Opinions on this No4, TR marked

[smle addict]

I have posted some photos of a No4 I purchased some time back. I looked it over a couple of times, had some questions (and some nagging doubts), and eventually bought it. The seller had it advertised as a No4 T, less telescope. I had my doubts (see text below), but the price was not outrageous, so I took the plunge. I do have an original No4T in the crate, and I have read the No4T book by Mr. Laidler several times. I did go into this purchase with my eyes wide open.

The rifle is a 1943 BSA, Marked M47. below that is FTR and the serial number, below that, the distinctive TR. However, there is no "S" on the right hand side, no "S51" under the stock, and no ED6 inspectors' mark (H. Hardwick) on the rear of the receiver. I've tried to take good pictures of these locations. There is an extremely faint No4. Mk.1 on the left side of the receiver. There is none of the Bruno-fixed finish present. It is heavily covered in Suncorite (or something resembling it). I did try to loosen the scope pad screws, with no luck. They do appear to be soldered in. With the wood off, the barrel is dated 45, there is a large "I" on the knox form. And there is a large J648 stamped underneath the barrel. The barrel is immaculate. The stock draws have been repaired. Pulled the buttstock; no evidence of a scope number, or a rifle number. There is no Ishapore screw, but the grease packed under the handguards smells like it was of Indian origin. It has a heavy pinion grease smell, and it was as thick as dried putty. Took forever to clean it off. It is marked ENGLAND, and has the post WW2 proof stamp. Lastly, the middle band has an odd nut that is screwed onto the swivel screw.

I would appreciate any feedback as to the authenticity of this rifle. At first glance I was thinking the rifle was a home-made repro, but now I am not so sure. I can see a machinist mocking this up, but the costs would far exceed what I paid for it. And it's too clean to be a bubba special. I bought this because I had a 1943 No32 Mk1 scope in need of a rifle. Recently, I picked up a used Roger Payne repro mount (which is of phenomenal quality. Nice job DRP!), and put the whole mess together.

Range report: With the deflection set at o, and range set at 400, the rifle printed the group 100 yards with handloads.

My skin is thick, so experts and others fire away. I do not think this was a Holland and Holland conversion. I do not even think it was a TR reject. I really don't know what to make of it, but it shoots, and I cant ask for anything more than that. I got my No4T in a case over 23 years ago, when they were a little over a $1000. No way I can afford one now. And I have seen a half dozen fakes in recent years being advertised as genuine have effectively scared me off unless I can actually hold it and look at it.

Thanks for looking!

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Lee Enfield]

'43 BSA's were originally blued.

Brunofixing does not appear to have started until 1944.

The "S" is only present on guns which did not need to have a new MkI/I rear sight fitted.

If your rifle had a new butt stock fitted it would not have an S51, nor likely the other numbers.

Your rifle looks legit to me.

[Gil Boyd]

I am no expert.............but the scope pad screws are missing the engineers strikes at each screw head cutting. and this alone would have made me look even closer at the engineering used to fit the pads, and also the letters like TR and their consistency etc.
Also with no S on the RHS of the action would also have made me look closer.

The S51 and the number stamp on the woodwork should be there, and even if the butt was replaced, you would have expected the engineer doing the replacing to re stamp it, if in fact the rifle was being correctly attributed to sniper work and passed by H&H for that purpose matched with the scope.

If you got it for the right money, and it shoots well, crack on, it would need closer examination to prove one way or the other, but I am sure there are others on here that will correct me.

[PrinzEugen]

People with far greater knowledge will no doubt reply also...

But it's important to remember the '43 rifles didn't necessarily have all the markings of the later rifles. As Lee Enfield says the absence of the 'S' could indicate a new rear sight was needed - not a show stopper in terms of authenticity. Re the D6E inspectors mark - not sure if that was one of the ones which was either there or not there on some '43 rifles - other forummers will help on that one.

Probably one of the rifles sent over to India - and looks to have had a new set of woodwork fitted at some point (note the cut-off space in the forend). A lot of '43 rifles seem to have gone to India - tended to be ones which had seen some action it seems. The serial number (and font) also suggests renumbering in India to me as it's not in the normal BSA range (letter letter then four numbers for 43s).

