Proposed No.4 Mk1 T Camo scheme

I've managed to get a hold of a No.4 Mk1 T action, and I'm planning to make a clone of the camo painted rifle in the attached picture. I'm thinking that by painting on a camo pattern, I can use an older slightly beaten up stock, do a little bit of filling, and end up with a clean finish.
The photo is black & white, so I have to guess the colour scheme. I'm thinking of using British desert & Italy tank camo paints, as I assume that these were the colours available. I'm planning a light stone base, with dark brown & olive green swirls, with maybe some very dark gray edging like the tank camo in the attached picture.

Has anyone come across a similar project or have any knowledge of the subject? I thought I might as well ask, as I'd be disappointed if I painted up a stock and found out that the colours were wrong, or that there were better photos & historical sources.
The depth of knowledge here can be quite impressive. I thought I might see how far it goes.

If it's any help I've got a 41 Maltby T with green splodge cammo paint on it. I presume it is genuine service done & I can upload a photo of it if you would like.

I gather there's a lot of ex-Indian issue 4T barreled actions being sold in Oz at present.......wish there was some in the UK!

Why don't you just do what most of the snipers I've ever known, seen and come across do? In REAL life, they just wrap an old face veil or scrim netting/sacking tied around the rifle and tie it with some bailing twine. We had a saying about camouflage and it went something like this. Nature never comes in straight lines, straight colours or perfect radii. You camouflage bearing in mind all the S's. Shape, shine shadow silhouette and a few other S's that I forget now. Same as your binoculars. Wrap them in scrim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Shape, shine shadow silhouette and a few other S's that I forget now

---

Shape, shine, shadow, silhouette, spacing, sound...texture, color, movement...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

If it's any help I've got a 41 Maltby T with green splodge cammo paint on it. I presume it is genuine service done & I can upload a photo of it if you would like.

I gather there's a lot of ex-Indian issue 4T barreled actions being sold in Oz at present.......wish there was some in the UK!

---

Thanks for your reply.
If you could send a photo of your rifle that would be very interesting to see.
I have gotten one of the Indian actions. They are DPed so there is a bit of a risk getting them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeeBee

Thanks for your reply.
If you could send a photo of your rifle that would be very interesting to see.
I have gotten one of the Indian actions. They are DPed so there is a bit of a risk getting them.

---

Are you planning to build it up as a 'shooter', or a wall hanger ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

Are you planning to build it up as a 'shooter', or a wall hanger ?

---

A shooter.

This rifle is exactly as I acquired it in 1997. You can see I've not rushed to refit the cheekpiece, rear sight, & tap the foresight block back a little & fit the waited foresight protector as yet! I believe that it had only been warehouse stored by the one civvy owner who had had it since it was disposed of by the MoD. I doubt that it was ever fitted with a triangular swivel. On top of which that splodgy green paint looks too old & shXXXy to be anything other than of the era, & has now faded somewhat. I've just presumed it to be the work of a previous user who for some reason preferred that to scrim netting, or maybe used both......

It's been on this forum before, when we were discussing bolt head sizes. The bolt body is factory matching, & the bolt head is also M marked (I'm pretty sure it's the original but I can't prove it) & is very clearly marked with a size of '4'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeeBee

A shooter.

---

I'll post some notes from the UKs most senior armourer (Peter laidler) who has written several books on Lee Enfields and particularly the No4T

I don't know if it will make any difference to your plans, but at least the forum has made you aware of the implications and cannot be held responsible for any accidents.



I have mentioned ‘Britain’ here but while I can’t include Canada, I can certainly include New Zealand and Australia with a degree of certainty plus India, whose Army liaison Officer at work ran his eyes over this paper for me. I have also mentioned DP too and in this respect, it isn’t meant to mean ‘DRILL’ in the parade square context, it is meant to indicate practicing your rifle ‘training drills’. And it’s not only rifles that were downgraded to DP either because in the days of the old ‘number’ radio sets, many of these were classified as DP sets too.

When I read about DP rifles in various places, I get the impression from the armchair experts that they are formulated by someone in the Armourers shop who decides that he’ll make/convert a few rifles in order to …………. NOTHING could be more dangerous nor further from the truth. One other thing too. Do not mix up DP rifles with the ‘higher’ standard (?) ‘sub-standard’ rifles that trickled out of service in the early 50’s. At least there were gauging limits for those!

When need exists for such rifles, the idea is put up to the Brigade Training Major for example and ‘staffed’ up the chain of command where a decision on the matter will be reached after due questioning of all concerned. I’ll take a fictitious unit training for an operational role in bongo-bongo land. The attrition rate of the weapons on the training team, due to the arduous nature of the training is critical is such that they need 20 rifles and 6 GPMG’s that can be used and abused. Authority is given for them to be issued these ‘extra’ DP classified weapons from Ordnance stockpiles. So, in the normal course of events, these are issued from training stocks.

But, let’s say the DP stocks aren’t available, then authority will be issued FROM THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE no less, for such weapons to be made available. Ordnance stores would then select from returned weapons that are deemed to be ‘ZF’ (that’s an Armourers technical explanation that I won’t go into) or BER (Beyond Economic Repair) to select the required amount for conversion to DP specification.

