNOT alter the geometry of the rear pad because there's a bloody great 1/4" BSF hole drilled and tapped.

---

Thats my fault, but have corrected it, what I ment to say was........... anyway its done now.

Ridolfo
I think you might be on to something. I, too, have 4 No.4 (T) rifles and can confirm that I can switch scopes (with brackets) between several rifles and require very little adjustment to re-zero them. The same holds true for the bracket I got from Dr. Payne.

Jim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimmieZ

I, too, have 4 No.4 (T) rifles and can confirm that I can switch scopes (with brackets) between several rifles and require very little adjustment to re-zero them.

---

The drama being that the pads were not finished machined until AFTER installation. The spigot OD and front pad face along with the beveled locating cuts of the rear pad were formed whilst the barreled action body was located by a fixture on a dedicated machine at H&H. (A converted old lathe bed, according to Peter Laidler.) So one would expect a high degree of interchangability on freshly converted rifles. I reckon there may have been some minor fitting required from time to time, but only a few thousandths here and there. But that interchangibity would be lessened as the rifles were used and services such as front pad resoldering were performed.

Any "as new" pads with spigots already machined are not from British military stores. Israeli, possibly. Fakes and forgeries for the most part.

A gross misalignment of the front pad to the rear in any direstion than straight fore and aft would mean that the rear pad's mating surfaces would not be fully engaged without some distortion of the bracket. Which is entirely possible, and unlikely to be noticed by most folk. Try "bluing up" the mating surfaces sometime to see what precentage contact is achieved.

I have had to "scrape in" a couple of well worn L42a1s. Although matching, they had only about 20-30% contact without really bearing down on the thumbscrews.

Sadly I have to agree with Peters view, from my limited experience with the T owning one and having brought Skennertons book and the No.32 by Peter the pads are the issue.
If it is a genuine BSA Shirley then some one who put those pads on was probably shot at dawn.
To give you an idea of the WW II tolerances they worked to at H & H when doing up the T's it was 2 thousandth of an inch, the front pad is done first and then the rear.
This is so the scope is exactly over the centre line of the bore and the horizontal axis of the bore and bloke yours is canted up at a fairly stiff angle.
I see the screws were not staked either on the front pads as on the T's they have multiple stakings so the front pad did not work loose as happened in trials conducted.
Which was an issue with them initially till they slotted the screws so the silver solder would lock in the screws.
Interestingly they kept the heat on the front pad whilst doing up the screws a bit each at a time so when it all cooled it acually tightened the pad harder to the reciever.
As well as permanently locking up the screws though the staking still took place Skennertons book and Peter Laidlers book are well worth the monies to procure.
A word on scopes mine is fitted with a Kershaw Mk III this was an improvement on the Mk II's as it has slipper drums so you do not need the tool that requires 3 hands to adjust the elevation and windage drum though all the scopes are now are fairly pricey.
I sincerely hope things work out for you.

I'll answer the question of 'they all fit' for the very last time on this forum. Look...... It's not a question of whether each bracket will fit each rifle..... Some will, some won't. It's a question of whether when it does fit, does the tip of the graticle post is EXACTLY upright and aligns EXACTLY with the vertical and horozontal bore of the rifle. EVERY time!

And to do this, the bracket has to be accurately fitted at the factory or subsequently at the Armourers shop so that the front and rear pad fit with no twist or strain or other deviation. That is to say when the front thumbscrew is tightened and the rear thumbscrew is removed, then the rear longitudinal ribs sit comfortably against the rear pad. And when the rear thumbscrew is tightened up and the front thumbscrew is removed, the front mounting sits comfortably on the spigot. No twist or strain..........

Now, here is a realistic scenario. Imagine if you could just swop brackets and telescopes and.......... I'm tempted to say stop asking stupid questions and get real. But imagine a group of snipers sat on the range for a day - as they do - and after a day zeroing the rifles go back into the armoury. Next day, out on operations and the rifle you get issued with just gets another telescope 'that fits'. Oh yes, it fits OK just as Jimmy says but do you really think it'll be zeroed when he really needs it.

That's why that are fitted, numbered and all cross referenced between rifle to telescope to bracket. This is why later in its life, probably after a series of mishaps, that the REME Inspection Board decided and issued the decree that if the need arises to remove a telescope from a bracket then the bracket WILL be numbered to the rifle because if not, then the unbreakable numerical link between rifle bracket and telescope will be broken. Think about it.

Going back to the rifle itself , is it the real deal as in the receiver/body ? any thoughts or is someone forging the inspectors stamps? ( post 1, top row of pics, picture No2 going from left to right)

Well I must say, not realising it at the time, but this thread I started has certainly given rise to a few questions, and forum members have provided some outstanding answers.

