No. 4T questions

[Peter Laidler]

Listen carefully Ridolpho........... My words have sometimes been taken as undiplomatic but in the same breath, truthful and to the point. I have seen one or two No4T's in my service since 1963. You can convince yourself that it might be one of them and it's an original that's been worked on. But in my honest opinion, it's not. It's been made up......... Yes, I know that they were ALL made up, but that one is well.... You get my drift. Anyone can sweat the fake pads on and those pads just scream fake. I mean, just look at the ...... I won't go on and on. And I would very much doubt that a perfectly collimated telescope on a correct bracket would collimate with the pads you have there. That is always my acid test. You can call me an old cynic and all that but............. I wouldn't mind betting too that some other forumers, less foirthright than me are also thinking what I'm saying

Are you seriously telling the blokes on the forum that someone (not you, I appreciate that.....) has stated that the No4T bodies were heated to cherry red and oil dipped? What about the heat treatment of the steel?

Anyway, fair enough if you got it at a good price and a No32 to boot, but a No4T it definately ain't. How can I tell? Well it's like being abroad and you get back to your room and there's a few letters on your bed where the post Corporal has left the mail. You pick the pile up and spot one letter that's from your mum. You just KNOW it's from your mum because you just know everything about the way she writes, even if the envelopes she uses this time is wrong or the post mark is different. That's how I can tell a Fazakerley Sterling SMG, an Inglis Bren, a BSA L1A1 and a fake No4T. You can just tell.......................... You might not like the news but there it is

[jmoore]

Too much that is questionable/incorrect/scary about this rifle. But if the scope's servicable, then you probably didn't get hurt monetarily.

The action finish is not what came out the factories at the time. Unless BSA was having a particularly bad day! Your photo showing the action body and top of the wrist from the rear does NOT show the left hand side markings if any. Too much shadow.

[Ridolpho]

Peter and jmoore: Thanks for the frank and candid comments. To continue my learning process, a couple of questions (jmoore- there is an image of the left body unless you're referring to something I don't understand).
1) In person the finish on this rifle is quite attractive. What was BSA's standard finish during this period and how did H&H finish actions when they were done with them?
2) I thought (hoped) that Enfield examiners marks were tough to duplicate. Not having read your book, Peter, the previous owner was not even aware of its existence. Is the one on my rifle (right side of bolt channel) obviously faked? "TR", "T" and "S51" certainly can all easily be reproduced.
3) The previous owner was a Canadian Forces armourer and probably more than capable of getting a bracket to align with the bore. When I optically align my old Weaver K3, as per instructions, and put it in the bracket and on the rifle it points very, very close to a "distant aiming point".
Again gentlemen, thanks for your input. I have no doubt that for novices like me the best advice is to avoid 4T's but when you walk into a dim, dingy hall and see one on a table it's tough to think rationally. I see two for sale on a prominent dealer website priced at $6,500 and $10,500 that are not being snapped up.

Ridolpho

[jmoore]

3) The previous owner was a Canadian Forces armourer and probably more than capable of getting a bracket to align with the bore.

I believe you have the answer right there. BTW, had i seen Peter Laidler's post on page 2 (I was pg 1) I probably would have not piled on. He covers the subject far better!

[Peter Laidler]

I hear exactly what you're saying about collimation of the bracket (not the scope) to the bore against the target and fitting a telescope but to be fair, not many Armourers understand the principles of optics and of optical aberration when using the outer edges of lenses - unless they were Instrument Technicians as well. And to be fair, once again, speaking from the soul, if that pad and the fitting is the work of an Armourer, then the least said the better! But that's only my opinion

[Ridolpho]

