My No4 T (complete fake)

Hi Guys

I am new here. I am from Denmark and are member of a shooting club for old military rifles. The rules say original style rifles, but replica parts is OK.
My age force my to focus on scopesighted rifles.
So I want a Enfield no4 T, but can´t afford it.
So I decided to make my own.
I found a very good Long brance 1944 with 5 grove barrel, mismachting bold an other small parts. serial 75L86xx.
I bought a scope Mount at Accumount USA. ( not so good, because the front pad is too high, and I need to make my own.)
The scope is a Weaver K3. I have rebuild it to look lige a no. 32 mk III. Because the position of the knubs. It is full funcionel in ajustible. The reticle is fine crosshair ( I know it i wrong, but nesecerry to turn the knups in the right direction.
Everything set up an mountet after Peter Laidler advice on this forum-.The rifle Shoot and groops very tight at 200 m.
It a shooter and not an atemp to create a fake No4 T. So take it as it is.
I want to show it to your Guys. Because i Am a Little proud with the result.

Sorry for the English. I hope you get the point.

JsneAttachment 66633Attachment 66632Attachment 66631Attachment 66630Attachment 66629Attachment 66628Attachment 66627Attachment 66626

WELCOME jsne to milsurps and a big congrats on the replica Sniper T the only and extremely minor thing I can see is the gap on the top scope mount pads is not quite equal all round it appears wider on the left side, but it looks really very very good.:super: My observation is not a detracting statement of jsne's effort just an observation as the gaps on all my scoped rifles is equal just getting in before I get pasted for being too pedantic then again it may just be the camera angle.

If I understand you, that is a Weaver telescope conmverted by you into a look-alike No32 Mk3. Is that correct? If so, then it is a VERY good try.

Maybe you ought to concentrate your efforts into making/converting a few No42 or 53 telescopes into No32 replicas. Most of the work has already been done and most of the parts are there........

very nice work.

i imagine you have fooled more than one or two people. you certainly nailed all the things that make a no32 look like a no32.


edit: did you have a real no32 to copy? did you use real adjuster knobs? the more i look the better your copy is. excellent work.

Great job but sadly, It is when that rifle is sold on, which is when the issues start, and some unsuspecting person buys it in the distant future as the real McCoy!!

Its a personal thing and I make no apologies for my views, but I wish you well in your construction efforts, as it is now a very good copy of the original beast, but in my book it should never occur as it causes untold and often unseen damage to the whole spectrum of the specialist "sniper" rifle market. Now you can perhaps see why your own shooting club insist on standards involving the real weapons.

Thankfully the internet, and the easy availability of serial numbers and cross referencing checks have the upper hand, with the added expertise on this site to identify correct weapons IMHO;)

jsne you've done a marvellous job there - it looks great.

Gil I wouldn't be too hard on him - I'm in no way condoning fakery, but this chap has made up this rifle for his own satisfaction because the cost of an original is prohibitive. I am sure that, come the day of resale, a good look over of the rifle would demonstrate to anyone with a modicum of knowledge that it is made up.

As I said, I do not condone fakery but Lord save us from the self appointed rifle restoration ethics gestapo!

very scary.

Hi all

Thanks for your replay.

The copy scope is made from Picture only. When you know the body is one inch, You can scale it and print it in the right size.

Too Gill. I see your point. And I agree. And I know this is mostly a Forum for corlectors.

As I see it, will any put together "sniper" be a fake. even if all the parts is correct.
So will any rifle with Replica parts bee.

In this case severel thing will indicate it is not a correct scope or ewen a aftermarked scope.
1 Crosshair
2 Weaver K3 El Paso USA is clealiy visible
3 I apoligise for the graver Work, But I Cold do It, so I did. Serial nr. is my birthday and out of range.
4 Elevation is the wrong Way.
5 When examin closely you will discover some details there dosent look right.

