Printable View
1947 BSA.... The rifle looks to be in pristine condition from the rest of the photos. All wood is WWII coded, as far as I can tell. Never seen anything like this...
Attachment 73640Attachment 73635Attachment 73639Attachment 73636Attachment 73637Attachment 73638
Has it been assembled somewhere along the way by an individual and numbered to meet spec for market? The polished receiver flat makes me think, as well as the shuffled number on the butt socket... Perfect finish on rifles like this always make me suspicious.
I've seen one (but only one) exactly like it, only it was a Y prefix serial. It was shown to me by the owners of World Wide Arms here in the UK a few years ago. They buy surplus weapons in bulk & deactivate virtually all of them. Sadly it had been chopped before anyone noticed it was a little unusual! I don't know but I suspect a small quantity of rifles were perhaps assembled by BSA from pre-existing WW2 parts in the immediate post war period.
I agree wholeheartedly with Roger. It wasn't unknown for BSA - who were a purely commercial gun making company, contracted to produce weapons for the MoS when the need arose - to make use of their over production for commercial gain - as and when the need arose! They certainly did with over production of No8's when they 'mistakenly' sold quantities of new ones to NZ and South Africa (although some say it was Rhodesia) in the 50's. Who's to say that they didn't filter in new-build No4's, made from old stocks, while they were doing their huge 1950's commercial FTR's for the export market. I mean......., with the quantities involved, who'd be any the wiser?
Look on the rear flat to the left of the bolt race for a D6E inspectors marking.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeDD
I had an identical gun (M47C - 1947 ) which I bought because it had the inspectors marking.
My theory was that it was possibly a rifle set aside for shipping to H&H which BSA retained after the closing of WW2 contracts...
Interesting observation, Lee...
Attachment 73641Attachment 73642
I don't know if Roger smells one, but I smell a rat. The D6E mark was the MoS examiners mark put on the rifle after completion as the government examiners mark. The letter S was also a mark put on the rifle at H&H by their in-house in-inspection team to warn/advise those further along in the conversion process line that it required some adjustment or change or something else to do with the original sighting*.
*Quite what this was has never been properly explained and probably never will be now.
I was under the impression that the 'S' on the cut-off block was indicative of the rifle having been sighted in with its iron sights & that this would not therefore need to be done/repeated after the conversion process (as would be the case with rifles lacking the 'S' that had replacement Mk1 (modified) rear sights fitted). Certainly I have always believed that it was applied at H&H, although over the years I have seen all sorts of permutations of markings & lack of them, that are not supposed to exist, like D6E on the bolt guide way of rifles not converted (such as the one in this thread), D6E on the knocks' form of early H&H 4T conversions, S51 in smaller than standard lettering on early conversions.........& so it goes on. As Peter intimated, we'll never know it all.
I'll have to call the fellow I sold it to, to see about the "S" as I don't recall mine having it.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeDD
And what did I say?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
If we're suggesting that the rifle has been in some way 'faked' then i suppose it could have, but I can't really surmise why it would have. I doubt very much that such a rifle would be worth a big premium over say, a 'standard' BSA rifle from 1945. It is curious, but I wouldn't have thought it valuable monetarily. That is usually the motive for people to fake things.
As regards the D6E on the rear of the bolt guide way, I have no idea why it is there in Lee enfield's photo, but it is, & I have a stripped reciver dated 1945 that was earmarked for conversion but wasn't, but also bears the D6E. I don't think it has been faked - I have had the receiver in a plastic box in my gun room for at least twenty years & I doubt there'd have been much incentive to create a non-sniper sniper's rifle before that. But then, who knows?!
If H&H outsourced the examiner(s) to BSA later in the production history of the 4T, such that the D6E's were applied at BSA BEFORE the machining took place down at H&H that would explain why we see these occasional examiner marked rifles that were never converted. However, I am only thinking out loud.......... or are they all 'faked up'? Any other suggestions?
