What type of No 4 sniper do I have?

Hello,

I found this rifle in the back of my closet. It has been there since the early 90's when I bought it at an estate sale for $325. I thought that was pricey at the time (you could get a standard No 4 for $79 back then) but I really liked it. It says on the receiver MA 47 and under that 1944 and underneath that B3268x and finally TR 43 (see picture) It unfortunately is missing the scope. Does anyone know if the Gun Parts Co. reproduction scope and mount is any good? I would love to find an original scope and mount for it but am realistic that probably won't happen.
I really don't know much about it. Can the experts here tell me exactly what I have? I am enclosing pictures of the rifle and case. I have been told by some other helpful collectors it is a BSA model and has the correct zinc but plate. I also know that it was imported by Interarmco in Alexandria Virginia by rail in Dec 1959 (see pictures of freight tags).

I have also been told that the buttstock may have been replaced in the past. If this is the case it was back in 1959 or earlier is my guess as it matches the overall wear on the rifle. I hope to get this old girl up and shooting again for the first time in almost 65 years. I rarely post here but I have been a member of the forum since the mid 2000's.

Thanks for any comments or suggestions.


Attachment 132535Attachment 132536Attachment 132537Attachment 132538Attachment 132539Attachment 132540Attachment 132541Attachment 132542Attachment 132543

Not too many people here like the quality of the repro scopes. Really interesting though, that you have the original shipping box and provenance. The No4 Mk1 (T) folks here will be on this by morning, What a find!
Here's a link to a similar BSA No4 (T) discussed on this forum: https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=48931
Salt Flat

The interesting thing is the early 1944 production block, on a B prefix, so a long way into Mk.2 scope use, and yet the butt appears to have a very earlier Mk.1 scope number...:dunno:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gdk771

What type of No 4 sniper do I have?

---

You have had 17 very good, detailed, replies to your question on another forum - I doubt you will get anything extra here, but, you never know.

Well, at the risk of repeating what you've already heard: it's a rather nice looking early 1944 production & definitely genuine BSA Shirley No4 T. I cannot see anything otherwise remarkable about it, save for, as you've said, a rather low scope serial number stamped into the butt for a 1944 rifle. William Watson produced Mk1 scopes into 1944 (I have one as a restoration project at present), but they are dated '44 & obviously have a much higher serial number. You mentioned that you suspect the butt may have been swapped at some point? That could explain it if the butt off an earlier rifle got fitted as a replacement. If you remove the butt, & it is indeed a genuine wartime original 4T butt, you should see the original rifle serial number (less letter prefix) stamped into it where it fits into the butt socket. That might solve the mystery!

I will try to take the buttstock off and see if I can see a serial number underneath it.

So what type of scope would be correct for it? An early one to go with the buttstock or a later one for the receiver? I guess it does not really matter as it will always be mismatched either way.

Does anyone here know much about the history of Interarmco? I would love to know how many of these came into the USA by them. I am guessing they came in by ship and were shipped by rail from the tags on it. I can't make out the source on them unfortunately, only the destination.

I was not aware they were owned by Interarmco (also known as interarms) Guess you could buy all you wanted of these for $79 in 1968. I was around back then but wearing diapers and had no money ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gdk771

So what type of scope would be correct for it? An early one to go with the buttstock or a later one for the receiver? I guess it does not really matter as it will always be mismatched either way.

---

Up until the mid 1920s the 'barrel' WAS the firearm, everything else was numbered to the barrel.
From the mid '20s the body (action / receiver) became the firearm and everything was numbered to the body.

For a WW2 No4T the body is the master component and that determines what period components should be used - that would only change if it was FTR'd or upgraded at a later date.


Instructions to Armourers Up to the mid 1920s :

Numbering Parts

31) Each rifle and carbine must invariably be used with its own breech bolt, otherwise the lugs will not bear evenly and the rifle or carbine will fire to the left or right.
As it is essential to good shooting each short rifle must always be used with the forend and nose-cap which were assembled to it when its sighting was adjusted before issue.

32) When fitting spare bodies, bolts or sight leaves (and in the case of short rifles spare forends and nose-caps also) to arms, the components mentioned will be marked with the barrel number, and when fitting a spare body and barrel, or a barrel the whole of the components before mentioned will be renumbered with the new barrel number.


Instruction to Armourers Post mid 1920s

Numbering Parts

17. Each rifle must invariably be used with the breech bolt bearing the rifle number, otherwise the lugs may not bear evenly, and the rifle may fire to the right or left; the distance from the bolt to the end of the chamber may also be affected. When, owing to loss or damage, it becomes necessary to fit another bolt to a rifle, the rifle should be fired for accuracy on the range. The fore-end and nose-cap are also fitted and numbered to the rifle. Accuracy tests must always be carried out when either or both of these components are exchanged.

