No4MK1 "T" RESCUED

Well I just purchased another T. A fellow had a few Enfields for sale so I made the trip to check them out. Three were sporterized junkers.....rusty bolts, chopped stocks....holes drilled in the recievers etc. The exception was the T series rifle, it was also improperly stored.....bolt, barrel band, trigger guard have some light rust on....receiver is missing a lot of the original finish but the bore, after a good cleaning remains excellent.
It's a 1945 M47C BSA serial # is X333xx. The pads look great, screws have not been messed with and have only been staked once. Matching for-end, top had guard is the grooved type. I removed the buttstock and it matches rifles serial #also has the S51 stamp on the butt. No scope yet but the original is supposed to be coming...I was told the whereabouts of it are known. It has a matching bolt. It is stamped TR on the wrist, has the proper SM rear sight, has the S stamp on the mag cutt-off, receiver ring has the crown mark but no England stamp. It has the little D6E crown mark on the rear left side of the action and on the right side it's got a 7EE with the little crown. The only indicator that is missing is the absence of the T stamp on the left side of the action by the screw.
I'm sure this topic has been discussed before ( and I did try to find info from old posts) but sorry I was unable to locate the answers I was looking for so........again can you help me with the reason why this would be missing the T stamp on the left side of the receiver???? I also don't know what to do, the rifle looks a little ugly now because the way some clown had it stored....story was these guns were found in a wall of a house!!!! The wood is actually not bad and has a few scrapes but that's about it. The bit of rust on gun and bolt and receiver finish wear is kinda ugly. Would I de-value this gun by getting it professionally refinished???? If so left in this state it's not very pretty either. There is no real pitting with the exception of some real light pitting on the inside of the trigger guard and where the safety lever hinges on. I could have got this piece for a song but wanted to be somewhat fair about the deal so I gave him $700 canadian...the rest of the junkers he threw in. The deal is not really completed yet as he said he would just throw the scope in when he comes up with it. He collects old Winchesters and he really wants two of mine badly....he says he knows where there is another T series in the box complete and in excellent shape...when he comes up with that within the next couple of weeks the Winchesters are going to be a partial trade. Hopefully this all works out!!!!! I know you are going to want to see pictures but like i said in other posts I'm basically computer illiterate. I had another post about a T, I recently purchased but the pictures were posted by someone else so I'll try to do the same thing but don't hold your breath.Your thoughts or concerns would be greatly appreciated....my regards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bros

........again can you help me with the reason why this would be missing the T stamp on the left side of the receiver????

---

A '45 BSA with no T on the sidewall is most likely one that was never completely finished by having a scope/bracket fitted.

As VH says. However, (& forgive me if you've already done this) make sure you look really carefully at the receiver when you've cleaned it a little, as sometimes the side wall 'T' was so poorly stamped that there's only part of it there. I have several like that, but they're perfectly genuine.

As regards refinishing, photo's would of course help. In general, FWIW, my view is never to refinish unless the condition of the piece is such that there is nothing to be lost (historically & financially) by doing so. In other words, sometimes pieces are in such a sorry state cosmetically (but mechanically ok, or capable of being made so) that there is nothing to be lost in sympathetically refinishing - & in fact, potentially much to be gained. But the 64,000 dollar question is the condition it is in to start off with. If you can get any photo's posted I'll gladly give you my two cents worth!
If you do go down the refinishing route for the metalwork I would certainly suggest that you consider getting it done by Brian Dick of BDL Ltd as he is able to refinish to the exact British milspec using the correct bead blasting, phosphating & suncoriting technique.

Hope this helps a little.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

FWIW, my view is never to refinish unless the condition of the piece is such that there is nothing to be lost (historically & financially) by doing so. In other words, sometimes pieces are in such a sorry state cosmetically (but mechanically ok, or capable of being made so) that there is nothing to be lost in sympathetically refinishing - & in fact, potentially much to be gained......
If you do go down the refinishing route for the metalwork I would certainly suggest that you consider getting it done by Brian Dick of BDL Ltd as he is able to refinish to the exact British milspec using the correct bead blasting, phosphating & suncoriting technique.

---

As non-expert collector who has been carefully following the advice of the experts, I fully concur with Roger Payne on this. Especially consider that often "doing least is best" -- keeping a few dings and chips, while retaining the "historic character" of the gun is far better than an overly "refinished" gun that looks brand new -- unless you have a gun that as been so desecrated that it needs a total makeover to make it safe and presentable.