Now, if the required amount cannot be made from the ZF and BER stocks, then the remainder will simply be converted from standard war stocks. You will see from this, that while on the face of it, some 30 years down the line that your bright and shining No1 or No4 rifle LOOKS bright and shining, under the bright and shiny surface might be lurking a metallurgical nightmare ……………… Let me give you an example

During the 60’s and 70’s there was a constant need for No4 DP rifles, not only for cadet Forces but Parachute training too where the actual carrying of a rifle was more important than what the weapon was for. The reason for the attrition in this case was quite understandable. So a small but continuous rolling programme of ‘DP-ing’ was undertaken. Naturally many ZF/BER No4’s plus otherwise serviceable rifles were put into the programme plus a healthy dollop of L1A1 rifles too. Not only were these worn out rifles put into the pot, but we later learned, several thousand extensively fire damaged No4, L1A1 rifles and Bren guns that had been involved in a massive fire. These were aesthetically cleaned down, rebuilt to DP standard and profusely marked JUST so that there could be no doubt about their status. Oh, they looked very nice but what had gone on under the surface was a matter of conjecture. Would YOU fire one? I’ve been an Armourer for a couple of years and while I or your local gunsmith could examine one and give it a bright clean bill of health, would YOU trust it. NO, I wouldn’t either!

Let me give you another example too. NO dates here of course but ‘recently’ several hundred assorted weapons were recovered from a fire ravaged/damaged ship, sunk in low water (and later towed out to sea and scuttled). These were all quickly earmarked for scrap and eventually side tracked for DP/Training use. Like the other example, these were also cleaned, and refurbished, painted and ‘restored’ to aesthetically ‘serviceable’ condition. Oh, they looked good but within a couple of years, these had started to rust from under the welds, seams and joints.

And before I forget, let me remind you of something else too, JUST in case you’re tempted to buy one to use as spare parts. This is what the Armourers bible says. ‘……..it will be assembled as far as possible with components which are below the standard required for a service weapon’. And another thing you ought to remember. There were NO gauging limits for DP rifles. Mmmmmmm, food for thought there!

That’s about it. In my very limited experience as an Armourer and having overseen some of these DP programmes, I can tell you with certainty that they were all profusely marked DP so that their status was unambiguous. Agreed, some might be taken straight from stocks, but the rest ……………

Would YOU trust one? There certainly IS a place for a DP rifle in a collection as it forms a place in the lineage of the breed. But in the cupboard or rack or on the wall. NOT on the firing point.


And how does he know this? An Engineering Graduate, Capt. Peter Laidler is the senior Armourer in the British Army since serving his apprenticeship between January1963 and 66. He is currently the senior technical Officer at the Small Arms School at Warminster. And oversaw the introduction of the current L59 series of DP rifle. Or he just guessed. Pick what you think suits!
Resurrect a DP rifle from ANY nation......., no fear!

AdE,
The OP is rebuilding it from a stripped receiver - if it gauges OK (and I would hardness test it too) it is OK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Enfield

AdE,
The OP is rebuilding it from a stripped receiver - if it gauges OK (and I would hardness test it too) it is OK.

---

From discussions with PL, the reason that a rifle is DP'd is generally because of the receiver, every other part is replaceable.

I wonder if the OP has all of the necessary gauges to say it is 'safe' ?
Good point on the hardness, as PL says that the hardness of the locking lugs was a failure point, and that the bolt locking lugs could actually 'hammer thru' the body locking lugs and get into 'soft' metal.

Bearing in mind that these are Indian DP bodies it may be advisable not to try and resurect them particularly if they are post 1949, as after independence Ishapore decided to change the steel from that specified by the UK and that led to 1000s of rifles being declared DP and many scrapped. Eventually they changed the proofing standards until the actions with the new steel just passed.

Short extract from an Article :

Extract from “Gun Digest 33rd Anniversary 1979 Deluxe Edition”
Article Author : Mr A G Harrison
Qualification : Former ‘Proof Master’ of the ‘Rifle Factory Proof House, Ishapore, India’

From 1908 to 1950 all military bolt action rifles made at Ishapore were proof tested with a dry-round, followed with by an oiled proof round. The proof cartridge was loaded to 24 tons psi breech pressure, or 15% higher than the service pressure. In 1950 (after the departure, in 1949, of India from British control) the material for the rifle bodies was altered from an EN steel to SWES 48 steel with the recoil shoulder and cam recesses being heat treated. With this change the rifle receivers distorted when oiled proof cartridges were fired. This was discovered when hard and sometimes impossible bolt retraction was experienced. Large quantities of rifles were rejected.


It goes on and more about the testing and also the 7.62 rifles failing proof testing.

Firearms Accessories

Here is the link.

They are all British No4 T actions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Enfield

Firearms Accessories

Here is the link.

They are all British No4 T actions

---

Agreed, but when a seller is not confident enough to quote them as 'safe to fire' and says 'probably' made DP for convenience of storage ............................


