Printable View
Have been reading up on the Post WW2 work on converting rifle to the T configuration and how slow it was in comparison to war time production.
What I'm wondering is, whether the Ts being produced in 1945/46 were all from 1945 produced rifles or whether rifles from previous years were converted into Ts at that time and whether a 1943 or 44 rifle with a 1945 scope should be considered a plausible rifle system or a fake.
That's actually a series of questions & not as straight forward as it may at first seem. The wartime contract with Holland & Holland did not cease till April 1946, so as you say rifles were being set up until then.
I don't know of anyone who can say unequivocally whether or not post war dated rifles (ie 1946) were ever set up, as none of us have seen or at least had access to the serial numbers of every No4 T ever set up. In my personal experience of a fair number of 4T's & L42's I have never seen a rifle dated later than 1945, but in amongst the list of L42 conversion serial numbers that Simon & one or two others have are one or two very late BSA serials that look to me as though they could represent possible 1946 rifles (Y prefix). But, one cannot be sure from serials as I suppose the Y range could have commenced in late 1945; I certainly can't say for sure. Maybe someone else can.
Your second point over whether earlier rifles were converted at the end (the scopeless Savage & BSA rifles are often mentioned) is also a difficult one. I think the general opinion seems to be that some early rifles were partially converted late on. I have always had some reservations about this subject & I don't want to muddy the waters too much but there are minor variations in the shape of 4T front body pads that studying them over the years reveals; the front pad on a 1945 rifle will be subtly but most definitely different in several minor respects to one off say a 1943 rifle. Having seen quite a few Savage Mk1* 'less T' rifles over the years, their front body pads have invariably been of the 'early' type not the 'later'. But, I suppose pads could have been fitted but not final machined early on, or I could just be talking a load of XXXX! But as I said, the official view is that some BSA rifles (the ones I've heard of have mostly been of 1944 mfr) & a quantity of Savage rifles were completed then, minus their scopes. I have never heard of earlier rifles being fully completed with Mk3 scopes in 1945/46, so I would doubt that you are likely to see a 'genuinely originally matching' 1941/1942/1943 rifle with a Mk3 scope.
Having stated the above, one has to differentiate between 1943 (& earlier rifles) & 1944 rifles. In my experience 1944 rifles may commonly be found with Mk3 scopes (the Mk3 went into production in the Autumn of 1944). However, they can also be found genuinely matching with Mk1, Mk2 & Mk2/1 scopes as well. The Mk2/1 appeared in 1944 & the Mk2 was produced through most of 1944 too. There is also the oddity that the scope manufacturer William Watson was bombed by the Luftwaffe & introduction of the Mk2 scope was seriously delayed, hence 1944 dated Mk1 scopes produced by Watson are not uncommon. It therefore follows that one might plausibly expect to see one of these Mk1's on a 1944 dated rifle, though I've not owned one as yet.
Does this help or have I confused you more?
ATB
RP, fasinating. Pads...were they a job lot? make eg 10000 in 43 and then just use up the stock? and make more in 1945? or small batches as they went along?
Do the front pads differ in thickness? if its all jigged I assume they wouldnt have to be.
To be honest, I don't know ssj, but they vary a little as production goes along, so I suspect they were probably made in a number of batches rather than just a couple of big ones. As we know from Peter's book the final machining of the spigot was done with the pad on the body of the rifle anyway.
ATB
I dont have Peter's book, yet...
---------- Post added at 08:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:39 AM ----------
I think I read that the front pad could be replaced by an armourer? if the original was machined after, then potentially its in-accurate? or did it go back to H&H for that?
It is quite easy to replace the front pad but a skilled job to ensure the scope still collimates to the bore after the job has been done. Peter will correct me if I am wrong but I would assume an experienced armourer would be deemed qualified to do this.
ATB.
Roger, based upon what you're saying above the setup below seems implausible....Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
Attachment 58747Attachment 58748Attachment 58749Attachment 58750
Hello. Yes. The scope & bracket have been added after the event, IMHO. The font of the rifle serial on the bracket does not look right. I can't quite make out the serial of the scope stamped on the butt, but assuming it is that of the scope illustrated, I would suggest it has either been added to the butt of a scopeless rifle; been added after a previous number has been sanded out; it is a replacement butt. There is no receiver side wall T on this rifle so I think there is a good chance it is one of the 'scopeless' rifles, & so there may not have been a scope serial on the butt until someone added this one. Of course, it could have been done in service, but I doubt it, as if done in service it would probably have been as part of a FTR with a wholesale refurbishment & refinishing of the rifle.
I am also a little worried about the area on the body of the rifle just behind the ejector screw - has there been some welding or other interference here? If you have a chance take the scope & bracket off & have a good look at the fit of the rear body pad.
P.S. Bolt body looks likely a replacement as well.
Gentlemen, I need your expert advice:
Situation: a friend had a nice ’42 Long Branch Enfield, but its barrel was bent about 4 inches aft of the muzzle crown.