I too have a rescued "T" (Long Branch 1944) in far less complete condition than yours (basically a sporterized skeleton with butt stock, but no forend & no handguards). But the snipers are not just an "average" Enfield; for an "average" Enfield I'd do the work myself.

For a gun with a "sniper pedigree:" it's both historically unique as well as a valuable investment. Having an expert gunsmith do the work is a wise decision from both a restoration and investment perspective. I'm sending my skeleton "T" to Brian Dick next month for the right treatment -- I think it will augment the investment value as well if you can give a future owner a "certificate of authenticity" that the restoration was done by BDL, who is the #1 expert in North America in this field. Brian collaborates closely with Captain Laidler and Roger Payne, who are the Brits that really know the intricacies sniper history and restoration. Brian is also an expert in the proper legal procedures for getting historic Enfields across the US-Canadian border. IOW, think long-term.

As a collector of old Winchesters too, I like the idea that you might be able to swap some Winchesters for a sniper's chest and a lot of the accoutrements. Sounds like a fun and worthwhile arrangement.

[For those of you who haven't seen the Canadian version of the History Channel's "Canadian Pickers," it's a great show with fascinating characters doing trades and swaps for old stuff. Bros -- somehow I see you in the Yukon doing the same thing ;-).]

(P.S. I'll be in Yellowknife NWT twice next month -- wish it were in the Yukon -- would love to see your collection and swap stories.)

Thanks so far guys for your input!!!!! What I am wondering about, Vintage Hunter is the scope number is stamped on top of the butt just behind the wrist, so how could this T not have had a scope and bracket attached at some point???? I'll do my best to get some pictures posted when I find somebody to do that for me.

Well bros you failed to mention that in your first post, or else I over looked it. I'm not the one you should be asking about this as there are others here what know way more that I do. My speculations are if it has a scope number on the wrist then it must be as Roger says, the T was lightly struck and hard to make out, or, it was refinished at some point and the T partly obliterated and covered over in the process , or, some previous owner hunted up a scope then in the attempt to ''improve'' things stamped the number on the wrist to make it appear to be a matching set. Pictures of the rifle and scope when it arrives would be a big help in figuring out which case it is.

I've had several complete, original 1944 No.4T's without the finish "T" stamped on the left hand side of the body. I've also had several 1944 No.4T's with solid foresight blocks. Both of these are a no-no in the eye of purists and I can't vouch for 1945 production but my explanation is and always will be that there was a war on and sometimes things simply weren't done exactly as the book says.

Yes Brian I agree....don't know exactly which area the V-2 rockets were coming down in regards to where Holland & Holland was converting the T's but can you image just getting ready to strike that T stamp on the left side of the receiver when suddenly a V-2 explodes in the vicinity.............yes I can understand how some minor details could be overlooked. Yet in our infinite wisdom as collectors 80 some odd years down the road, we would write something off as not being authentic just because someone dropped the hammer and stamp as the bombs were falling and later forgot to put that T on. If it wasn't a bomb hey it could have been whatever.......it was war and these people were only human. My eyes are pretty good but I'm going to look again for that T stamp....this time with the aid of a magnifying glass

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

I've had several complete, original 1944 No.4T's without the finish "T" stamped on the left hand side of the body. I've also had several 1944 No.4T's with solid foresight blocks.

---

Brian is about to get another 1944 Long Branch sporterized sniper for restoration (Serial #71L0279). Solid-block front sight, no "T" designation, but with original scope mounting brackets, serial numbered on the top of the wrist behind the bolt, and mounting holes in the stock where the cheek pad once sat. And no one in the Long Branch factory was facing attacks by V-1 rockets from Antwerp or bombing raids or Messerschmitt fighters. The Long Branch factory (60% women) was renowned for its quality....so what's the reason why the "T" was left off? Perhaps it was because any dimwit could see the scope mounts and scope, plus the cheek pad, plus the special stock serial number, so why need the "T" (maybe they put the T in the place where the scope pads were eventually fitted?). Maybe the "T" was added after all the accoutrements were put on the rifle and some production manager didn't want to set up another post-production engraving/stamping position -- after all the LB arsenal was priding itself in 1944 on how it had lowered production costs significantly from the 1943 production year -- so: just move the damned guns into the packing and shipping department FAST, don't waste another step, engage another person, and create another bottleneck. To put this in perspective, the Long Branch Arsenal was also reducing staff in 1944. Savage had stopped production in June '44. Long Branch production hit a peak of 31,000 units in the month of October, '43. From there on production orders fell continuously to reach 1/2 that rate by December 1944. IOW, the plant was seeing the war coming to an end and its future was uncertain. Keeping production costs low and quality high was a way to attract new orders. I would think that the plant manager was clear that adding another person/step in production was not a smart business move.