The most obvious solution is 99% probable and that would be your theory of stamps being applied at BSA prior to any work beginning on them. I stress that I am saying this not from a position of knowledge but a position of looking at probability given a) the fake market is recent and b) I have never seen this mentioned before even on that website, and if it was a possible to sell fakes with this it would have been done and seen. I guess it's only a matter of time😀
I agree with RP & PL in the summation of things the quantities involved wartime expedients of production and converting these rifles what could have gone on we will never now know I also feel BAR may be well founded in his suspicions but we cannot write things off because they do not fit a certain mold/criteria of how a weapon should be marked. As RP stated the money side of things is not going to balloon the thing to the stratosphere we are just going to have to live with the fact that it may be like Rogers receiver that for some reason did not get anywhere and in this case this particular weapon was stamped and then assembled post war carrying the marks.
We can never ascertain to a 100% accuracy why these types present themselves and can only go on what is written and researched by authors such as Peter, Brian Labbuda and Ian Skennerton and those gun professionals that have years upon years of dealing with these weapons that is what I base my learning's on them to help me along this long road.
The only other way is to perhaps request from Holland & Holland their employees records or someone with BSA's and track down the WWII inspectors and ask them if any are still alive and what an onerous task that would be in fact they might have forgotten what was what with the processes involved in the builds and stamping, be nice to know what the "S" denoted but.......
Agreed Cinders. In fact Peter did an awful lot of research & visited the old workshops at H&H when he was writing his 4T/L42 book, & I have never had any reason to doubt his suggestion that the D6E represented Harry Hardwick (if that was his name, I'm speaking off the cuff from memory without Pete's book to hand), one of the inspectors at H&H, but this then still leaves us with this strange situation of the markings appearing on rifles that were never converted. Most odd. Indeed some could have been faked, but there's little incentive to, & whilst I have only owned one D6E non converted rifle (receiver), they have been mentioned before here on the forum & we know that a few exist. It seems unlikely to me, at least IMHO, that they are all fakes. So, we still have a puzzle!
Peter, did you ever come across any more information on the conversion procedure that wasn't included in the book but which might shed any light on this anomaly? Could the rifles have gone down to H&H, been marked up earlier in the conversion process (at the beginning, before the pads were fitted), but then were not converted & subsequently just went into service as standard No4's? Even that still makes it hard to explain the 1947 dated example that started off this thread......unless the butt socket was linished & redated by BSA -or a faker- yet the untidy style of the butt socket markings matches the one I saw exactly. That rifle had been amongst a large batch of surplus rifles that were deactivated, & wasn't even noticed until after it had been chopped. IIRC it bore a Y prefix serial number, making it a little later even than the one shown at the start of this thread.
some questions.
is there a known D6B inspectors mark?
were the D6E marks added at the beginning, middle or end of the conversion process?
if at the beginning, did mr hardwick do his inspections at H&H or at BSA before the rifles were send to H&H?
are all the possible genuine D6E non sniper rifles post 1945 dated?
did H&H hand in all of their equipment (ie stamps) related to inspecting government work after they had finished their last 4T contract?
did harry hardwick stay with H&H after the war?
a little off topic, has anyone done a systematic study on the stamped markings used on british no4T production to try to work out a sequence of stamp changes and wear?
i ask as a family friend has a rather large collection of convict era tools. it is thought to be the best collection in australia (various government libraries and museums borrow from his collection for exhibitions as his collection is larger and more diverse than any they have).
there were multiple government ironworks that made tools, each had their own broad arrow stamps to mark their work. the broad arrow stamps were all handmade, hence vary in size and shape.
the ironwork for various government buildings was also made by the different government run ironworks and the supply details for the construction some of these buildings still exist. hence by examining the door hinges and other ironwork at various buildings and cross referencing it to the ironwork supply details, you can tell what broad arrow stamp was used by what ironworks and roughly when.
he has been able to identify where and when some of his tools were made due to the broad arrow stamps used and sequence some of them as well by wear/damage to the stamps.
Further the henryr's questions I may add the rifles were selected after assembly and accuracy checks those above average collared and sent to H&H for the conversion to T variant, RP the name you mentioned rings a bell I am to lazy to grab peters book at present as its late and I am in minimum effort mode! I guess it comes down to a collective if Peter is so inclined to converse with Ian and Brian Lab for I feel those 3 are subject matter experts.
I am not trying to be rude to others whom posses a long working history on the Lee line either but there has to be a top of the litter which we mere mortals can address when we have questions.