Pad staking so far as I'm aware was a post war innovation to preserve longevity - if it wasn't in British Army service post war then I suppose it wouldn't have been done. I wouldn't try and remove the pads - they are soldered on! Especially as it seems to shoot nicely. Peter or Roger or any number of other experts here will probably be able to tell at a glance definitely - but I would say that possibly the front pad is a replacement or has come off at some point - screws look newish - only a guess though.

Otherwise my gut reaction is that it's probably genuine - albeit with new woodwork and having seen Indian/subcontinent service.

[Roger Payne]

FWIW, overall I would agree with Lee Enfield & Prinz. I suspect it's a well travelled but genuine rifle. The only thing that bothers me about the photo's is that they seem to show that it has been re-numbered, & though that's not the end of the world I am also not quite sure if the butt socket markings might have been 'freshened up' by someone at some point. I know my impression may be an effect of the light, but look at the area just above & to the R of the FTR - there appears to me to be a faint '...44' present. Was it part of the original serial number (looks to be positioned a little high on the socket for that; or the original date???). This does leave me a little uneasy as to whether it has been 'got at' though I think it more likely than not is a genuine rifle.

It would be nice to have some more really meaty close ups of the butt socket, & perhaps of the front pad area taken from just below the wood line (ie looking slightly 'upwards'), to show the edge of the milled panel in which the front pad sits. It is generally just about visible on most rifles, & is a feature that in my experience is rarely copied by fakers as it takes too much skill to do & to get right! Another supporting feature of its authenticity would be to look at the front face of the body at 6 o'clock to see if there is a barrel indexing mark present. It may not be on the barrel itself as it could be a replacement, but the index mark should still be there on the body (receiver) regardless.

As has been mentioned the lack of a D6E, S S51 etc really doesn't mean a lot if it is an earlier & well travelled rifle.

ATB

[Alan de Enfield]

[QUOTE=Gil9713;268103
............The S51 and the number stamp on the woodwork should be there, and even if the butt was replaced, you would have expected the engineer doing the replacing to re stamp it, ...............
.[/QUOTE]

No doubt it would have originally had the relevant markings on the Butt - however - if it was replaced 'in the field' by an amourer (maybe the Sniper it was issued to had long, or short, arms and needed a different sized Butt) I doubt the armourer would have gone to the trouble to 'fake' the S51 marking

[Ridolpho]

smle addict: I'm far from an expert but, for what it's worth, the fit of the front pad to the body seems a bit on the sloppy side. Having reviewed very bit of info on the forum reagrding T's, the ones Roger, Peter, et al verify usually have beautifully fit pads. A '43 fake that they analyzed for me a while back had a similar poorly fitting front pad which I found came off rather easily exposing, believe it or not, Maltby FTR markings beneath and certainly no machined flat. You may not wish to attempt to remove yours but, as Roger suggests, look hard for evidence of the machining. As to the D6E mark, my current '43 has it on the right side, above the 7E examiners mark and to find it I had to use a little solvent to remove a bit of the thick black paint- it was virtually invisible previously. I hope the experts support your rifles veracity- I think these old well used and rough looking ones are the best.

Ridolpho

[Brian Dick]

Looks legit to me.

[jmoore]

It would be nice to have some more really meaty close ups of the butt socket, & perhaps of the front pad area taken from just below the wood line (ie looking slightly 'upwards'), to show the edge of the milled panel in which the front pad sits. It is generally just about visible on most rifles, & is a feature that in my experience is rarely copied by fakers as it takes too much skill to do & to get right! Another supporting feature of its authenticity would be to look at the front face of the body at 6 o'clock to see if there is a barrel indexing mark present. It may not be on the barrel itself as it could be a replacement, but the index mark should still be there on the body (receiver) regardless.

I'd go with Roger Payne's suggestions here. There's no obvious warning signs, and the overall condition seems pretty uniformly "experienced". Likely it was heavily used by the end of WWII and quickly moved along to a friendly nation.

In actual fact, the lack of the "S51"on the butt is a good thing! Makes me much less suspicious.

The "S" is only present on guns which did not need to have a new MkI/I rear sight fitted.

And in 1943 it's probable that it was fitted with the two position Mk.II sight, so the lack of the "S" is also good.

[smle addict]

Thanks to all for the comments. I have added a few more pics.

DRP-I believe I found the index mark. Also included other pics in areas you requested. Yes, there is a faint, electro-penciled 244 under that serial number. There is another number in front of it, but it is illegible.

Ridolpho-No D6E inspectors mark, anywhere on the rear.

Again, thanks everybody.