No.4(T) Rifles and the wartime records of Holland & Holland

Last November (2017) I purchased a No.4(T) rifle together with its matching numbered No.32 MkI telescopic sight. The rifle was made by ROF Maltby and is dated 1942. This rifle came with a transporter chest, numbered to a different rifle, and the sight came with a No. 8 scope tin, also numbered to a different rifle. The transporter chest contained a Scout Regiment Telescope (by Houghton Butcher) together with a tripod mount for this scope that was made in New Zealand. The Scout Regiment Telescope is missing its leather carry case.

I have a copy of Capt. Peter Laidler's comprehensive book on the No.4(T) rifle and have studied his observations and I am happy that my rifle is a correct example. I have also had a reliable opinion that this rifle together with its sight are an original matched pair.

I am interested in researching this rifle further and am now trying to find out who holds the wartime conversion records of Holland & Holland whose factory was located in North London during WW2. So far I have contacted the modern day Holland & Holland, the Small Arms Collection at Warminster, the National Archives at Kew, the London Metropolitan Archives in London, the Royal Armouries in Leeds but none of these organisations holds these records or has any advice as to who might hold them. Of course these records may no longer exist.

If anyone on the forum can help me with this search I would appreciate it.

Thanks in advance.

I thought sometime ago this question was posed on perhaps this subject and there was mention of the records being lost in a fire but I cannot recall positively whether it was H & H or Parker Hales who's records were destroyed. Roger Payne may have an answer though I suspect Peter Laidler will also have a good knowledge of the where abouts of the records if they still exist at all.

Good luck....:thup:

I think Peter's best qualified here. There are certainly production figures in his book, & I had always assumed these were accessed through H&H, but that was my assumption. Also, it's now nearly thirty years since he started his researches, & records which may have existed then may not any longer.

I've only ever seen 1941 dated Maltby T's up to now.........

It really depends on what you want to know that's not in the book.

My thanks to Roger Payne and to Peter Laidler for responding to my query.

---------- Post added at 10:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:53 AM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

It really depends on what you want to know that's not in the book.

---

Peter, having spent my whole working life in the field of accountancy, I have developed the habit of trying to find external proof (usually paper based) that something is correct or at least believable. As old habits die hard, it occurred to me having read and re-read your book I decided to try and locate the conversion records of Holland & Holland to see if it were possible for me to actually trace my rifle through these records. As correct No.4(T) rifles are becoming more difficult to find and there are a number of dubious rifles and scopes showing up in the market place (I have seen two dodgy examples in the past year or so) I would like to establish some external degree of provenance for my rifle and its scope. I accept that I am probably on a bit of a wild goose chase with this quest.

No offense, but your rifle looks like a put-together to me. Scope pads don't look right and have no signs of wear, which shouldn't be the case with an early war 4T. Cheek piece is bad and I have no idea why it has a stock disk unless it's a Trials butt.

Why am I seeing bedding material between the end of the bottom wood and the wrist socket correct me if I am wrong but there is no way known H&H would use that gunk on a "T" me thinks bubba or something dodgy is afoot there besides that is the biggest serrif of a "T" on the left receiver I have yet seen on this site or on any T that has been posted on this site.

For a size comparison see picture of the serif T my 1944 BSA M47C "T" which luckily for me the rifle and the as issued to the rifle scope they are listed in Peters book as having been involved in pad trials when there was an issue with the front pads working loose.

I didn't want to be the one to start slinging the muck first, but I concur absolutely. I'll enumerate a few points that make me unhappy if people wish, but I don't think it's what our OP is going to like, having parted with his hard earned cash for it. And at the end of the day, it's just MHO anyway.......

I'll just step in on the Parker Hale records. I hold a considerable amount of the original records saved from the mass burn up in 2000, but would leave the conjecture of the sizes of the stamped serifs to those specialists in the Lee Enfield area of the site.
Certainly as Roger says things don't sit right compared to my 4T on that rifle sadly.
Hope the seller can clarify some of the issues going to be raised here!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

I didn't want to be the one to start slinging the muck first, but I concur absolutely. I'll enumerate a few points that make me unhappy if people wish, but I don't think it's what our OP is going to like, having parted with his hard earned cash for it. And at the end of the day, it's just MHO anyway.......

---

Mine too. Though I think it *may* have been an original "TR" rifle before someone decided to "complete" it.

Scope and case are nice originals, bracket possibly an original that has been smoothed down to look earlier.

I was not trying to upset anyone just observe certain aspects of the rifle in the pics the OP supplied as these rifles have been to timbucktoo and back who knows what happened to them this one may have just had the TR stamped on it then never got completed until an enterprising person perhaps decided to do it either in service or out of service.
I would tend to go out of service as it would be a plucky armourer to try and buck the system although they may have done it up on their smoko breaks!!!

That may be it Surpmil perhaps explains why the certain denoting stamp common to S51 factory completed "T"s is not there on the flat well there is one there but.......!

I may be wrong (ask my wife!), but I thought the TR was applied at the BSA Shirley factory in Solihull to rifles selected for T conversion. I would therefore not expect to see it on a rifle that originated from another factory. Indeed, it is not present on even BSA rifles of early manufacture, such as those dated 1941.

I would not say that the large atypical body sidewall T necessarily meant that the rifle must be bogus, as early converted rifles were not typically marked, although some were retrospectively marked, presumably either by judicious armourers or at the time of a FTR. If so marked, the procedure would have been carried out using whatever letter stamps were available at the time, so the large T may or may not be genuine.

IMHO the front body pad is off a much later rifle - if I were pushed I'd say off a BSA 1944 rifle, most likely. There looks to be traces of a different finish on the pad to that on the receiver. The finish on the screws is also different. The screws through the rear pad show a very definite 'margin' around the heads, which is not at all typical of pads fitted in the UK. The circumference of the screw heads where they meet the countersink in the rear pad - the 'join' if you like between screw & pad is generally so nicely done as to be almost imperceptible on H&H products - just a barely discernible line. I would assume the screw heads were originally left proud of the pad surface & the whole lot then milled flat by Hollands' machinists. I would admit this is not the case with Canadian conversions, but this one is of British origin.

It is improbable that the wood is all original as the forend is beech & the butt is walnut.

I hope the OP will not take offence at these observations - that is all they are - just MHO.