Original Plan: I purchased the '42 Enfield from him for $150, with the intent of finding a good Long Branch barrel, putting the good barrel on the ’42, and thus creating a restored gun.
Purchase of Donor Gun: I found a ’44 Long Branch, just receiver (stripped), stock, and barrel for $38 plus shipping on Gun Broker. It has a good, shiny, straight bore, 2-groove barrel. The receiver looked like Bubba had “upgraded” it with an aftermarket scope. Allocating $100+ for the gunsmith to put on the new barrel, I had a decent gun without overspending on the project.
The Surprises: However, in my elation to find a barrel, I inadvertently did not see from the photos that 1 ½ inches had been cut from the muzzle crown when it was sporterized. (Mia culpa, caveat emptor). But there may be a silver lining: There is a possibility this was originally a Sniper outfitted at Long Branch.
The Evidence: (see pics) On the left side of the receiver, the three empty screw holes seem to match a sniper bracket, and the remaining rear 2-holed bracket still has the original Suncorite on it, and the bracket is a precision fit. On the top of the stock are screw studs where a cheek plate was once fitted, and on the top of the stock just behind the butt socket is a stamp code 15639 (a little hard to make out all the #s). The stock is walnut, not maple (which would be common with the 1944 serial #71L0279). Underneath the serial number on the butt socket is a stamped code: P 12. There are no other cartouches on the stock. What’s clearly missing is a “T” on the receiver or butt socket. There are all the other miscellaneous proof marks on the barrel. No import marks. (Attached are pics of what’s evident. )https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...chjpgdl0-1.jpghttps://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...dejpgdl0-1.jpghttps://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...erjpgdl0-1.jpghttps://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...cejpgdl0-1.jpghttps://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ckjpgdl0-1.jpg
(if these little boxes don't open up, just right-click and choose "open in new tab." I'll figure out how to master this pic insertion soon) or hit this link: Dropbox - 1944 Donor Enfield
Questions:
a) Was this originally a sniper? If yes, should I restore it? Or is it too far gone? Would I be best just putting it back into sporterized configuration? (Note: Bubba is an “alien creature” in my workshop, so I’d rather do nothing than do something that screws up a piece of history and I’m not proud of the results.)
b) Any thoughts on what to do with the cherry ’42 Enfield with the bent barrel?
Thank you for your wisdom, insights, and advice.
Robert
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
Thanks.
Variations in pad dimension can also be attributed to cutting tool wear. Sizes vary as the tools ware and are replaced by sharpened or new tools.
It might be my eyes but the photo's are a little blurry (I could only open them on drop box), but within those limitations I think you probably have the real deal. The serial number in the 71L range is also in a known range for Long Branch snipers. I would certainly try to restore it (but I'm biased!) though it may take some time to track down an original Canadian front body pad. Other parts are generally much easier to find.
Well done!
Thanks Roger for the expert advice and quick response.
Now my strategy will be to restore it, even if it's missing an inch and a half of barrel (perhaps I'll have a muzzle brake threaded on the muzzle stub to give it a functional look to the missing nose) and look for the parts over the next year. If anyone has leads on the right parts in a box, please let me know.
As for the baby with the bent barrel, I'm sure I'll be able to hunt one down.
From the pics and description of the rifle in question, I assume its the one for sale on Guns International. I assume it's not worth the $3995 they're asking. LolQuote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
22963 when you blow it up the mark on the extreme left of the wrist appears to be a 2 possible mistamp who can tell?
Though looking at the scope on my T there is no staking of the screws on the other mounting bracket on the weapon in question did they discontinue this practice Peter !
That's a very early Mk3 scope Cinders.
Wow..... zillions of Q's . Pads were made by the machine shop in the incomplete format shown in the book. Sorry if some of you ain't got it but they are shown there in the stages of manufacture. And the next answer has been told a zillion times on this forum so I won't elaborate too much. On a telescope rifle, the pads are fitted to the body WITH THE FINAL MACHINING AFTERWARDS solely to mechanically align mechanical HORIZONTAL, VERTICAL AND LONGITUDINAL axis if the bracket with the mechanical axis of the bore. So that when the telescope is fitted, the optical axis of the telescope is exactly aligned with the mechanical axis of the bore of the bracket WITH THE BORE OF THE BARREL - WHEN FITTED TO THAT RIFLE. The actual BODY of the rifle is simple a vehiucle that enables this collimation to take place. That's why they are cross-numbered*
So please, please, get out of your heads that this is a simple operation. It IS simple to get it all to cock. But highly skilled to get it correct
Armourers did RE fit pads to the rifle when they became loose but NEVER, ever did anything else. That is why while Armourers might change a telescope for a later one for several reasons, the thought of changing a bracket was a bit of a long winded chore - edging towards the '.....i'm in for a nightmare days work' scenario! They all seem to fit from an enthusiastic amateurs point of view, but an Armourer - and even more so a sniper - wants the pair fitted PERFECTLY.