18. When spare bolts, sight leaves, fore-ends and nose-caps are fitted to rifles, they will be marked with the body number. When fitting a spare barrel with body, the whole of the components before mentioned will be re-marked with the new body number.

To answer your question about the scope - accepting it is a 1944 rifle, then pretty much any mark. The scope number on the butt relates to a 1941 production Mk1 scope by William Watson. If the butt turns out to be original to the rifle then that's your answer (though that would be rather unusual).
However, if it is not the original butt, then we return to what is appropriate for a 1944 4T. The Mk2 scope was introduced in April 1943, & the Mk3 in October 1944, so both Mk2's & 3's would be acceptable, as would the hybrid Mk2/1. But as I mentioned above, Watson continued producing Mk1 scopes into 1944 (they tend to turn up with serial numbers in the 14,000+ range), so a late Watson Mk1 would also be acceptable. If you intend to shoot it at all regularly I'd try & find a 2/1 or a 3, simply because they're less fiddly to adjust.

Looking at the Hunter's Lodge ad, I see they have "Royal Enfield" No.4's for sale. While it is true that Royal Enfield did indeed supply some gun parts to factories in the late 19th century, by the twentieth century their focus on bicycles and later motorcycles eventually became Royal Enfield’s primary focus. However, Royal Enfield's origins in gun making weren’t lost entirely as the company adopted the tagline “Made Like a Gun.” One of Royal Enfield’s earliest and most popular motorcycles also referenced guns: The Enfield Bullet was revealed in 1932, and apparently is still in production.

As has been said there is a wide possibility of scopes that could have been fitted as new. What has not been said that scope could have been damaged and another fitted to keep the rifle in action. Go with Roger Paynes advice factory correct is not and never will be possible with Enfields after a war. I could add more on this matter but wont.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapper740

Looking at the Hunter's Lodge ad, I see they have "Royal Enfield" No.4's for sale. While it is true that Royal Enfield did indeed supply some gun parts to factories in the late 19th century, by the twentieth century their focus on bicycles and later motorcycles eventually became Royal Enfield’s primary focus. However, Royal Enfield's origins in gun making weren’t lost entirely as the company adopted the tagline “Made Like a Gun.” One of Royal Enfield’s earliest and most popular motorcycles also referenced guns: The Enfield Bullet was revealed in 1932, and apparently is still in production.

---

Sorry its a bit out of focus ............................

An Indian (Ishapore) manufactured "non Royal " Enfield No1 MK3 along with an Indian made "Royal Enfield"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapper740

Looking at the Hunter's Lodge ad, I see they have "Royal Enfield" No.4's for sale.

---

Its because of similar dumbass adverts like that we still have to put up with the No.5 being called the Jungle Carbine.

I also remember the advertisement you could shoot 4 caliber pistol cartridges out of a Astra 400. What they failed to mention is you seriously stress the extractor and put extra wear and tear on the gun when you shoot 9mm or .380 out of a gun designed for 9mm Largo. You have to remember however this was in 1968 and the sales people used these colorful names to hawk this surplus "junk" back then. I am forever grateful to Sam Cummings for brining into the USA so many wonderful military surplus that will never be imported again. I was lucky to be around in the early 90's when there was a second "wave" of surplus coming in and bought a bunch of stuff very economically. I mostly purchased surplus British stuff ($79 Enfield's) and Russian capture German ($125 K98's, $175 Lugers). Purist collectors turned up their noses at the Russian capture stuff with the dreaded "x" on it but I had a gun shop where I knew the owner. He let me cherry pick items in the pallets of rifles he ordered from Century before he put them on the sales floor. I wish I had bought more but I was a poor college student. I still have a pretty decent amount of stuff from those days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeeRam

The interesting thing is the early 1944 production block, on a B prefix, so a long way into Mk.2 scope use, and yet the butt appears to have a very earlier Mk.1 scope number...:dunno:

---

There's a good reason for that: they weren't producing a stream of No.4(T)s at H&H, they were producing a trickle.

So while flapping their wings about REL and Long Branch and their No32 scope production, "send a man over to help" etc. etc., there were thousands of Mk.I and Mk.II scopes sitting in store somewhere in the UK waiting to be fitted to rifles. I deduced that from records originally found by Clive Law, but here's some more proof: a W. Watson scope No. 1321, produced in 1941, getting fitted to a rifle made in 1944!