Why a solid block foresight? Maybe the rationale was that the scope adjustment was a far better means of adjusting for accuracy and they just didn't want anyone fiddling and diddling with the foresight and screwing up the scoping process? Anyone have any other logical guesses?

I've learned from following lots of Enfield threads on this site that there are still many mysteries, contradictions, and anomolies that we have yet to unscramble (Like the Maltby No.4 MkI* etc., etc.). Being too-tightly-wound about Enfields can produce lots of constipation and little enlightenment. You must have some tolerance for ambiguity, a very inquisitive nature, a dose of humbleness, a love of history, and a sense of humor if you want to enjoy Enfields. Devoid of any of these, and your Enfield passion will diminish proportionately. (I'm not implying you or anyone else is deficient in these traits, just observing and musing :bow:.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

As VH says. However, (& forgive me if you've already done this) make sure you look really carefully at the receiver when you've cleaned it a little, as sometimes the side wall 'T' was so poorly stamped that there's only part of it there. I have several like that, but they're perfectly genuine.

As regards refinishing, photo's would of course help. In general, FWIW, my view is never to refinish unless the condition of the piece is such that there is nothing to be lost (historically & financially) by doing so. In other words, sometimes pieces are in such a sorry state cosmetically (but mechanically ok, or capable of being made so) that there is nothing to be lost in sympathetically refinishing - & in fact, potentially much to be gained. But the 64,000 dollar question is the condition it is in to start off with. If you can get any photo's posted I'll gladly give you my two cents worth!
If you do go down the refinishing route for the metalwork I would certainly suggest that you consider getting it done by Brian Dick of BDL Ltd as he is able to refinish to the exact British milspec using the correct bead blasting, phosphating & suncoriting technique.

Hope this helps a little.

---

Looked for that darn little T stamp...this time with the magnifying glass, it's not there.

Well, don't lose any sleep over it. But if you can get some photo's of your new acquisition posted on here I'm sure we'd all love to see it.

The reason why the split block was specified and insisted on by H&H initially was because the spec stated that the rifle must be as per the drawing with the addition of the pads. IE, with a split block and 5 grooves. So any that came through NOT to spec were initially rejected. But later H&H were (presumably) informed that these variations W"ERE the amended acceptable spec so were therefore acceptable.

The conversion specification stated that the letter T was to be added close to the rifle designation to indicated its change to telescope status and subsequent change in its Ordnance designation/classification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

if you can get some photo's of your new acquisition posted on here I'm sure we'd all love to see it.

---

bros: See this thread which might help you figure out the photo posting puzzle. Once you read it, it might seem easier. I struggled with it until I found this info:
What is the Photo Gallery for Members?
Good Luck!

Experts (Peter, Roger, Brian, VH, et al): Am I imagining this??... it seems from following some of the threads on the missing sniper "T" that there is a higher propensity of missing the "T" stamp in 1944/5 production lines than in 1943???? If so, perhaps the inspectors got a Directive making the stamp optional??? Just speculating here .... your wisdom may give us some further insights.

To learn more about about how to handle pics, please read this thread in the Q&A - Help Forums, which also appears as a "sticky" thread at the top of every forum on the site.

How do I upload pictures to my posts for storage on milsurps.com? (click here)

If you still have problems, email them to me at badger@milsurps.com and I'll resize them for you, then post them in the thread under your name

Regards,
Doug

1944 was the heaviest production of No.4T rifles at H&H in London. It's just common sense that more anomalies will be found in that production year. I doubt seriously that there were any directives eliminating any steps in the process since the standards were always met or the rifles were rejected.

The missing T was so common that a misc. instruction was issued to tyhe effect that if it were not present or in any other way illegible, the letter should be marked on the body side. I seem to recall mentioning this and the Misc Instr details some time ago. Anyway, it didn't specify how it should be marked........... Suffice it to say, stamping a bodyside was prohibited. So presumably it had to be engraved. But guess what Armourers really did......? Yep, gently mark it with a letter stamp. End of problem

