Help with markings No 4 Mk I

[Amatikulu]

The "S51 " is in the 12th post, first picture

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.

[Surpmil]

The "S51 " is in the 12th post, first picture

Ah, thanks. Didn't look at that one closely; assumed it was just another shot of the handguard.

Is the rifle SN on the tongue of the butt?

[jmoore]

I'm reckoning that the receiver's a real No4 (T), but at this point its seen enough use and an FTR to give up on saying WHERE its been or what's happened to it since 1948. Some things just need hands on to get a real feel for 'em. If it shoots well and everything works as it should, I wouldn't fret too much.

Enjoy it and shoot it!

[Surpmil]

It comes down to this for me: there are apparently none of the marks on the metal that cannot be fairly easily faked: the Enfield examiner's marks.

There is the slight possibility that it is an early No4(T) that was stripped of its pads and later 'rebuilt' by someone.

Looking at the latest photo, the butt '51" looks fairly convincing in size, font and condition, but I see a double strike of the "5" rather than an "S", with what looks like a "C" over that. Again, no explanation as to how the (S)51 got onto a short butt.

The cheekrest is a home-made reproduction and is set too far up the wrist.

The font is wrong for the stamps on the butt wrist and tongue. Rather sloppily done too.

The rear pad looks off-kilter and rather rough and crude, particularly the hole for the thumb screw.

Without better photos of the top of the butt socket and barrel reinforce/Nock's form, can't say more than I have already.

[jmoore]

I will hearily agree w/ the above w/ the possible - minor- exceptions of the cheekrest and the font argument on the wrist (I've seen different fonts there- but only on rebuilt/replacement stocks without the S51 below. That or the old scope S/N had been removed or lined out before the new S/N was applied.)

Again, the death blow for the scope number on the wrist being original is the lack of the rifle number match on the bracket! Mutually exclusive, especially on a post war rebuild. Parts is parts, but "improved" gear is annoying. If it doesn't match- so be it, just as long as it works and parts aren't changed to suit the sellability. Who knows, the matching bits might turn up one day!

Some equipment was used so heavily that it had to be retired, downgraded or scrapped. Problem being, that its now profitable to bring it back from the dead just to make a buck.

My first No4(T)'s mismatched bracket was on at least two rifles prior to it residing on its current platform, but after twenty-five (roughly) years, it still doesn't "match". I likes it anyways.

I'll be happily proved wrong, but it will require PROOF.

[RobD]

Thank you, gentlemen. I have learned a great deal about this gun, which I'll enjoy shooting. In closing this thread, I am sure you are all familiar with the Punch cartoon of 1895:

This showed a timid curate having breakfast in his bishop’s home. The host says: “I’m afraid you’ve got a bad egg, Mr Jones”, to which the curate replies: “Oh, no, my Lord, I assure you that parts of it are excellent!”.

[jmoore]

Thanks to you, RobD!

Not only did you learn more about your rifle, it increased OUR knowledge base as well. Plus, all the folk who read this junk might get something out of it as well.

I just hope not to step on toes or turn people off this subject. The more the merrier, anybody is welcome to join in. Just expect a bit of wrangling from time to time, as we all are still "ciphering" over the fine nuances of Rifle No.4 history and details.

[Surpmil]

Enfield MKIII SMLE Sniper Rifle w/Cheek & Scope Pc : Semi-auto at GunBroker.com


Interesting comparison, note the FTR mark and S51