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread....l=1#post362178

And as we can all see, that rifle hasn't been so much as shot since it left the custody of the MoD, in fact the condition of the wood and metal suggests it was never issued at all after conversion.

I agree entirely that the butt looks original & untouched, & I'm not disputing your reasoning, but the fact remains, at least in my experience, that few observed matching 4T's show such a marked discrepancy between the date of the rifle & the date of the scope where the scope is dated several years BEFORE the date of the rifle it is matched to. From what my faltering memory can recall, the date is usually the same year or the scope is dated later than the rifle. I'm not for one minute suggesting the other way round cannot occur, & we might indeed have an example here, but I have not noted it to be particularly commonplace. Perhaps all those mystery rifles were set up & then put into store???

There are a number of mysteries I agree Roger. Why the early production "Less Telescope" rifles without "T" stamping or scope number on the wrist for example?

Those early Savages and Maltby's etc. should have been the first to be set up as the need was greatest in 1942/43. But of course when did those marking practices actually come into effect?

We know that few if any rifles with Mk.3 scopes were issued until the war was over or nearly over.

We know from Peter's research, visits to the H&H factory in London etc., discussions with surviving workers in the 1980s that they had one milling machine set up with the jigs to machine the contact surfaces on the pads. How many men & women were on the job? With one machine, given all that is involved in the process, five rifles a day seems quite probable.

It rather looks as though the whole thing was given a rather low priority in the grand scheme; which fits with what we know about the doctrines of the time and the general lack of interest in or appreciation of the value of sniping as method war.

Did the bombing damage to bracket production stall the whole effort for some time? Did it get pushed to the back burner as a result?

Clearly the rifles were not in existence in 1942 and into late 1943 from the inventory referred to. Most likely that is the reason contracts were let in Canada after all, and why rifles were being flown over from Canada as Warren found out, though I expect the push for that came from the Canadian Army who had been waiting in the UK for something to do for two years, using P14s with iron sights, W&S scopes and Alex Martin conversions.

Had production been steaming along in the UK, why bother to let contracts in Canada with thousands of un-mounted scopes sitting in store in the UK?

Did some committee at the War Office decide the scopes then in production were probably not worth fitting to rifles and quietly allow them to be produced and then shoved into storage in the expectation that something better would come along and production could be ramped up at that time?

Lots of strange things happen in wartime, and often other agendas interfere with what would seem to be "common sense".

I keep looking at the scope number on top of the wrist. It's obviously legit but do I see another scope number that's been barred out and sanded out below it? Maybe my mind is playing tricks on me? If there was another number there, it looks like five digits as it should be.

I wondered about that Brian, but convinced myself that my elderly eyes were probably deceiving me! However, I've just had another look, & pumped up the magnification of the photo as much as I can & I think you may well be right. As you say, it wouldn't be causing any controversy if it were a five digit number!

Surpmil, you are of course correct - there are so many little points that do not readily add up. What I can say, from direct observation, is that when DT & I jointly bought the 140 4T's back in 1997, I did a breakdown of most of them (we bought 120 in a job lot & the other twenty trickled in from a third party who had bought some from the original source but who then decided he wanted money in his pocket not 4T restoration projects). I still have the results; around about 85% of the total were BSA Shirley rifles dated from 43 to 45. The remaining 15% were Long Branch & early dated rifles - B1941's, ROFM 41's, S 41 & 42's. There were both S Mk1 & Mk1* rifles. ALL of the early production rifles has been scoped up, & ALL of the scope serial numbers were lowish (ie Mk1's).

From memory we had about five or six each of Maltby, BSA 41, Savage, & Long Branch rifles. There were only two Trials rifles, both of which had been removed from the batch, & which were offered to me for considerably more than the bulk of the rifles!

From study of these & other rifles I am pretty sure that the S51 is the first of the H&H markings that was consistently used. At least 50% of the 41 & 42 dated rifles bore the S51 on the butt, even though the other 'typical' markings were missing. The front body pads were all machined in the 'early generous shoulder radius' style as one typically sees on 41 to 43 rifles. It is possible the conversions were started early on & then set aside to be finished off much later..........but that does not explain the early scope serial numbers on these rifles. Interestingly, it was the early rifles that were in the least used condition. Many of them looked to have had very little use, & more typically it was the 43 to 45 rifles that looked to have seen plenty of action. Obviously that does not apply in every single case, but reflects the generality. So perhaps they did spend a lengthy amount of time in warehouses after conversion.......

I don't know where that leaves us.......! It certainly reflects a smallish number of early rifles compared to 43 to 45's, but shows perhaps those that do exist, were likely early rifles converted fairly early. The bulk were indeed 'run of the mill' 43, 44, & 45 examples.