Gentlemen: I reluctantly reopen this thread with a couple of specific questions. I certainly don't question Peter L. or JMoores conclusions that the rifle is a faked "T" but as someone trying to learn the ropes, I would like to know what specific details might have tipped me or another novice off. As pointed out at the outset, I didn't pay a lot for the rifle and the No.32 is serviceable. Needless to say I would have preferred the rifle be genuine but I don't buy these old guns as financial investments so it's no big deal. It also won't be resold as a "T" because my collection will be going to a nephew a few years down the road. So, the specific questions:
1) Is the Enfield examiners mark on the rear of the action body something found on all BSA-Shirleys of this period and not specific to H&H conversions? Please note I own and have read Peter's book and seem to be missing something.
2) Not specifically related to the "T" or not "T" question, can anyone tell me what the barrel markings indicate? Is it a BSA barrel?
3) The rifle serial number is stamped on the upper side of the butt and under the forend in what, to me, appears an atypical manner. Does this look familiar to anyone? Is it a style that was used in arsenal refits?
4) There is another number on the butt below the serial- this could, of course, be part of some bodgery but any ideas what they were trying to accomplish? Does this resemble any N0.32 scope serial numbers? Unfortunately, this number was also (recently) engraved on the poor old scope in a half-hearted effort to make it appear to be a matching set.
Thanks, in advance, to any answers to these questions.

Ridolpho

[Roger Payne]

Ridolpho,
Try looking at the front face of the action at 6 o'clock (- the flat surface up to which the barrel breeches -by the front face the front trigger-guard screw boss assembly); one consistent finding, at least IMHO, on H&H 4T conversions, is a crudely (it ooks like it has been done with a chisel) vertical breeching up indexing mark. If absent then I'm afraid it would lend further weight to the rifle being made up. The general fit of the pads is not great & as others have pointed out the screws are wrong. The serial is also most ubusual for a 43 BSA - I would have expected it might possibly have been AA followed by a 4 digit number. I'm really not sure where the '1' appeared from between the A's. No matter, someone has religiously copied it onto just about every major part. I would concur with surpmil re looking for the milled 'window' into which the front pad sits. They are generally only a few thou deep, but almost invariably present on the real McCoy. I hope you find one..........

ATB

[Roger Payne]

Hi Ridolpho,
Sorry, but I posted the above reponse a bit prematurely, before I noticed JM Peter & Surpmil had dealt with things pretty comprehensively!
However, the indexing mark is always a useful thing to bear in mind when looking at purported original 4T's. You will generally find two enfield examiner's marks - more often than not one either side of the bolt way. IIRC there will be a crown E7E which I have always believed to be the mark of the examiner at the BSA factory. Usually on the other side, you will more often than not (though by NO MEANS ALWAYS) find the crown D6E of H&H. As mentioned before though, this is not invariable & is often not present on earlier conversions. It may sound weird, but I have owned several early (1941 dated) rifles that bore the D6E on the KNOX. I have never seen any reference to this anywhere, but I have seen more than one.

If the barrel is original (highly unlikely) you will find it bears an indexing mark at 6 o'clock, mating up to the indexing mark on the front lower body.

I don't recall seeing the serial configuration like yours on other 1943 dated rifles. Looking at the butt socket the stamping is a mess & looks to be double stamped - possibly how the '1' in between the A's got there. The more usual serial configuration would have been an 'A' followed by another letter from the alphabet (in this case another A) followed by a four digit number.

I would have said the number on the butt was the scope number & was indicative of an REL scope, as the number ends with a C. However, REL never made anything like three thousand odd scopes, so I'm afraid I don't know where that leaves us!

If it shoots well, came with a functional No32, & didn't cost too much, then I guess you've still done ok!

ATB

[Ridolpho]

Roger: Thanks for the additional and very useful comments. As you may have noticed the goofy serial number (A1A? prefix) is also stamped deeply and crudely on the barrel. I hope to get to the range with this thing soon but I'll be using a Weaver scope on it rather than the much abused No.32 Mk1.

Ridolpho

[Ridolpho]

Peter, Roger, jmoore,rgg 7, surpmil: You guys were bang on! Stripped her and took off the front pad (first hint of trouble was how easily it came off) only to find an awful epoxy job. Honestly, I could have done a better job installing a pad. Cleaned it up a bit and, as you can see on attached photos, there were some marks directly beneath the pad. I'm pretty sure I see, in electo-pencil, FTR surrounding a large M. There is milling evident at the front of the flat (and it was done much more professionally than the work on the pad) but I have a sneaking suspicion you guys are going to tell me it doesn't resemble the machining done at H&H. Also, Roger, no indexing marks on action body or barrel. So, I guess I'll be returning this to the seller who I'm pretty sure will take it back. Many thanks to all of you for all the detailed info and help. I'm beginning to wonder if I'll ever see a genuine "T" but after all of this I suspect I may actually know it when I do.!

Ridolpho