Anyway the long and short of it is, I took it to the range this morning, and could only manage 5 sighters, which was enough, because after the first 3 landed and I adjusted the rings, the next 2 went smack in the bull.(nearly)

So the different front pad I fitted made the world of difference, and I can only say, that if it is a pup, then it's a thorough bred one, It handles and shoots like a dream (100yards)
But then I'm easily pleased :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigduke6

Going back to the rifle itself , is it the real deal as in the receiver/body ? any thoughts or is someone forging the inspectors stamps? ( post 1, top row of pics, picture No2 going from left to right)

---

I'd like to know that too :)

But fitting a telescope don't make a rifle more or less accurate. It is already an accurate rifle by definition......., that's why they were deemed suitable to fit a telescopic sight to them.

When I said that in my opinion that it was a pup, I meant as a No4T - as shown and discussed. It can still be a VERY accurate bog standard No4.

Now see where it shoots with the new pad screwed firmly to the body and soft soldered (and please, NOT silver soldered as suggested by Cinders.....) and the graticle optically centred to the mechanical axis of the telescope tube and with bracket correctly fitted to the body.

That's the acid test........... But I think that I've said enough now

Further to bigduke's comment or question, this rifle does appear to have the D6E examiners mark in the most typical position. I don't think I've ever run into a thread on the forum where a rifle with this mark has been deemed of questionable origin by the panel of experts. The two fakes I've suffered through had some S's and TR's, etc on them but lacked that seemingly all important mark. Has anyone out there run into this examiners mark convincingly faked? The other most convincing attribute (as described by Peter L., Dr. Payne, etc), the incredibly well done H&H installation of the front pad, is certainly not evident on the rifle in this post (although the original pad may have simply been removed at some point). As always, posts on "T"'s attract a lot of interest.

Ridolpho (proud owner of two genuine T's, I think).

Sorry Peter, I think some wires are crossed, forgive me if I'm wrong......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

But fitting a telescope don't make a rifle more or less accurate.

---

But I shot that grouping on the attached picture with a scope, so at least it's "on"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Now see where it shoots with the new pad screwed firmly to the body

---

Again, the grouping was shot with the "different" pad fitted, to my mind, it's working
At the end of the day, I'm as pleased as punch, as I feel I have a rifle that looks the dog's doo dahs, and thanks to the advice given on here, it seems to shoot pretty good too.

I suppose when funds permit, an original scope will be on my Christmas list :)

Thanks again for the concise advice given by all, especially the in depth review by you Peter. I only made Tiffy in REME, but not an Armourer :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigduke6

Going back to the rifle itself , is it the real deal as in the receiver/body ? any thoughts or is someone forging the inspectors stamps? ( post 1, top row of pics, picture No2 going from left to right)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ridolpho

Further to bigduke's comment or question, this rifle does appear to have the D6E examiners mark in the most typical position.

---

Yah, but look at those examiners' marks closely...I suspect we've a new worry.

To get a real good close-up look at some images..... :)

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 center 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.

Hope that helps people who didn't realize you could do that with pics ...

Regards,
Doug

I took some shots with my micro camera. They are not very good, but at least they'll give you an idea, so the debate goes on :)

Hope they help

John, I don't know if you are likely to be able to make the motorcycle museum arms fair this Sunday, but if you could & were to be able to bring the rifle I'll give you my opinion FWIW. The $64,000 question is really whether it is a genuine T rifle that has been badly rebuilt or an out & out fake. I am not yet convinced one way or the other but think it may well be a real T that has been totally stripped 'naked' & then (poorly) rebuilt. Both pads are fakes, the woodwork including the cheekpiece is replacement. The S51 is clearly bogus & our tyro first stamped it the wrong way across the butt, sanded it out (but not fully) & then restamped it at least pointing the right way! You really want to take the barrelled action out of the wood, take the front pad off (if you've not already soldered the better replacement in position), & let us have more photo's, including the front lower face of the receiver to see if it possesses breeching up marks.

Cheers.

R.

I'll strip it at the weekend and take some more photos :)

jmoore: I've made a quick comparison of the photos of the examiners marks on this rifle with my collection of similar images I've saved from many threads. I must say they look pretty typical at first glance. Can you say what you see that is making you suspicious? I'll understand if you don't wish to elaborate as this gets well into the realm of educating potential fake builders. Thanks.

Ridolpho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ridolpho

jmoore: I've made a quick comparison of the photos of the examiners marks on this rifle with my collection of similar images I've saved from many threads. I must say they look pretty typical at first glance. Can you say what you see that is making you suspicious? I'll understand if you don't wish to elaborate as this gets well into the realm of educating potential fake builders. Thanks.

Ridolpho

---

It's the examiner's mark on the right side of the bolt raceway. But it's an earlier rifle, so if Roger Payne thinks it's OK, then no worries!

Hi Guys
just a few more pictures of the marks on the barrel, I hope they help in identifying if this is a pup or not :)
thanks

Hi John,
I could be wrong, but I think you have a real 4T that has been gutted in the past & then rather inexpertly (I'm being polite here) rebuilt.

But that's just MHO & it would be interesting to see how others see it. If I can help with tidying it up then drop me a line with your needs.

Best.

Roger.

Thanks Roger, could it not be an Armourers rebuild? No I'm clutching at straws. anyway the woodworks too new, and it has some nasty rings on the side where someone has put a sander over it or something :)
I have a gunsmith friend who will bed it in properly if i ask nicely