As for the stamps I do not know I have heard another story that the Tiptaft stamps were procured by some unsavory people and the Australian WWI/II hat and collar badges stamped to increase their value 10 fold from just an ordinary hat/collar price. So those types are out there and it is well to do that if one is deciding to buy a HT or T they visit this site with q's if they think there are erroneous things with the fire arm. Just recently we had that No.4 T real cheap with that Alaskan scope on a purported LB T really cheap and no amount of persuasion could get clear pics of the relevant stamping.
Peter would it be possible for you to have an amended T book I know you have just finished or about to release the Bren book (I Think) and whilst I have had no experience publishing a book it would be a mammoth task, its just that so much new material has come to light perhaps teaming up with Ian again and split the work load. What do you reckon......?
Perhaps not for the purpose of it but for someone looking to have an example and was just assembling his own rifle...was my thought. We built bags of them, back when parts and wood was available and them moved them on after time. All done very innocently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
Hello Henry. Never came across D6B in sniper connections, but D6E is generally believed to have been applied towards (at?) the end of the conversion process by HH at H&H. The rifles were stamped with the TR at BSA before they left for H&H to indicate that they were put to one side for sniper conversion, having satisfied the accuracy standards. AFAICR the S on the cut-off block is thought to have been applied at H&H to indicate that the rifle had come with a Mk1 Singer sight & so, not requiring a replacement rear sight, it was already sighted in. The lack of the S on a genuine rifle therefore suggests that it came with an incorrect (eg Mk2 'battle sight') rear sight & so would need re-sighting in after sniper conversion. All of this is in Peter's book, I think.
The non-converted 1945 receiver I have is either a V or X prefix & as well as the D6E stamp also bears the TR mark, though it has been officially cancelled. The inconsistency seems to occur in that, if the D6E was only ever applied at the end of the conversion process to indicate the examiner had accepted into service a satisfactorily converted rifle, then we cannot really explain these anomalous rifles. This was why I thought out loud that could Mr Hardwick have changed his working practice at some point in the production history, & started marking the rifle bodies when they arrived at H&H & not upon completion of the conversion.....just a thought.
Peter knows more about the conversion process than anyone else that I know of, so I'd be very keen to get his take on it all.
Being more interested in the Enfield competitive side of things, let me put this hypothesis forward:
England was in a virtual depression after WWII. Business was not good. All of the manufacturers were looking for work and sales. There were food shortages and sorts of restrictions on imports based on currency issues.
Now unlike now, in this period the permitting of rifles arms was fairly liberal. The combination of returning vets, Homeguard use and wide distribution of arms meant it was not hard at all to get a permit to own one or two service rifles, if you used them in competition. A lot of the Homeguard and returning vets were interested in competitive shooting, it was cheap to do, and the material was available for low cost from the army. The sale of No4 rifles was allowed around 1946 and competitive sights were set up by both AJ parker and Parker Hale in 1946 and 1947 respectively.
In order to use a service rifle in a match, it had to have the "government viewers mark" which certified the arm was to government standards. In each of the "Bisley bibles" I have from 1904 to the late 1960s, this requirement is stated.
So I would suggest this might be a rifles set up for sale just after the war, either by H&H or BSA for competitive shooting. At that time there was no allowance for any bedding but the front loaded bearing, so you would not be able to tell if it was set up for this by any internal bedding variations. In the Parker Hale catalogs from just after the war, there are indicating of like new rifles being available.
I wasn't able to add this to the original post for some reason.... right side butt socket.
Attachment 73651
Why would anyone go to that much trouble to fake a rifle that is only marginally more valuable than a regular No4?
And where does one find an Enfield examiner's stamp?
And a rifle with apparently no markings on the butt socket to provide the starting point...stretches the bounds of credulity somewhat IMO. They look like they were stamped yesterday, but then that's how newish rifles look, whether they're from 1947 or 1907.
No "TR" on the butt socket? I see the photo is cut off above where they might be.
I have an uncompleted 1944 M47C in the X35---- SN range, from which many, many No4(T)s came. It has both examiner's marks as this one does and the "S" and the "TR". Why uncompleted in 1944? Why both examiner's marks when one was supposedly applied on completion of the rifle? Why the "S"?
We're too late, that's all.