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seaspriter

Brian is about to get another 1944 Long Branch sporterized sniper for restoration (Serial #71L0279). Solid-block front sight, no "T" designation, but with original scope mounting brackets, serial numbered on the top of the wrist behind the bolt, and mounting holes in the stock where the cheek pad once sat. And no one in the Long Branch factory was facing attacks by V-1 rockets from Antwerp or bombing raids or Messerschmitt fighters. The Long Branch factory (60% women) was renowned for its quality....so what's the reason why the "T" was left off? Perhaps it was because any dimwit could see the scope mounts and scope, plus the cheek pad, plus the special stock serial number, so why need the "T" (maybe they put the T in the place where the scope pads were eventually fitted?). Maybe the "T" was added after all the accoutrements were put on the rifle and some production manager didn't want to set up another post-production engraving/stamping position -- after all the LB arsenal was priding itself in 1944 on how it had lowered production costs significantly from the 1943 production year -- so: just move the damned guns into the packing and shipping department FAST, don't waste another step, engage another person, and create another bottleneck. To put this in perspective, the Long Branch Arsenal was also reducing staff in 1944. Savage had stopped production in June '44. Long Branch production hit a peak of 31,000 units in the month of October, '43. From there on production orders fell continuously to reach 1/2 that rate by December 1944. IOW, the plant was seeing the war coming to an end and its future was uncertain. Keeping production costs low and quality high was a way to attract new orders. I would think that the plant manager was clear that adding another person/step in production was not a smart business move.

Why a solid block foresight? Maybe the rationale was that the scope adjustment was a far better means of adjusting for accuracy and they just didn't want anyone fiddling and diddling with the foresight and screwing up the scoping process? Anyone have any other logical guesses?

I've learned from following lots of Enfield threads on this site that there are still many mysteries, contradictions, and anomolies that we have yet to unscramble (Like the Maltby No.4 MkI* etc., etc.). Being too-tightly-wound about Enfields can produce lots of constipation and little enlightenment. You must have some tolerance for ambiguity, a very inquisitive nature, a dose of humbleness, a love of history, and a sense of humor if you want to enjoy Enfields. Devoid of any of these, and your Enfield passion will diminish proportionately. (I'm not implying you or anyone else is deficient in these traits, just observing and musing :bow:.)

---

Does your rifle have a (replacement) British barrel?

Are there any Long Branch markings on your front sight block?

And Peter's comments would also explain why we see perfectly genuine rifles with 'suspect' T's on them, because they are slightly different to the norm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Enfield

Does your rifle have a (replacement) British barrel?

Are there any Long Branch markings on your front sight block?

---

Lee Enfield: Here's what I can discern:
Barrel: 2 groove
Barrel Markings on the Knox form (that are discernible): /45, "Broad Arrow", "Crown","QXC" ( a little fuzzy), "C", "4?". There are a few other markings that are poorly stamped or illegible
Stock Scope Serial Stamp: 16539 on walnut stock (no other stamping on butt stock)
Foresight Block: Solid stamped "62"

Hope this helps unravel more of the mystery.
Robert
(P.S. I teach at UofAlberta -- the "Republic of...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

And Peter's comments would also explain why we see perfectly genuine rifles with 'suspect' T's on them, because they are slightly different to the norm

---

In an attempt to apply some logic to the anomaly: It's certainly logical that the receiver stamping/engraving station (where the specialists worked) was located in the middle of the assembly line (where it's easier to stamp/engrave a receiver devoid of barrel, furniture, etc.), not at the end of the assembly line. If there was a rush on a sniper order, at the end of the assembly and final inspection line, the completed rifle would have gone directly to packaging and shipping, rather than cycling back into the middle of the line for special stamping, or for a one-off (I think the Brits call it "bespoke") stamping/engraving, which would have forced someone to be pulled off the line, thus abandoning his station, slowing down production. If the line was slow at the engraving station, then pulling the engraver off to the end of the line was no problem. But if the work was backlogging at the engraver's station, there was no time to pull the person to mark the "T" at the end of the line. (And remember, in the days of the 1940s, people & unions made a big deal out of specialized work; a grievance could be filed if someone without proper certification did work a certified labourer could/must do.)

For the "suspect Ts", Peter's and Roger's observations makes sense, because to stamp or engrave a gun with all the accoutrements added requires a different work jig (or perhaps no jig at all) to perform a custom stamping/engraving function. Thus the "added T" was likely done by a different person at a different time with different tools at an improvised work station.

Of course, this is just speculation, but it's logical. Any thoughts.....?

Nothing like that supposition at H&H. The Out Inspection/acceptance station was a small room that was originally part of a corridor between the main work area and the rest/tea-room. So when it was tea break time (or NAAFI* break in UK MIlitary parlance) the staff just walked behind the out inspector and into the tea room. THere really was nothing bespoke about a No4T or an L42 believe me. They were treated as specialist tools for doing another job.

* NAAFI = No Ambition And Fxxxall Interest

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Nothing like that supposition at H&H.

