Maltby Snipers

[Lance]

Had my '41 Maltby T out to look some markings over and was wondering has anyone guess estimated the quantity converted? Out of the 680 sniper rifle s/n's I have in my bank only 14 are Maltby.

Anyone??? Help.....

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.

[bravo2zero]

That's a very nice looking rifle, early button cocking piece and woodwork for a mag cut off, very trials looking

[Roger Payne]

Hi Lance. When my pal & I bought the batch of 4T's there was a total of approx 140 rifles. Of that there were 5 or 6 Maltby's, & about the same each of long Branch & Savage rifles. There were two Trials rifles originally amongst them, one of which I got. All of the Maltby rifles were of 1941 mfr & some had two groove tubes that appeared to be original. It is really just a guesstimate, but I reckon something like 85% of all rifles set up were probably BSA's, with all of the other manufacturers' rifles making up the remaining 15% (FWIW).

[Peter Laidler]

Sid Harvey told me that as H&H got into production it was important for continuity reasons to know that each rifle they set-up on the conversion 'conveyor belt' (it wasn't a conveyor belt of course.....) was the same and the only way to do this, without having to make small subtle changes with different manufacturers variances was to get all of their rifles from one reliable source. BSA were there first so BSA it was. BSA production also ensured that there was always a quantity of BSA No4's in reserve on site should output be halted or interrupted at BSA. This sole supplier method was the reason they could production line the whole process.

It makes sense therefore that you will see Maltby's but only very early ones from the very early H&H production line

[Surpmil]

That looks like a trials No.4 forend to me, as in one made at Enfield. The profile is unmistakable.

[Lance]

It is a Trials forend, most of the little parts are SM marked including the waisted front sight protector, bands are CEW. No enfield proof on the front pad, unfortunately the butt was exchanged in service and whom ever did the job put the rifle s/n and not the scope s/n on the butt flat so I cannot confirm that the Kodak scope that came with it (no s/n on mount, scope can I picked up later) is correct.

[Roger Payne]

FWIW all of the (presumed) early conversions on 41 & 42 dated rifles that I have seen, that retained their original butts, have borne the S51 stamp on said butt. I know the H&H marking system evolved over time, but I think the S51 mark was instituted very early on. This would also fit in with Peter's comments above.

[Peter Laidler]

Further to DRP above. Even the early production designation markings were a bit up in the air or a bit ambiguous according to the papers available. Certainly until production got into the swing of things. This also applied down to Armourers shop level.

Off subject a bit. To be honest I don't even know of any technical information previous to the first EMER's issued. This was a VERY brief resume sort of semi-technical 'EMER?' publication dated March 1945. And that simply stated that a telescope variant (of the No4 rifle) was currently in production. The first FULL EMER was dated 1952 and cancels the 1945 issue . There was a flimsy parts list prior to this but hardly technical. There must have been a SAI leaflet issued (Small Arms Information) in the early 40's or so but I haven't ever seen one.

[Gurn]

Good looking 41 Maltby. I cant make out the serial number on yours. Mine is 13940. I wonder how close ours are. https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=52717

[jmoore]

I reckon most of y'all have seen this one before. Still no scope. Butt has scope number but little else. Otherwise, I'm pretty well satisfied with it:

1941 Maltby T Slideshow by dave4201 | Photobucket

Old album, seems to have some repeat photos, probably could use updating!