No. 4T questions

[Ridolpho]

Recently purchased this mismatched No.4T and No.32Mk1 scope joined by an aftermarket bracket from a local collector known to me. He indicated that the cheekpiece is a replacement and that the previous owner had polished the scope within an inch of its life, including the steel tube and its markings. Mainly concerned with the rifle which is BSA Shirley #A1A8470. Very nice condition with very good bore. Has all the standard H&H markings except S51 on butt. As you can see the serial# and another number (3380-C) are stamped on the upper surface of the butt which I've not seen in any references. The serial# and other now unreadable things were stamped on the forend adjoining the front band. Inside the forend channel there is crudely marked "IVE". Markings on the barrel (which doesn't match the mottled finish on the action body) don't look like BSA marks to me but somewhat resemble the marks on the Enfield replacement barrel on a "42 Savage T less scope" in the Library. My questions to the experts are: 1)Does it look like a genuine No.4T, and 2)Are the butt, forend, and barrel replacements? Hope I'm not missing a bunch of obvious things but I'm fairly new to this game. The rifle has obviously been the object of some bodging (rear pad is definitely a replacement). Thanks, in advance, for any comments.

Ridolpho

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.

[rgg_7]

It's always agonizing to comment on purchase of a much sought after Enfield.

Best to start with a couple questions. 1) is the a small "S" on the right side bolt rail? 2) Is the barrel serialized to the rifle?

I suspect the pads have been replaced or added to the rifle. The pads look repro, screws are incoorect for the front and not staked. Easy way to tell is to remove the front screws and see if the are soft soldered to the rifle body. Both butt and forend have been replaced.

I'd see how it shot and then correct some of the rifles deficiencies.

[Ridolpho]

rgg 7: As shown on the not to well focussed photo there is an "S" on the cutoff boss and the serial number does appear on the barrel. I suspect you're right about the pads and while I haven't gotten it to the range yet, it does look like whoever worked on the pads did it to align this aftermarket bracket with the bore.

Ridolpho

[Peter Laidler]

I'm not happy......... And I'm not convinced that it's the real McCoy either. Keep your money in your pocket is my advice

[rgg_7]

Thanks for posting the additional info. I see the receiver is stamped "England" showing it's been exported for commerical sale....does the barrel bear any British proof marks and proofing info? Ron (Canada)

[Charlie]

The U stamped on the barrel looks like a South Africa property mark.

[Ridolpho]

Thanks for the comments gentlemen. Charlie- according to "The Broad Arrow", the South African "U" has a diamond inside. As I mentioned there is a picture of a similar "U" in the article on a '42 Savage that was re-barreled (in the Lbrary on this forum). rgg 7- I've tried to show everything on the barrel and none of the marks look like BSA proofs on my #1 Mk1 or MkIII's but so far I've been unable to find a picture of marks on '43 BSA barrels. What there are seem to be view marks. Peter- if I showed photos of whats been done to the scope you'd really be unhappy! I thought I'd leave that for another time. What features of the rifle do you find questionable? The "T" didn't seem to have exactly the right shape to me but could it have been a later addition. There have been many comments made about H&H markings not standardizing until well into production. What I do like about it is the mottled carbonaceous? looking finish on the action-body. Greame Barber's article on No. 4T's in the Library indicates they were heated to red hot then quenched in oil leaving such a surface. Actually that article had me wondering- surely they didn't attach the pads (including solder) then heat the assembly to "red hot". In any case, the money's already spent on this one so it just boils down to deciding if it could be real and what to do about the poor old scope.

Ridolpho

[Surpmil]

It is possible that you have an original "T" which someone stripped the pads off of long ago, and someone more recently tried to refit some poor replicas. If you unscrew the front pad and find the typical machined flat this might well be the case. Although from your photos this looks very unlikely.

The "T" stamp is obviously not one of H&H's, but the rifle might predate that becoming an SOP there. Such things have been seen before, though I can't say whether on M47 1943 rifles or not now.

Sometimes armourers did add various "T" stamps retroactively, to make the rifles they worked on conform to the later specifications.

As you must know, the pad screws are wrong and the overall fitting looks very crudely done. The cheekrest is not an original either.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, if that is what it is.

[Ridolpho]

Surpmil: Thanks for the comments. When I get a chance this week I'll attempt to take the front pad off and have a look. Did all bodies have machining done on them in preparation for mounting the front pad? It's been a while since I read Peter's book and I can't recall. Can you comment on the barrel markings? I didn't actually pay a huge amount for this rifle (including the real but disfigured No. 32 scope) and if it's an original 4T that's been "worked on" I'd be happy enough.

Ridolpho

[Beerhunter]

I see the receiver is stamped "England" showing it's been exported for commerical sale.

Nope that is a pre-1968 GCA import mark required by the US. We don't have export marks.

The rifle is also carrying a Gunmakers Company (London) civilian Proof mark.