*Reason for some brackets numbered and some not also explained earlier
Just a word of advice sea splitter regarding your idea of a muzzle brake (thread 13.....). You can either fit a muzzle brake or an optical sight. But not both. Certainly not if you want to hit a target!
Peter may I ask why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
I have just been firing a 338/375 WB with a side venting brake. It has less recoil than a 308 but the percussion is bad if you are in the wrong place like lying next door. It is so gentle a slip of a 12yr old lad fired it as well then asked if he could use it instead of his fathers 308. After looking at the monitor display of his shots we all decided he needed the 308 handicap.
Thank you Peter. I think I'll do it the right way and find a first class barrel from another Enfield and just replace the short nosed barrel. I'd rather spend the money to do it right the first time than live with a poor man's jury-rigged quasi-fix. Then I might be a tad poorer, but Bubba won't haunt me at night.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Sea spriter, you should also read and fully digest the thread about making a replica No4T as what you are doing is pretty much the same thing......., but startiung with a pre drilled body. But that could be another whole can of worms............
G'day Bindi. Muzzle brake on a No4 barrel. I will say nothing more than to suggest you fit a bayonet to your No4T and see what happens. It's all to do with dampened harmonics and they say that the only people who REALLY understand harmonics are those with a degree in music - which I ain't not got!
Strangely enough, Australia wanted to utilise a fluted L7GPMG/L4 Bren type flash eliminator on the L42's that they had on trial in order to eiminate the muzzle bulges that had become apparent during UK trials. I don't know what became of it but we solved the problem by increasing the o/d of the barrel at the muzzle before they were accepted into service. This is one of the reasons you'll see some L42 serial numbers issued TWICE. Yet another useless bit of Enfield info
Hi Roger this is what the scope it is attached to, I have cleaned it up a bit since these pics, the bolt handle and scope had a few patches on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
It is a '44 BSA Shirley and its serial No. is mentioned in Peters book as being used for pad trials (when they had issues with the front pads working loose) so it has some history that is proven by an expert on these rifles on the other side of the globe and it is a safe queen for obvious reasons.
Thanks for the info on the AK&S Roger.
Postscript ~ I had mentioned to Peter ages ago the T would not group and the draws were somewhat battered as the guard trigger front screw was allowing the whole action to rock on it even though it was tight so I had it re bedded (not quite the way it should be) I thought the scope was out as previous attempts produced less than satisfactory Mil specification group size.
I had asked a few questions of the really senior person (not age related) about a trip for the scope across the waves as I was trying to get to the bottom of its poor efforts but I found through trial and error that Win-748 is not the go with 303's having tried it in 3 different 303's with 174 SMK's so it was back to 2209 powder we went with my basic load using SMK's.
I had tried it from my Rock steady rest and it was just terrible so no rest the next time with the old back to basics load it landed 3 shots in an inch in the chest of a Fig.11 so shifted POA to the head next 3 shots in 3/8" this at 100m prone with sling the marker giving me indicated values and the group sizes by radio (Asked if I wanted to sell it ummm nope sorry.)
So that's the story of my T and it may not be traditionally bedded but I will be flashed and ashed when my son decides it may have to find another home but he is pretty keen on owning it as a 15 y/o shooter but not yet bucko.
Thanks Cinders. I just noticed it's a very low serial number for a Mk3. I have a 44 dated Kershaw Mk3 but it's low 17XXX, & I've owned or seen 16479, 16480 & 16481, & all were Mk 2's.
Thank you Peter. I have downloaded all your available articles, and am in awe. I now understand the distinction between an "amateur collector/restorer (me)," a "gunsmith," and a "Master Armourer." I think, at the age of 67 years, I am now beginning an apprenticeship in the hands of an expert team that carries on the craftsmanship and tradition of the Brown Bess and Kentucky rifle (both in my collection -- but I'd never dare to shoot with them!). Best Wishes the Milsurps Team of experts for Christmas and the New Year -- 2015!Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
I was told in the 1980s by one of the two brothers who ran H.W. English & Co. that they had bought about 5000 MkI scopes from the Ministry of Defence in the 1950s. I see no reason to disbelieve him as they were the largest dealers in surplus optics in the UK and had huge quantities of both Allied and German optics. Some were in the Cases, No.8 with the brackets and these they used to sell for £5 each he said, though that was a price from the 19950s or 60s I suspect.
I concluded from the quantity that these scopes from rifles that were refitted with later marks of No32 scope after WWII, while the complete 'sets' were perhaps from rifles that were lost, destroyed or sentenced B.E.R. after WWII. If so, there could well have been some thousands of rifles that were so upgraded during overhaul. But I see no evidence that this happened during WWII, or even shortly afterward. The greatly reduced post-war R.O.C. would probably have been very busy 'cleaning up' from the war, among other tasks, and large refurbishment programs don't seem to have got underway until 1948 or so.
Just my guesses of course. ;)