I will never sell it as the real deal. But as you writhe the problem can come in the future.
But a wery litle reseace on the internet will show, this is not right.
I think people who want to spend the Price of a original N04 T will make a Little reseach first.

The Rifle Is Not a corlectibel item. It is a Mismatch (but a good one)
I have another Long Brance No. 4 mk1*. Is is all original and only fired a few round.
I got it from a WWII resistanfighter who picked it up when it was dropd in 1944.

I will never drill holes in that one.

JSNE

It's the kind that would suit me for shooting, I can't afford to collect a real T.

JSNE I hope it brings you allot of pleasure when and where you shoot it and I am sure your going to get people asking if it is a T and that will be an added bonus because you can say No I built this replica up myself and there ya go good as chips and no matter who you are I respect workmanship and the art in it and that goes for everybody that endevour's to produce or tinker with something to get it going.

Looks like original style to me, if that`s what they want & it works go for it !...............

Please tell how you replicated the adjustment turrets. That is a very good looking No32 "replica".

Hi JSNE,

If you ever feel the need to make another Weaver / No32 reproduction I would happily purchase one from you.

Cheers,

Simon.

Hi Harry and Simon

The turret are made on my Lathe.
As I whrite previus in the thread. everything is made from Pictures alone.
It is posible to Google the scope from almost any angle and find some point with an knownd size. then print it until you have a 1:1 Picture.

It have take some time to figure out the righe solution for the conversion from the Weaver system.

To Simon: It is a stand alone job. If I should Calculade my time on this conversion it will be the worst job ever.

Unfurtenely I dont make any Picture. when I done it.

I will be happy to share anny thing about the the job if anybody want to do a simular job.

Best

JSNE

You'd be better off starting with an old No42 or 53 telescope because 80% of the work you need is already there. If you were minded, you could read up some of the No32 threads

Hi all
Good advice Peter.
When I started I dont know anything about no 42 and 53 scopes. But I have now read the Thread about it. and I think if I ever should make another one I will try to get one of them.

My project startet out with A standard Weaver K3 scope as a substitude. because I need a optic sight because off my eyes if I want to shoot, and I can´t afort a no. 32 scope or even a replica.
Then I adet the brass tube in front. It was easy.
Then I adet the Ring behind the Mount. It was easy.
Then I find out that the profile of the ocular was wrong, and fix that.
Then I will make two Dummy knups, But what if I could make them Work?

And so on and on.

Becouse of it was not my plan to make a working replica from the start. I have no drawings or Picture:-(

There are still som minor thing I have tio fix.

Next I will change the treat on the elevation ajust screw. so it will Work in the right direction.



But if anyone want too converte a Weaver K3. I will be glad to help with advice.
But before you start I will say. You need acces too some machinings. and you need some tecnical skills.
And a lot of time.

JSNE

Very skilled work indeed, and a lot of it. Congratulations!

Did you cast the adjustment knob "turret"? It looks like rough-cast.

@ JSNE: I am glad you finally found a new bolt for the rifle. Like with my Garand - you do excellent craftmanship.

Greetings from Jutland ;-)

Kruffe,
Fond memories of SKIVE barracks and the town after a hectic parachute jump into Jutland, is it still going strong, was Danish Engineers when we were there??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gil Boyd

a hectic parachute jump into Jutland

---

Tell us it didn't go quite as planned...missed the DZ did we? Just by a midgies d*ck?

Jim,
It was a short DZ ...................as Jutland isn't exactly the Isle of Wight:lol:
One fond memory, never seen so many beautiful women in one small town like that at the top of Denmark. Can't understand why the Vikings needed to come to our shores at all:lol:
Apologies for going off topic.:surrender:

Gil,



The Engineers are still in Skive. Regarding the Vikings - yes we certainly got our share of beautiful women... But like with guns; I enjoy shooting my Garands, k98's etc...but some times you just prefer something different, than you are used to....like when I shoot my Mosins ;-)

Kruffe,
There were luckily only a Platoon of us 32 lads in total, so I tried not to be tooooo greedy, but when the jungle drums started beating, "New Men on the block" they were all over us like a rash.
For the benefit of my wife, I was a lot younger then"...and single!!:madsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gil Boyd

For the benefit of my wife

---

And it was nearly a hundred years ago...she'll buy that.