Purchased in a batch of No.4 MkI T barreled receivers from India, these show that during the early 1960s, Indian Ordnance was looking at upgrading the Mk I T to Mk II T. These barreled receivers appear to be original British sniper rifle Mk I T actions, modified to Mk II.

These barrelled receivers still have the pads fitted to take the scope bracket, and in this particular action, the barrel is a very good condition 2 groove barrel. The actions and barrels are marked "DP" for drill purpose, but in this case was probably for obsolescence and ease of storage


To quote PL :

Would YOU fire one? I’ve been an Armourer for a couple of years and while I or your local gunsmith could examine one and give it a bright clean bill of health, would YOU trust it. NO, I wouldn’t either!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

This rifle is exactly as I acquired it in 1997. You can see I've not rushed to refit the cheekpiece, rear sight, & tap the foresight block back a little & fit the waited foresight protector as yet! I believe that it had only been warehouse stored by the one civvy owner who had had it since it was disposed of by the MoD. I doubt that it was ever fitted with a triangular swivel. On top of which that splodgy green paint looks too old & shXXXy to be anything other than of the era, & has now faded somewhat. I've just presumed it to be the work of a previous user who for some reason preferred that to scrim netting, or maybe used both......

It's been on this forum before, when we were discussing bolt head sizes. The bolt body is factory matching, & the bolt head is also M marked (I'm pretty sure it's the original but I can't prove it) & is very clearly marked with a size of '4'.

---

Thanks very much for that. That is very interesting. It's nice to see proof of camo paint use. This forum really is quite a deep mine of information.

---------- Post added at 06:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:37 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

Agreed, but when a seller is not confident enough to quote them as 'safe to fire' and says 'probably' made DP for convenience of storage ............................


Purchased in a batch of No.4 MkI T barreled receivers from India, these show that during the early 1960s, Indian Ordnance was looking at upgrading the Mk I T to Mk II T. These barreled receivers appear to be original British sniper rifle Mk I T actions, modified to Mk II.

These barrelled receivers still have the pads fitted to take the scope bracket, and in this particular action, the barrel is a very good condition 2 groove barrel. The actions and barrels are marked "DP" for drill purpose, but in this case was probably for obsolescence and ease of storage


To quote PL :

Would YOU fire one? I’ve been an Armourer for a couple of years and while I or your local gunsmith could examine one and give it a bright clean bill of health, would YOU trust it. NO, I wouldn’t either!

---

Hi AdE
I have read through your replies. Thanks for your concern.
I have asked a few gunsmiths if they would test and/or possibly rebarrel the action. If they find it not to be safe, I'll bin it of course.
Whatever happens, I accept the risk.

DB you accept the risk for yourself but what about those standing next to you or those that use it with or after you.

Would you jump out of an aeroplane with a parachute that was marked "classroom training only"?
Probably not! so why would you risk your face with a DP rifle!

As a lowly ex RAF armorer with a lot more experience with aircraft weapons than small arms I'm always amazed at the potential lack of respect that some people seem to want to show to ex military firearms.
If a rifle is DP it was done for a very good reason and unless you can somehow travel back in time to find out the reason then you just have except that it is U/S for any other purpose than carrying out Drill Practice on the drill square.
It is simply stupid and foolhardy to treat it in any other way as it will almost certainly be a ticking time bomb that will fail at some point and kill or seriously injure some innocent party at some point in the future. The military are very well know for recycling and reusing equipment but if someone decides to say that something is now unsafe who are we to argue. I'm sure that there are plenty of people on this forum who understand "Cut & Shut" when it comes to repairing wrecked motor vehicles, they can be made to look great and perfectly ok until they are involved in another accident when they just fold up and kill the poor occupant who in all probability did not realize that he was driving a death trap.
REME and other military Armorers have knowledge built up over decades of working with the equipment that we now collect shoot and enjoy, pay heed to there wisdom and don't do something that could cause you harm or kill an innocent person somewhere down the line just because you think that you know better.

As it happens, I have a mechanical engineering design qualification. I have years of experience designing a variety of complicated machines. I have been trained in, and have experience in, material strength design and analysis, material failure modes, machining operations, surface treatments, and testing methods for all of these. I know how & why steel breaks, and how to check for its likely hood.

And I'm telling you, if a component passes adequate specification tests, it can be used in the machine. If it passes the tests, it won't likely fail.
These tests are not worth doing on a common item, but the "T" receiver is exotic enough to warrant it.

I'm not inventing a whole raft of new & untried methods, these are known & routine tests.
They might not be what you would learn when maintaining a large quantity of a limited range of machines, with a large spares inventory, but they are standard operations in my field.
There is no great mystic to attach to this. It's just engineering.

I am satisfied with the material & operation tests outlined by the gunsmith I communicated with. A gunsmith who seems to entirely disagree with many of the people on this thread.

This operation may be outside of your range of experience, but it's not out of mine.

I have been asked if I would like to pass comment on this thread. But after reading DB's thread (above) and to keep the thread diplomatically sound, I'll keep any other views to myself thanks very much. Except for one thing if I might. Experience! But that said, in the world of No4's and rifles generally mine is quite trifling compared to to DB's

D B
Do you have the Master gauges.