I need to persuade one of my club members to remove the butt of his ex-Indian No.4T to see if the Indian's left the original rifle number on the butt socket insert, as I'm curious to know what it is, given its been removed from all external visible places by the Indians and renumbered by them. Its still has it's original S51 mark and the original scope number with original Mk.3 scope. Its a 1945 dated BSA rifle, and am curious as the scope number is about 1000 less than my L prefix 1944 dated rifle's original Mk.3 scope.

Roger if I may ask a question in relation to the scopes and their fitment;

Was it possible that in the transition through the various models of scopes MK 1, MK 2, Mk 2* & Mk 3 that as production of the T's went along the earlier scopes were left in stores with the rifles receiving the most up to date versions mainly the MK 2* & Mk 3.
Which would leave a surplus of the older scopes sitting in stores does/would the Army or H&H operate that way, was it ever use the earlier types up first!
Thanks for your time Roger.

P.S I did check my AK & S Mk 3 its a '44 mated to a BSA '44 T.

The short answer Ron, is that I don't know. I don't think any of us know for sure what really came to pass, hence the considerable amount of speculation. Surpmil has analysed the figures & this does seem to suggest that scope production, at least earlier on, outstripped rifle conversion. However, from direct observation, most early rifles that were converted were fitted with early production scopes.......& later rifles with later scopes........just as you would logically expect. An odd situation, & not one which I can pretend to fully explain myself. Sorry I'm not more help.

Your observations re your own rifle sound pretty typical.:thup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

I keep looking at the scope number on top of the wrist. It's obviously legit but do I see another scope number that's been barred out and sanded out below it? Maybe my mind is playing tricks on me? If there was another number there, it looks like five digits as it should be.

---

Good spot Brian, but I don't think that mark is evidence of such a mod: the surface around is just too fresh and too even (like Bohemian snow! :D ). That butt and forend are like new: I'm sure you noted the typical "glass-paper" sanding marks in the typical patterns and places of new wood. Something has bumped it in that spot later I'd say, though I am looking at it still! Photo as a negative below; it looks like two lines, with the same surface height between them as the rest of the butt.

I wonder if those marks could be made by the cord that retains the "chock" in the No.15 chest getting looped over under the felt and then pressed down into the wood or reacting with it over years of storage?

One thought occurs to me about the early "T Less Telescope" rifles: could it be the interruption to the supply of brackets from bombing caused the conversion program to be put on hold until the supply resumed, and those rifles to be put into store somewhere to "get them out of the way" and then overlooked when production restarted, only to be "found" late in or after the war?

Is that "43" or "48" next to the "TR" mark?

https://www.milsurps.com/attachment....4&d=1692463163

It would be helpful if the OP could remove the butt so we could know for certain the rifle serial on the tenon. If it's the serial of this rifle then that's at least one part of the mystery solved!;)

Yes, that would be a good idea.

As told to me, scope production always lagged behind rifle production of course. H&H would call-in rifles for conversion based on the availability of telescope inbound from the manufacturers. Quite how this will affect the question or querie could be a bit of an enigma

Sadly the sands of time have covered all the facts and those that could know an answer are long gone from our world.
Thanks for all the replies to my enquiry chaps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

Roger if I may ask a question in relation to the scopes and their fitment;

Was it possible that in the transition through the various models of scopes MK 1, MK 2, Mk 2* & Mk 3 that as production of the T's went along the earlier scopes were left in stores with the rifles receiving the most up to date versions mainly the MK 2* & Mk 3.
Which would leave a surplus of the older scopes sitting in stores does/would the Army or H&H operate that way, was it ever use the earlier types up first!
Thanks for your time Roger.

P.S I did check my AK & S Mk 3 its a '44 mated to a BSA '44 T.

---

If that was the case we would have seen thousands of more or less brand new Mk.I scopes on the surplus market.

AFAIK, H.W. English of Brentwood, Essex bought the vast majority of those scopes from the MoD in the 1950s. One of the two brothers told me in 1987 that they had bought about 5000 Mk.I scopes, many with brackets and No.8 cases, meaning of course that they had been fitted to rifles.

I don't recall ever seeing a new Mk.I scope on the market in the last thirty years or so years of looking. Had thousands been sold new as surplus after WWII some would still be around in that sort of condition.

The number of 5000 also suggests that the Mk.I scopes were not destroyed in large numbers; if they had been that might have explained the lack of new, unissued, examples on the market.

So without going to Peter's books and reviewing the production totals for scopes and rifles again, I'd say almost all were fitted up to rifles, and the MkI and II scopes first. We have Mk.II scopes from Watson dated 1944 after all.