Jim,
Spot on there mate, its creeping ever closer :lol::lol:

Congrats on this one! You´ve made it better than me...i mean in case of the scope. I´ve got only an old Kahles scope and to make it perfect, it was an old snipers scope used by the Wehrmacht snipers!!! Well done!:thup:

Congratulations on your build and it is beautiful. I am another who finds shooting "replicas" serves many purposes, the greatest of which is that an original is not subjected to additional stress, abuse and damage. Although this is a collectors site it can and does provide all of us with information, best used to identify what is worth preserving and what is available for daily use. You are certainly exceptional. (And I do have some quite original guns that I do not shoot because I want them preserved for future generations. I doubt the future problem, as anyone who would want to purchase an original will (or should) know what to look for.

Hi Again

Now I got a no. 42 scope!! I think I want to try Peteres advice and make it to No.32 MK III spec.

I found it on a gun mess in Germany for 80 Euro, and mostly boutht it for the guinue leather lens cap on it. It is a Canadian Made REL from 1944. In absolut mint condition.

But first problem. How do I take it apart?

I only see a small screw in the Occular end and in the front slewe end.

Problem two: Any link to a Blueprint or exploeded wiew of a No32 mk III?

JSNE

It's been a while, but how did you get on with that No.42 JSNE? ;)

Hi Surpmil
It went out wery well😀
It looks great and works great.
You can see pictures in the Stikky note: going too buy that no. 32 scope. Side 11
Peter Laidlet have helped me werry Well With all my questions.
You can read about them too.
There was a lot of work to do, and I have to make a lot of special tool as well.
I had no drawing of the scope. So everything is made from Peter Laidlers book about the no32 scope and pictures from the internet.
It meens that the scope works exactly likes real no.32 mk3 but without any original parts fitting. But after all it is a homemade replica.
If any other want too do a similar project I Will bee more than harpy to help.
I Maby put up some new pictures soon

Jsne

JSNE I'm with you, enjoy your rifle, enjoy your shooting and ignore the nay-sayers. Rules and regulations are made for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.

Its a great effort. The price of the real thing is ridiculous so yours is a realistic alternative.

Eddie

Personally I cringe every time someone builds a "fake" anything, be it a gun, car whatever. Somewhere down the road someone will probably get bent over and pay too much for a fake.

I agree that it saves wear and tear on a original but you can put a no drill S&K scope mount on a No4, use a older but good quality single power scope and it serves the same purpose. I have 2 legit, they are safe queens, a Savage with a S&K mount and period scope and it is a great shooter, good enough for me.

Eventually those who are masters at spotting a fake will pass and then the nightmare begins. It happens with M1 carbines all the time.

The original owner may be completely honest about something being a reproduction, doesn't mean squat once it leaves his hands.

I reckon that the builder is pretty skilled at producing what he could afford my T broke the bank and saw me in the kennel for a good few weeks (such is life) as I could not afford the 2, 3 ,4, 5 or six "T"s including a L42 some members have including the complete CES as all I got was the rifle. I should say that jsne if he ever decides to sell his work of art it will be sold as a faker and not a mcoy.

Now if China started to churn them out by the dozen then there would be cause for concern as my $57/Au Atlas clone bi-pod complete with ATLAS logo on it functions as good as the real deal priced at $350-400/Au and has survived 150 rounds to date of very stout loads in my 308 APRS. (42.3gns 2206H with a 168gn A Max)

I think some one pretty switched onto these things would be able to with judicious scrutiny pick this out as a faker POC it is really good to see just how talented and resourceful some of the members here are I mean he is not an armourer more of a tinkerer so good for him.

