Appreciate help identifying my Enfield No4 with scope pads but not a real (T)

I would appreciate some help identifying my Enfield No4. I bought it because it had the scope mount pads for a No4 (T) but it is not a real one as far as I know. As you can see it says in the pictures it is a No4 Mk 1/2. I want to try to restore it as best I can and as it isn't quite the real thing I don't feel too bad about getting a reproduction scope mount for it. It also looks quite at home with a vintage JC Higgins 2.5 Rifleman scope, which is not right either but I can't afford a Chinese No 32 reproduction and certainly not the real thing. All in all, It's probably about as close as I will get to the Real (T) anytime soon.

But what is it really? Number on socket is 036360 with no other markings, I have included pictures of sort-of-matching magazine that appears to have had it's old number scored out and bolt.

Any additional information is very much appreciated, thanks.

Mark

It looks to have been in Indian service at some time; the cross screw in the fore-end, and the "RFI" marks on the cocking piece seem to indicate this.

The serial prefix looks more like a "U" rather than an "O" to me, particularly on the magazine.

What markings, if any, are on the right side of the butt socket? I think there's a good chance it's the real deal that was converted to 1/2 spec while in Indian service. Only thing throwing me is it retains it's Brit serial number. AFAIK during rebuild the Indians scrubbed most all the original marking and replaced them with their own, especially the s/n which usually begins with an A and ends with a T, Example...AxxxxT

The bodgie black enamel paint says "India" as well.

You may well have a genuine "T" there, just one from the earlier production before the various markings we're familiar with had been standardized. Quite a few of these rifles still around. The Injuns have hand stamped the markings on the side wall as after three coats of that roofing tar, or whatever they use, the original electric penciling is buried deep.*sarcasm*

I would glass bead all that crap off and refinish it. You might even get those horrible stampings on the side wall filled with tig welding and smooth off before grit blasting and parkerizing it. That is if the barrel is very good and the bolt matches; otherwise probably not worth bothering.

Might as well restock it too and get rid of that Ishy screw nonsense while you're at it.

Then send it down to BDL for a coat of Suncorite?

On the other hand... I woudn't necessarily change anything as it's all part of the rifle's history.
If genuine it served in the British army as a sniper in WW2 - then went to India (by reputation most of those that went there were 'well used' ie saw action) and was used by the Indian army for the same purpose. It's an interesting past - why wipe half of it away?
More pics of the receiver, pads and possibly barrel markings might be instructive.

I'm almost 100% certain that you do have a genuine BSA Shirley 1945 manufacture No4 T that has had the pleasure of being refurbished by the Indians.
Are you sure it's been converted to Mk1/2 as it still has a Mk1 fore end on it? Also, whilst I've not seen hundreds of T's that were passed on to the Indians I have seen several dozen, & all of the ones that were converted to Mk1/2 T were also the ones that had their butt sockets linished clean & the new Indian designation applied to the RHS (SMLE style); & were also given a new serial number, which yours does not have (It's a U prefix BSA rifle, which would date it to 1945). What one does find with the rifles that were left as Mk1's is the horrible untidy hand stamped 'No4 Mk1' ploughed into the receiver side wall. Most of the rifles left as Mk1's, whilst retaining most or all of their original Brit markings, also had the receiver side wall markings 'freshened up' in this way.
I was lucky to find a couple of rifles, admittedly years ago, that had not been so marked, & apart from the 'Ishy screw' they are exactly as per UK issue, & for that reason I have kept them.
I can't be sure, because even though not linished clean, the rifle has clearly been through Indian ordnance so will have been blasted etc., but if you do as surpmil says, & remove the quarter inch deep black paint, you may be able to discern M47/C & a date of 1945. Just depends if you want to refinish it or not.

But anyway, be pleased. You have a real T!!!!

