Help with markings No 4 Mk I

[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 wonder if this was a genuine early T, which someone added the "TR" stamps to later in an attempt to make things 'fit'. The "TR" stamp is awfully fresh looking...

The front pad is still a problem, perhaps the back one too - I haven't seen a decent photo of it yet.

Perhaps an early rifle that was stripped of pads, and then refitted by some enterprising person, who may have added the "TR" stamps. The "T" stamp may have been there longer by the look of it.

That's my guess. Not so sure that the "TR" is added, but too many things don't add up. The most telling issue is that the bracket number (on the other thread) does not match the S/N whilst the scope S/N placed on the wrist DOES match. If this rifle was rebuilt in service, the bracket number surely ought to match even if the old number had to be crossed out.

[Surpmil]

That's my guess. Not so sure that the "TR" is added, but too many things don't add up. The most telling issue is that the bracket number (on the other thread) does not match the S/N whilst the scope S/N placed on the wrist DOES match. If this rifle was rebuilt in service, the bracket number surely ought to match even if the old number had to be crossed out.

Agreed JM, except that the mis-match of bracket and rifle isn't really related to the genuiness of lack thereof with the rifle itself.

It is also possible that the butt is not original to the rifle (we'll see when we get photos of the tongue, though that is not conclusive either) After all, weren't the rifles all shipped from H&H with Normal butts? So was this butt shortened or has someone added the "S51" at some point?

There was apparently a transitional period when H&H were getting going when there was no "TR" stamped, or "T". I'm guessing the "S51" came first, and as I've mentioned before, I have seen a different but undoubtedly genuine "S51" on a very early butt that Peter rescued from a DP rifle many moons ago.

Still need photos of under the handguard RobD if you can? And some brighter closeups of the top of the butt socket on either side of the bolt-way.

It's a tangled web alright.

Yours in anoraksia!

[RobD]

OK, so here's what we know:
it's a BSA of ~1943 (acc to the serial number)
the serial number on the butt socket is Y1515 and all the others are Y4515
it lacks the M47 designation (which is odd).
it has a short butt
the right of the butt socket has been partially scrubbed
it was FTR'd in 1948, but not in India, because the FTR stamp on the butt socket is accompanied by electropencilled FTR marks on the receiver.
There is no evidence of an Ishapore screw.

Under the handguard are one or two tiny stamps on the nocks form, but my camera died and I don't know what I am looking for.

Have a look now at the butt markings again, and at the scope mounts again - yes, there has been metal milled away under the front mount.
Yes, the scope lines up optically perfectly with the range zero (and boy, is this rifle accurate!)

Personally, I think there is an honest explanation to this rifle, if we can find it. Sure, I'm biased in favour - but
(a) the deep/recent-looking butt numbers argue against fakery (surely even a cretin of a forger would make the stamps as shallow as the S51 is)
(b) I think the TR stamp is not recent - under the loupe it looks OK
(c) the receiver was milled for front pad, and the scope lines up, so I think this was an armourer's work not bubba's
(d) the mismatch of the number on the scope mount - seems too honest for a forger to have left that alone.

Rob

[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