Keep us up to date jsne on progress as it is good to see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsne

Hi Surpmil
It went out wery well��
It looks great and works great.
You can see pictures in the Stikky note: going too buy that no. 32 scope. Side 11
Peter Laidlet have helped me werry Well With all my questions.
You can read about them too.
There was a lot of work to do, and I have to make a lot of special tool as well.
I had no drawing of the scope. So everything is made from Peter Laidlers book about the no32 scope and pictures from the internet.
It meens that the scope works exactly likes real no.32 mk3 but without any original parts fitting. But after all it is a homemade replica.
If any other want too do a similar project I Will bee more than harpy to help.
I Maby put up some new pictures soon

Jsne

---

Thanks, I went looking for the sticky, but found your post here instead: https://www.milsurps.com/showthread....l=1#post376760

As per your original post here, I suspect some people are having difficulty believing that is a replica and not an original.

I think I can see where you reshaped the "bell" on the tube and squared up the "corners"?

Brilliant work anyway.:clap:

How did you engrave the numbers and lines on the slipping scales?

(I tweaked your photos a little)

First The Scales
The lines was set in my lathe. Peter Laidlers book about the No.32 scope tell how many clik there are between the lines.
So when the clikkerplate are with 84 teth. I calculate the Degree I have too turn and set a mark.
The numbers are don By the lokal Jeweler/Watch maker.

Then about the Fake discusion.
I wass the one hwo use the "FAKE" term in this thread.
And I can see someone dident like that.
But any rifle or What ever. Where you change a part or buy a part that is correct for the rifle, but not the part there was original fittet it is a Fake. (exept if it is done in military service or any FTR program) and even here if any doo an "back engenering".
To make you self a No4 T Replica is not worse than any other Replica or unautorisation sweep of parts. Exept if you doo it to earn Money.
Even here it will be a poor buisnese if you should calculate spendt time.

An other menber here are werry Lucky to find a original T reciever with a Barrel fore 20 bugs. He want to rebuild it with as many "original" parts as posible. But in the end it is a fake. Maby more than mine becourse you could clame it it a original, becouse it have a legit number.
No one here have said anything about he's rifle other than all think it it nice that the rifle is saved.
Dont understand me wrong I like he's project werry mutch and look foreward to follow the project


What I like most is when some guy come and ask if my rifle are a real T. and i said " no it is a replica" but I have don all by myself.
So I will never sell this one as a fake but be proud to tell about the project.

And of couse I will like to own a Original T. but this is not in my budget.

I hope yoy get the point (even in bad English:-)

JSNE

---------- Post added at 11:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:29 AM ----------

11111

Jsne,
Well said mate, in what appears to be "good English" compared to some on here :lol::lol:

You have clearly learnt a great deal from this project, and I am sure we all wish you well when it shoots on the range, and hope the guidance from those on this site have helped you in achieving it, and we all appreciate you sharing this interesting option on producing a 4T.;)

Maybe "Replica" is better terminology for this project jsne.............

wats dat u sed Gil!

Now Cinders thats good ENGLISH! :lol::lol:

I would agree that 'replica' better describes the situation here of jsne's rifle & scope. 'Fake' suggests a replica created with the intent to deceive (usually for monetary gain), at least, it conveys those vibes to me, even if it is not explicit in the word.

I also do not see any reason not to build 'replicas' if one is so minded to do, so long as it is not with the intent of defrauding. There are lots of reasons to do so; the high prices of originals, the desire not to wear out a rare original rifle, & so on. I also accept the concerns that some express that half a dozen sales down the line the rifle may be passed off as original, but whilst it is a serious issue I do not think we should start trying to demonise people who wish to make up rifles. We (supposedly) still live in free societies......

Most people who get burnt these days do so through their own laziness; there is ample high quality information on what real examples of desirable rifles should look like, both on line & in the standard texts, & to be honest, most fakes I see really aren't THAT good.

They fool people who couldn't be bothered to do their homework..........