P.S. Is it my eyes, but does the '/2' in the side wall 'No4 Mk1/2' designation look recently added? I would certainly not expect an Indian Mk1/2T to bear it's original serial number as this one does. It would generally be given a number starting with a letter A & ending with a letter T & be marked on the receiver ring SMLE style. Could a previous owner have thought (wrongly) that all Indian T's were converted to Mk1/2 & so he'd better alter his as well?????? Not withstanding this, I still think it is a genuine Indian issued Mk1 (probably) T & I'm delighted for the OP.

repto: Were it mine I'd leave it as is. If it were being offered to me for sale I wouldn't pay less because of its history- in fact to me it makes it more appealing than some of the like-new examples that show no sign of hard use. Congratulations on a great find.

Ridolpho

Attachment 50790

The serial number is "right" - here is my No4T converted to an L42
Assuming yours is a U then we are only 297 between them

Yours U36360
Mine U36063

Here are some of the markings and fore end mods usually found on a No.4 T rebuilt/converted while in Indian service:

Looking at the 5th picture real hard, saved and resized it a few times. It there a very faint "T" just above the ejector screw? Looks like it to me.

Thanks so much to everyone, I am amazed at how much knowledge you were prepared to spend the time to share. These questions and everything else I will probably ask are all about my Dad really who was the original gun enthusiast of the family. I know very little about these or any other guns but he's the reason I am trying to learn. When I moved to America 20 years ago from UK I really wanted to surprise him by having an Enfield we could take shooting when he made his only trip out here to visit. We went up to Chabot range near Oakland and had a great time with the first Enfield I had bought, which I will probably also ask some questions about when I leave a safe gap so as not to exhaust the enthusiasm for replying to my queries. This crusty maybe-T is the last of the three that I bought and I thought it was time to get to know it again. Dad has been unwell for a long time and is on dialysis every other day so can't travel out here again, but my fifteen year old daughter has inherited the gene and is very into learning to shoot. We've already done the basic Pistol class, bought a cheap pistol to practice with. For sentimental reasons I would like her to have a go with something British so I am dusting off the Enfields. This T I never did get round to shooting because I wanted to spend some time restoring it, but having kids made it a project that just never got completed. So decided to haul it out, buy a scope with enough patina that might look like it belonged at least. I am surprised to find out it might actually be a T that's had an interesting and well-travelled life.

When I thought it wasn't a real T I was thinking of abandoning the stock, with the exception of the fluted rear hand guard which seems harder to replace. Is there any chance anyone can tell from the photographs whether it is beech or walnut? You can see in one of the pictures the wood is split and a great flake is about to break off near the butt socket, any suggestions on gluing or repairing that? My woodworking knowledge is almost as poor as my gun knowledge.

Now that I know it's story I am inclined to keep everything it came with and just clean it up as best I can, crusty black paint and all. As mentioned by several of you, it does have a story and is not the imposter I thought it was, so like anyone with a lot of life experience and baggage it deserves to be loved for who it is.

I have attached more photographs to answer some of the questions, the bolt number does match and I am grateful to know that is a U and not a partially stamped 0. I tried hard to get a photograph of the bore but I could not get it to focus at the right place. To my very untrained eye, I could see the rifling but it was certainly not as sharply defined as the one in my other 1949 Long Branch No4 that I shoot with. Is this a problem? Should I get it looked at before trying to shoot it?

I very much appreciate all of the comments but for reasons that don't make a lot of sense I am absolutely thrilled to see Alan De Enfields 297 removed Serial Number Cousin. For some reason it makes mine more "real" and it's great to know it has a family out there despite all its been through.

Thanks everybody.

Regards,

mark

There's nothing on the other side that I can see.

That stock split in the first photo looks ripe for repair, while the wood within is still clean, if it is.

Curious what scope you're using there; I don't recognize it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by repto

I very much appreciate all of the comments but for reasons that don't make a lot of sense I am absolutely thrilled to see Alan De Enfields 297 removed Serial Number Cousin. For some reason it makes mine more "real" and it's great to know it has a family out there despite all its been through.

Thanks everybody.

Regards,

mark

---

A lot of things that 'Gun-Nuts' do doesnt make sense to the rest of the world.
We all need family to love !