I did some years ago see some Lithgow stamps for sale on that site so they are out there also some Mauser stamps as well believe me there are those out there just wanting to make a quick $ and stuff up the whole collecting game. Like I said Surpmil the Tiptaft stamps were a good example of how to increase the value of an un-named Australian Hat or Collar badge into quite a valuable WWI one there was a report on the net made about the case........
My only comment is regarding the off-site MoS/Enfield Examiners mark. The rifle has already passed every stage of its manufacturing inspections at BSA and been marked as such and been proofed as the final stage of its No4 rifle life. This was marked on the rifle by the examiner as proof that the rifle has passed his stage of the examination.
In the case of the No4T's, the out-inspection was by the MoS/Enfield off site examiner at H&H where the rifle agreed to the specification laid down to be re-designated (as a No4 Telescope) specification/standard was complete when it was marked with the D6E mark.
To mark, say, 100 or so in bulk beforehand would be a total disaster waiting to happen. And knowing how the system worked and how qualified the examiners were and the quality control of the era was, I'd say.......... Nope........... . It's difficult to think of another everyday example. But here's one. It'd be like 100 pistols going to be proofed. But, to save time, the proofmaster just stamps every one to say it's been done when in fact it hasn't. Then, later on, several fail........ and then the xxxx really hits the fan. Or at Uni where you don't actually sit your finals but miraculously pass..... Strange that....... weren't the medical students at Lagos treated to such a treat a couple of years ago........?
Or what about your mate at the passport office giving you a few unnamed blanks........
Gentleman,
As always, I appreciate all of the comments and discussion.
I have little experience compared to many who have posted in this thread but my thoughts on this rifle tend to follow those questioning "why" would something like this be faked?
Cinders brings up the well known about stamps being reproduced to forge markings on items to increase value and desirability, Mausers and German militaria probably being one of the leading items forged out there. With that, the value difference between a bog standard No.4 and a properly marked Mauser are light-years apart, with the Mausers being at least 3-4 times the value. Some less scrupulous people would suggest that to be a "value warranted" endeavor. I honestly feel the standard No.4 just doesn't fit this criteria of forgery.
We have 3 examples, virtually identically marked, by members whom I would think are regarded as very respectable in this community. Lee Enfield saw the M47 C 1947 markings on the butt socket and immediately asked if a D6E mark was present. With 3 known examples and the likelihood of there being more, that would suggest a very busy and intent individual engaging in the act of faking rifles that are of questionable gained value.
The D6E and "S" marks. Is it safe so suggest that these marks would be in the category of "advanced" knowledge markings? If so, would that not further narrow the field of prospects that a faked rifle would appeal to?
The M47 C 1947 marking. If these rifles were originally of BSA manufacture, I would think the M47 C mark would already exist so why linish it out only to re-stamp it? Does this suggest the rifle was not originally manufactured by BSA? I have no idea.
The only thing I feel that I can add to this discussion out of experience is concerning the electro-penned markings. Over the last 10 years, I have spent considerable time collecting and studying the post war BSA FTR rifles. Having said that, the only scrap of information I can offer is that the electro-penned markings are very consistent with post war BSA markings. The inconsistent aspect is the serial number. Better than 90% of all post war BSA FTR rifles I have owned or observed had all original markings scrubbed and were allotted a new "A" prefix serial number. However, a few examples with 1955 dates retained all original markings and the original serial number retained. With the earliest examples of post war BSA FTR'd rifles being 1952/53, these rifles seem to fit in a pre BSA FTR slot. The serial number suggests "new" manufacture following the correct sequence in the serial number range.
These are just my personal observations and are not meant to contest or convince anyone who has posted in this thread. I fully realize that the information that Peter has brought forth puts most theories into the shitter.
I think this thread could go on forever & we would still never get a satisfactory explanation to all of our questions. What really puzzles me is these rifles that bear the D6E marks yet weren't converted. I may well be wrong but I do not believe that they have all been faked up, & further, I also must admit that what Peter says above does make sense (not marking up rifles on the assumption they would pass muster), which is why I wondered if there could have been a change in policy over when in the conversion process to mark them. Unless more documentation turns up they will probably remain 'mystery rifles'!