Well said Roger.:thup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

I would agree that 'replica' better describes the situation here of jsne's rifle & scope. 'Fake' suggests a replica created with the intent to deceive (usually for monetary gain), at least, it conveys those vibes to me, even if it is not explicit in the word.

I also do not see any reason not to build 'replicas' if one is so minded to do, so long as it is not with the intent of defrauding. There are lots of reasons to do so; the high prices of originals, the desire not to wear out a rare original rifle, & so on. I also accept the concerns that some express that half a dozen sales down the line the rifle may be passed off as original, but whilst it is a serious issue I do not think we should start trying to demonise people who wish to make up rifles. We (supposedly) still live in free societies......

Most people who get burnt these days do so through their own laziness; there is ample high quality information on what real examples of desirable rifles should look like, both on line & in the standard texts, & to be honest, most fakes I see really aren't THAT good.

They fool people who couldn't be bothered to do their homework..........

---

Quite agree Roger, though I think we probably have to draw the line at identical replication of original markings, unless qualified by some others that make their status clear.

The Garand fans seem to happily buy and sell refurbs and perfect "replicas" all day long without a cheep from anyone, so not sure what all the fuss is about with other arms.

Heaven knows there is so much information on so many subjects available now so easily there isn't much excuse for ignorance about anything a person WANTS to learn about.

Assuming they have the wits to sift the wheat from the chaff, as the saying goes.

And yet a good proportion of the population seem to be more ignorant than they have ever been before. :confused:

For light relief, look at the abundant stock here
Adolf Hitler I Page

Thanks both Robs! Of course, surpmil, I concur with your caveat about markings - I was just referring to the general principle of building replicas.

And thanks RobD. Now I know where to go for a fancy salad bowl!

But to get back on track, jsne's rifle is a little peach & shows just what a skilled worker he is. I wish he lived a bit closer to me!

Hi all
I am proud of al your nice comments of my work with this rifle.
And I agreed with most worried members as well.
Maby just a silly idea?
How about a "sticky" about this :
Known fakes
Replicas
Rebuild sporters
Other rebuilds
Etc
Members could report there rifles if they want to.
You could whrite about your project.
You could tell about the rifle you rebuild or build.
How do you get the parts needed?
Other members could have good use of it.
And most importend wee will register not originals.

Maby too much work. Just an idea

I will gladly start up with this one

Or maby it is not in this forum.

Jsne

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

Maybe "Replica" is better terminology for this project jsne.............

wats dat u sed Gil!

---

I guess in this world where we are all expected to water down to the lowest denominator in everything we think, do or say "replica" is probably politically correct.

"A replica is an exact reproduction, such as of a painting, as it was executed by the original artist or a copy or reproduction, especially one on a scale smaller than the original. A replica is a copying closely resembling the original concerning its shape and appearance."

Problem it is still a fake!

not genuine; counterfeit.
"fake designer clothing"
synonyms: forgery, counterfeit, copy, pirate(d) copy, sham, fraud, hoax, imitation, mock-up, dummy, reproduction;

As I said before, once this "T" leaves the hands of the builder there is no guarantee of what will happen, is there?

I agree with you about the risks down the line, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it myself.

Many people would love but cannot afford a real one (of whatever it may be we happen to be discussing), so a replica/copy/fake (call it what you will) may be all that they can achieve. I'm not going to discourage them. We might just as well get used to the fact that these things exist. As mentioned before they're generally pretty easy to spot if you do even a modicum of homework before you buy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

I agree with you about the risks down the line, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it myself.

Many people would love but cannot afford a real one (of whatever it may be we happen to be discussing), so a replica/copy/fake (call it what you will) may be all that they can achieve. I'm not going to discourage them. We might just as well get used to the fact that these things exist. As mentioned before they're generally pretty easy to spot if you do even a modicum of homework before you buy.

---

Roger, trust me I am not going to lose any sleep over this one as I know where there a couple more legit ones are so this one will never cross my path.