---

So the "T" was added NOT at the Manufacturer's facility (i.e. Maltby, Faz, BSA, LB, SS), but at the scope outfitter (H&H), now I get it!

Someone please ask Ian to print some more "Armourer's Perspectives"! Hell, I'll ask him……… again!!!

Ok guys I'm going to take some pictures and if I can't figure out how to post them Badger offered me help...again!!!!!! I'll check to see if that barrel has also been replaced and see if there are any LB markings on the foresight block.....you guys are all thanked for your knowledge and input so far.

While we're on the subject of the foresight block band, maybe it's time for someone to resurrect the saga of the different heights of block bands for the No4 and 4T series and the reasons for there being so many variables..........

And four different types of foresight blades.

...and the use of the 1H block band on L42's??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Enfield

Does your rifle have a (replacement) British barrel?

Are there any Long Branch markings on your front sight block?

---

Barrel was not replaced.....serial on barrel matches. As far as the LB markings in regards to your other question..no there is none on the foresight block. I took the rifle apart last night and gave it a thorough cleaning, removed surface rust etc., it really cleaned up well. I will not be getting it re-finished....she looks good now after a scrub. Took a lot of pictures and sent them to Badger....he will post them to this thread so you can all take a look at the latest addition.

This explains why we see converted trials rifles particularly with various "T" and sometimes also "TR" stamps added to the butt sockets.

We've also seen a few unconverted "TR" rifles with both Enfield examiner's marks and the "S" on the mag cutoff block. I have one now with the "TR" later barred out with the cancellation mark.

Pics emailed to Doug (Badger) added here ... :thup:

Interesting to see the scratched x on the receiver under the front scope mount, we see the x on the timber edge in the same spot??????????
Attachment 60950

bros, you may as well take the next step, bead blast it, phosphate / parkerize and paint with Suncorite, at least it will keep any future corrosion at bay.

As illustrated here, I have seen the little 'S' sight mark (on the cut-off block) stamped longways and upright and occasionally almost hidden below the fore-end line. Obviously indicating that this marking was made after the rifle was stripped, during its in-inspection

Bigduke6....not sure if I'm going to get it refinished now, i think it cleaned up real well and doesn't it look at little period correct??? I can assure you the corrosion will not get any worse now that it's in good hands. Don't forget it was found in the wall of a house and it's not going back there. The worst area is just ahead of the receiver ring on the barrel, also on the one photo there is a T stamp on that part of the barrel ...does that have any significance in regards to being a T. The bore is in very, very good shape.....funny how that rust works...exterior/interior, I doubt there was any oil in that bore before it was stowed away. Now the waiting game starts to see if the fellow I got it from will come up with the scope which apparently another fellow has.

23904, the older brother of your telescope 23905 is an L1A1 telescope fitted to an L42 rifle living in the UK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigduke6

bros, you may as well take the next step, bead blast it, phosphate / parkerize and paint with Suncorite, at least it will keep any future corrosion at bay.

---

Yes, best option now. Cover up those wire wheel marks.

Looks like there is an extremely faint T still present. If you are on a laptop try tilting the screen to a sharper viewing angle, it can have a polarizing effect to help see minor detail.

Attachment 61222Attachment 61223

I'll have a look again!!!!

Great looking gun. I've recently purchased my first and have become addicted to the history of these rifles. I was in the same boat as you as I had to do minor work to my gun. Matching up all the specific markings to a true T was like a treasure hunt!

I looked again for the "T".....I'm sure it's not there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cold_Zero

Looks like there is an extremely faint T still present. If you are on a laptop try tilting the screen to a sharper viewing angle, it can have a polarizing effect to help see minor detail.

Attachment 61222Attachment 61223

---

Well now that you (and we) are convinced that it's the real McCoy, just punch the letter T in - just as we would do with any other letter or number that wasn't clearly visible

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bros

I looked again for the "T".....I'm sure it's not there

---

It is there my friend. I can see it in the photo. Look very very closely in the circle I provided, the "T" is slightly deeper than the milling marks and the long part of the T and the serif runs across the milling. It is most definately there....

If the side of the body has been sanded or ground down, anything is possible, but while we've seen quite a few No4(T)s with those faint markings, the "T" stamps always seem well struck.

You can buy kits to "raise" effaced stamped markings on steel. You might want to try that.

But it could just be one of the "T less Telescope" rifles.

I looked again for that "T" COLD ZERO can't see it. I doubt the body side has been ground down Surpmil.....the original etched "No4 MK1" with serial number of rifle is still very visible. I shot the rifle today I will put the results on a new thread. Cheers.