Is this a "legit" No4Mk1 (T)?

[louthepou]

Hi everyone,

Here are a few pictures I took of a friend's No4Mk1. Since I know little about the true T's, I thought I better enquire here and get some factual info.

It has what I believe is a correct scope mount, but not the scope. The scope rings are numbered too.

Butt socket:


Scope mount side:


Top of knox: (I think that's a circled "D")


Crossed number on barrel:


Any info anyone has about this would be greatly appreciated. I suppose the goal here is to get a ballpark market value in Canada, and look at the likeliness of finding a scope for it?

Lou

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.

[No4Mk1(T)]

Well just as a starting point the bracket is a reproduction. The “TR” stamp on the butt socket doesn’t look correct ether. It looks as though it is struck as a single stamp. Of the ones I’ve seen they are usually struck as single letters, larger font size and lower on the socket. My knowledge is much more limited on the early conversions and like so many I’m learning more with every post here. The barrel is plainly a replacement.
I’d like to see photos of:
The back and front mounting pad with the scope removed.
Inside the receiver where the screws for the front pad go through the receiver.
The area at the back of the receiver ether side of the bolt race way below the back sight.
Is there a scope number on the top front of the butt just before the socket? Does the rifle serial number repet any place else on the rifle?

[Peter Laidler]

I've never seen one with the TR as a one-hit stamp. The TR is either missing or on most of them, like it's been hit by a blind man on a dark night. They're all over the place.

Not indicative of anything but it's unusual (?) to see a BSA No4 with an 'A' nothing-is-going-to-fit serial number suffix. I just assumed that this was a distinctive wartime Fazakerley identifying feature. Even the figure 1 has been hit upside down

[Badger]

Check the 1944 Enfield No.4 Mk1(T) Sniper Rifle (Mfg by BSA Shirley - M47c) displayed in the England - Milsurp Knowledge Library.

Although it's a 1944 BSA, perhaps compare all the markings on your No.4(T) against it?

(Clic PIC to Enlarge)(Clic PIC to Enlarge)

Regards,
Badger

[Baal]

Is that a partial 4 on the year on the butt socket? Or an upsidedown 7?

[Peter Laidler]

It looks like an...., er..... well, it could be anything! No, seriously, it looks like a mis-hit figure 2 as in 1942.

When these used to come across our benches, we weren't allowed to do anything but barr-out the old number and as there was no room to barr-out and start again, it meant that the number had to be re-engraved on the body side where we weren't allowed to use stamps. But that was a lot of effort so we'd just knock the old numbers down a bit, make good (as in obliterate.....) and then re-stamp...., properly! After all, it was going through the man-size bead blasting booth (it was big enough to take an MGB GT V8 front cross member with ease) and then through the phosphating tank and paint booth

The problem arose when you had your OWN shot out heap of tat No4T in the workshop at the same time, for a bit of a tarting up (another REME technical term for a 'going-over....') and you got the numbers mixed up with a virtually brand new, rebarrelled, range tested, calibrated, rebuilt telescope etc etc No4T. You were then left with the choice of changing the numbers back again and keeping your own heap of tat or just letting things stand. Sadly, I chose to let things stand to avoid messing the books up and regretfully, I still have the replacement to this day..........

[PrinzEugen]

The problem arose when you had your OWN shot out heap of tat No4T in the workshop at the same time, for a bit of a tarting up (another REME technical term for a 'going-over....') and you got the numbers mixed up with a virtually brand new, rebarrelled, range tested, calibrated, rebuilt telescope etc etc No4T. You were then left with the choice of changing the numbers back again and keeping your own heap of tat or just letting things stand. Sadly, I chose to let things stand to avoid messing the books up and regretfully, I still have the replacement to this day..........

That's the kind of 'horses mouth' comment I love about the enfield snipers! I'm sure we can all see how such a regrettable but entirely understandable mix-up could take place, and why it was entirely the right decision administratively to leave things as they were Peter!
I'm beginning to understand the meaning of the 'home truths' you sometimes threaten to reveal in the face of intense serial number/'correct' pedantry on the forum

I think I speak for everyone what I say I'd love to see a 160 'picture event' of the LAIDLER 4t! - come on Peter - throw off those technological shackles - it's not so difficult and much easier than repairing a former Indian No32 scope, I'm sure

[No4Mk1(T)]

So I guess the next question for you then Peter is does the MGB GT V8 front cross member also fit in the phosphating tank and paint booth?

[jmoore]

What little that shows of the rear pad looks odd to me...

Looks like there's fresh flux residue (rust) leaking from the front pad.

[Peter Laidler]

Yep JM! What's more the phos tank and paint booth took the crossmember, rear axle casing and everything black painted inbetween and all came back to my office rust free and, well....., 'as new' It wasn't quite big enough to take the whole bodyshell. But the boiling trichlorethylene bath took the gearbox and front stub axle assemblies.

Later, said V8 MGB GT graced the book called The Mighty MG's by Graham Robson. my Mini Cooper S got the same treatment too. It's called RHIP or 'perks of the trade'