There's at least one set of MP (rcmp) stamps out there and it takes nothing to make a fake one if the purchasers is not aware of the serial number list that exists. A new collector might not be aware of the serial no's and think he better take the opportunity to get one that's in his hands. There are fake marked MP No4's out there as I write this.

How many sets of Wehrmacht stamp are out there, and there are plenty.

The issue is no one has Captain Laidler, Warren or a few others with them to check every one they see.

It has been discussed previously on this site about giving out too much information that some unscrupulous person could use to build a fake and sell it as a legit.

Yes and there is also a set of fake TIPTAFT stamps out there as well with unscrupulous person/s stamping slider WWI AIF hat badges so instead of getting 2 figures for them they command 3 figures, you wont stop counterfeiters or copies being made just got to get used to it.

Besides all they have to do as Roger says research I mean some one with out any knowledge of fire arms or owning one says to themselves "I think I will buy a Sniper T" then just go and buy one willy nilly if it is to bl**dy cheap then a rat is smelt for sure, there is enough on the web and other forums out there that also contain enough info on them that a person would have to be blind and deaf to get a faker.

I like what jsne has accomplished as it far exceeds what the average joe blow will and if it brings him pleasure with shooting his replica then more power to him, I'd be happy to have it for what it is and save any more wear and tear on my T as its the only one I have or will ever have infact I would have only shot it 5-6 times in 5 years.

I agree with what you say enfield303t, but one sees this in all walks of collecting, & it's just down to human nature - there will always be a few bad 'uns around who are happy to try their hand at conning people. Fortunately they are massively outweighed by the 99% of decent folk on the scene; the ones who are happy to help, such as we have here on the forum.

You also raised another hoary old chestnut of not wanting to help the fakers by keeping marking & similar fine details relating to rare rifles a secret. I know it polarizes opinion, & it may be that being a medic (retired) my views have been influenced, but I have always leaned to the stance that even though we may be inadavertently helping fakers to do a better job by making public knowledge that, say, LB 4T's have a front pad with a radius at the front edge which butts up to the receiver ring, for example, the 99% of decent collectors deserve to know this little snippet of information. Maybe we are helping the 1% of fakers to get better, but then, what about the ethical duty to advance knowledge? Peter & Ian Skennerton wouldn't have written their books if they'd wanted to keep what they knew a secret. Or am I being overly pious?!? It just seems that the alternative is 'stuff everyone else, I'm in the know!'. We just have to stay on our toes to keep one step ahead of the ne'er do wells.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

I agree with what you say enfield303t, but one sees this in all walks of collecting, & it's just down to human nature - there will always be a few bad 'uns around who are happy to try their hand at conning people. Fortunately they are massively outweighed by the 99% of decent folk on the scene; the ones who are happy to help, such as we have here on the forum.

You also raised another hoary old chestnut of not wanting to help the fakers by keeping marking & similar fine details relating to rare rifles a secret. I know it polarizes opinion, & it may be that being a medic (retired) my views have been influenced, but I have always leaned to the stance that even though we may be inadavertently helping fakers to do a better job by making public knowledge that, say, LB 4T's have a front pad with a radius at the front edge which butts up to the receiver ring, for example, the 99% of decent collectors deserve to know this little snippet of information. Maybe we are helping the 1% of fakers to get better, but then, what about the ethical duty to advance knowledge? Peter & Ian Skennerton wouldn't have written their books if they'd wanted to keep what they knew a secret. Or am I being overly pious?!? It just seems that the alternative is 'stuff everyone else, I'm in the know!'. We just have to stay on our toes to keep one step ahead of the ne'er do wells.

---

Yes, "stuff everyone else, I'm in the know". Then you drop dead and it's all lost and you might as well have played tiddlywinks with your time.

As for the fakers, it's been years, nay decades, and they haven't surfaced yet. So either no one is going to bother or they're still taking preparatory notes! :rolleyes:

Yes, that's the big danger Rob; information that could have advanced the knowledge of all of us is lost forever to all of us.