No. 4 "T" - strange conversion, strange scope

Guys,
A friend of mine today showed me his rifle. It is a No. 4 Mk. 1/2 rifle which was obviously converted to T after WWII. However, the conversion is extremely strange, with the rear screw directly in the receiver (without a base) the front base extremely offset to the right.
Additionally the scope which is easily identified as being refinished has a abnormal crosshair. Were there ever reticles like this? The scope anyway seems to be extremely early. Am I'm right it's serialized to a Canadian rifle? And what is the Cross on the scope bracket for?

Thanks in advance!

Of course forgot the pictures.. They are attached!Attachment 48364Attachment 48365Attachment 48366Attachment 48367Attachment 48368Attachment 48369Attachment 48370Attachment 48371

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

And what is the Cross on the scope bracket for?

---

Type maltese cross into the Milsurps search engine located at the top right corner of the site.

For example...

Markings on British Military Sniper rifles....

There's a lot of threads a pics discussing the various opinions on its meaning..

Regards,
Doug

Has your friend ever heard the phrase '.........as straight as a corkscrew'? It's home-made for sure

Some of these telescopes had a similar etched glass plate (actually, if it's etched it's a reticle and not a graticle/graticule) crosshair seated within the diaphragm a bit like a No42 or 53 but these were usually re-engraved No71 Mk1 or 2 or 3

Nothing even close to 7764 has ever crossed my work bench

The mount is kosher as h*ll and that is about all........
The serial number on the mount is around one of a few small lots done in the 64/65 range. No large runs, but small lots of 10 or so. Also some done in the 35L range
I'd love to see the reticule out of the scope as it looks like a type of the 71 reticule or another of the etched plate ones used in the Wombat or maybe even an Israeli conversion.
The Israeli's did some strange things with the 32 scopes they managed to procure.

Another interesting thing is the rifle markings - where was the conversion to "/2" done?

BSA rather than ROF(F)?

The rear pad is attached or stuck to the bracket, second pic bottom line.

Some good parts there. Scope and bracket belong on genuine No4(T)s.

That two down and one up screw configuration was Israeli I've read, but I find it hard to believe the Israelis would just slap the pad on without refinishing the rifle. Could be a genuine Israeli pad or pads grafted on by someone, somewhere. The damage around the screw holes and repeated stakings would support that.

It could be an Israeli pad but if it is it is different to the few others I've seen, which, apart from the one up two down pad screw hole arrangement were quite similar to the standard UK/Canadian type. Rear pads were generally squared off at the bottom edge, rather than following the radius of the 'ledge' as found on most 4T receivers. The front pad has presumably been set back a little to avoid having to machine the corresponding panel into the receiver side wall in order to get a flat surface for it to sit on. The front pad is staked multiply, but I doubt the Israeli's did the fitting to the rifle - it looks a homespun conversion to me.

Scope is a perfectly genuine Kodak Mk1. I have no idea who changed the reticle, but I doubt it occurred in UK or Commonwealth service. As Warren alludes, the bracket is probably the most interesting part, being a genuine Canadian 4T part, & bearing the Maltese cross & ordnance inspector's mark (contained within the oval).

Skip the rifle & keep the bits!

Happy New Year to all.

THat mess does raise one question though............. If the tele is mounted to the right of the line of the bore as opposed to directly above it (see photo 7 and 8), hoiw does he zero it? To do it properly it'll always be shooting slightly to the left of the aiming point. If you swing the grat so that the MPI is on the POA at, say 100 yds, you'll have increasing accumulative error thereafter

With the rear pad not being secured to the body I see no way to it could be zeroed to any degree of usefulness, elevation wise at least.

Good point VH. VERY good point in fact

The rear pad appears to have been soldered or glued on to the body plus won't the strong clamping by the rear screw tend to hold it in place? Peter- you mention in your book that the rear pads don't tend to be damaged by firing unlike the front one. But, of course, the proof of the pudding..... Promo- does your friend and owner of the gun shoot it and if so how well does it work? My real reason for responding is to ask the experts: why did H&H almost ubiquitously prepare their T's with a machined flat hard up against the receiver ring for the front pad? Most or all? of the No. 4 manufacturers machined a rectangular flat but, like the gun in question, it didn't extend right up to the ring. I assume these were in anticipation of mounting of a scope? Were they simply not well enough aligned with the bore? Many homebuilt replicas, of course, make use of the factory machined flat- some with adequate results.

Ridolpho

The rear thumb screw might hold it in place, until the the first shot is fired anyway. Vibrations will move mountains.

The scope pad on the rear has been glued to the bracket, the scope screws directly into the receiver. It shoots great, but of course always at the same distance at a shooting range. Would the reticle be replaceable/restorable?

€dit: I've attached the pictures once more, the one at the beginning were in small size and of bad quality. So here they are.

I still keep wondering why only the rear top ring of the bracket has a serial. Was that common among early scopes?

The scope bracket caps are mismatched. You can see the numbers have been removed from the lower portion of the bracket. The front has over sized screws and are breaking out of the side of the cap....definitely some issues. I believe that the reticule was damaged and replaced with one from a No42 scope. It most likely non adjustable at this point. Not the first time I've seen this. The pads look home made. i don't see any markings on the rifle to confirm H&H sniper conversion. Looks like an assembled sniper however I could be wrong.

Your rear cap is probably off a british set of rings.

Long Branch scope caps were/are not numbered in the british manner.

Early ring caps are marked for front and back, but the late 90Ls are not marked at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

The scope pad on the rear has been glued to the bracket

---

Glued or brazed? If it's not brazed then why the discoloration on either side of the rear leg? Surely looks like it's had a torch applied to me!

As far as being offset, one would treat it like any other offset scope (M1C, M1D, Type 97, Type 99, SMLE with Winchester A5, etc.) Just zero with the POI to the right of the POA the same amount (as close as possible) as is found on the rifle. In some cases drift at extended ranges will work with you, but it's probably not intentional.

The offset surely can't be all that much on this No.4 Mk.1/2. Not like one would find on one done on purpose:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff013-1.jpg

The pattern of the heat marks suggest to me that the rear portion of the cradle has been heated to aid in removal of the screws, or their remains after wringing off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vintage hunter

The pattern of the heat marks suggest to me that the rear portion of the cradle has been heated to aid in removal of the screws, or their remains after wringing off.

---

I believe that you're wrong.

Look again at the backside photos. A clearance has been ground on the inside of the bracket to clear the charger bridge...resulting in the heat discoloration.

This was neccesary probably due to the thinnes of the rear pad.

I don't see any pattern of heat marks or discolouration on the cradle itself. Are you sure that it's not just an optical illusion from the flash?

I can see what appears to be some marking on the rear pad where its fixed to the bracket but that looks to be from the Flux used during Soldering.

You're entitled to your own opinion Lee Enfield but that small amount of grinding wouldn't generate enough heat to discolor metal that thick. The heat pattern tells the story, the focal point was in the area where the screws thread into the bracket and it radiates outward from there. Seen it a million times.

Oops, feel a bit of a numpty now :red face: I was looking at the wrong picture! VH has called it spot on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vintage hunter

You're entitled to your own opinion Lee Enfield but that small amount of grinding wouldn't generate enough heat to discolor metal that thick. The heat pattern tells the story, the focal point was in the area where the screws thread into the bracket and it radiates outward from there. Seen it a million times.

---

I looked at the pic on a real screen and have to agree.