I would suggest that several rifles (which share specific manufacturer markings and date) located in separate countries with an obscure specific marking(s) which really only interest what are really advanced collectors and are NOT easily reproduced it stretches the bounds of imagination to suggest that they are "faked".Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
The electro penned serial numbers were used on wartime production BSA No.4 service rifles. I just went and looked at a 1944 I still have that sports it's original blue finish and it's done just the same. I once had a 1945 that was absolutely mint and unaltered and it was the same. The serial numbers of the No.4T conversions are stamped and not electro penciled. I still have one virtually new 1945 V prefix rifle and it's stamped as is my very well used and heavily FTR'd ZF 1943 rifle that's had four scopes in it's career. Little details I never thought about!
Yes, there's a chap in Austria making excellent WaffenAmpt stamps I believe. However, this is neither a Mauser nor a Lithgow nor a badge and as yet we have seen no sudden increase in supply of RSAF(E) stamps on rifles have we?Quote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS
And since there's no price premium on anything but No4(T)s I suspect we're not likely to in the future! One of the pleasures of collecting things that haven't been effectively faked.
Just my obtuse backward brain but what say the rifles were an almost complete unit up to say having the bedding sorted then sitting there and for some reason lost in the fogginess of time de-constructed who can tell and I stated earlier those that are the go to people are even at odds as to how these things happen. Is it unique we may never find out but as has been proffered here many times....
"Never say Never with Enfields." I find this a most intriguing thread
Cinders, the 1945 receiver I have is D6E marked & also bears the TR mark on the butt socket, though the T & R have been neatly barred through with official cancellation stamps.
Is the serial number stamped or engraved on your spare '45 date receiver Rog? Just curious.
I should have come in directly and clarified what I was referencing to. I didn't mean to suggest BSA didn't electro pen war time rifles... I was simply referring to their post war work. Sorry for the confusion.
Comme ca? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
Attachment 73690
Exactement, mon brave!
---------- Post added at 05:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:52 PM ----------
Hi Brian. Mine is V394XX & is engraved on the receiver side wall. The serial number is NOT on the butt socket. It is 1945 dated, & bears the cancelled 'TR' like Surpmil's, & also bears both the 'D6E' & the 'S' on the cut-off block. It does not show the receiver side wall T.
Hope this is of interest.
No confusion Dave. Just small intricate details I never really took note of before.
Roger, I've just had a hard look at my 1945 T which is V375XX. It makes perfect sense that the serial numbers were stamped on the butt socket during the conversion process because the Brunofix finish as used by H&H after modification pretty much makes the lightly engraved side wall markings disappear. My 1943 rifle, sn. AT57XX, even though having been phosphated and baked with Suncorite, still has the engraved No.4Mk.1 marking on the sidewall clearly visible. It would have originally been blued and the serial number stamped on the butt socket. Guessing that BSA started engraving the serial numbers on the side wall under the model designation in 1944?
Well observed Brian. I'm not sure exactly when BSA would have started engraving them on the side wall, but either 44 or even (?early?) 45, I suppose. I'll have a look at a few rifles in the gun room & see how they're marked up.
Were they actually engraved at that late stage or do you mean what is called 'panto-etched'. This where the electric/electro-pencil is held in a pantograph frame. It is the same shallow engraving BUT in a regular tidy format. Whereas engraving is quite deep, with a rotating cutter.
You're correct Peter. My poor choice of words. They appear done with a pantograph machine. I have a 1944 BSA done that way so guessing they changed from stamping the butt sockets then. It was done after the bluing was applied too as it's "in the white".
Brian, I looked at about half a dozen 44 & 45 4T's yesterday evening & all but one X prefix 45 rifle have the serials stamped on the butt socket only. It's obviously only a tiny sample size, but it looks as though there might be a considerable amount of variation......
Do they still all still have the brunofixing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
Could the refinishing/added finish have removed or obscured the engraving?
A mixture, although even when refinished you can usually make out at least traces of pantographing, even if not read it.
Here is the completed auction results for this rifle.... I was not thinking it would achieve this level of interest or price.
Post War-Korean Lee-Enfield BSA Shirley No.4 Penny : Bolt Action Rifles at GunBroker.com
You can see where the file took off a smidge of the walnut at the butt socket behind the serial number...left it flat.