I usually just lurk here but I, too, noted the auction at GB (I have a large collection of sniper rifles) and from what research I could do in my library, it looks pretty legit to me.
I'm not going to bid on it (no money) but I'm not sure of your logic here. Frankly, if I had the money I would be very tempted to bid on this one.
The rifle pictured on GB is dated 1945.
Skennerton
says a 1944 date on the receiver is "typical" but he doesn't say it is exclusive.
Skennerton's "The Lee Enfield," Page 524: "these particular conversions were effected during a three month period in early 1945." And the photo in the book shows a mount with a 74L serial number, just like the one at GB.
The last digit of the receiver date in the photo in Skennerton is in shadow and can't be read.
So why MUST this be a 1944 rifle as you insist?
Seems a 1945 action fits in with Skennerton's description, or at least his description doesn't exclude a 1945 rifle. In fact, if they were converted during three months of 1945, I would suppose (absent any data to the contrary) that 1945 dated rifles were among those converted.
There are lots of Alaskans floating around out there and from the ad in GB it is correctly marked, at least it is identical to the marking Skennerton provides.
No serial number range is given for the scopes or mounts but the mount in Skennerton is 74L0058 and the one for sale is 74L0197.
Granted, only 99 were built but how many mounts were purchased? The order was for 450 sights, so I assume a similar number of mounts were ordered. Were the used in numerical sequence? We don't know.
Limpetmine says (above) the serial number on the mount "should be matching to the rifle, without any doubt" but Skennerton's description doesn't say that at all. The serial number on the mount shouldn't match anywhere on the rifle or the scope, according to Skennerton.
I don't claim to be an expert like some of you guys do, but your evidence seems too weak to support your conclusion.
Sure, I would like something a bit more concrete (a list of actual seerial numbers used would be handy) but I'm not sure I would label this guy's gun a fake based on what we have.
Or am I missing something here (highly possible and very probable)?
Thanks.
This is a great site, BTW!
I'll go back to lurking now....
HT