No.4 Mk1(T) M.47 1944

[Hambone]

Oh, one other oddity- the scope ring screws aren't staked. I'd expect this on this rifle esp. w/ the S/N on the bracket, yes?

I see staking on the screws on the scope ring screws, except the rear.

[Roger Payne]

Hambone,
Thx very much for the extra photo's posted.....they are very helpful & I agree, although the very roughness of the casting suggests it, I do not think it is one of mine, (unfettled) even from 15 yrs ago. The absence of a slight step immediately above the top of the dovetail at the rear of the bracket is one giveaway. What does surprise me though, is the state of the machining of the mating surface for the front spigot; remember this was NOT done by Dalgleish, but at H&H. A most unusual specimen. Perhaps Surpmil is right & it just represents a low point in the prettiness of British kit. Do you think the top clamps are original or replacements? They certainly look to have been heavily filed/linished, but they could be originals that have just had a lot of meat removed from them.

ATB

[Hambone]

Tks Roger. The rings are stamped with the same sequential numbers as the cradle portion, so whenever it was built those would seem to be the rings with it, and the whole unit was blackened together. I think the rings were simply filed / ground heavily and not finish polished. Looks like file marks on it in spots. The last 4T rig I had, sold last year, had a much much nicer (prettier) mount.
Regards,
Craig

[jmoore]

Going to annoy the elders a bit more before I give it a rest...

1. The front cradle/ring screw holes are also wierdly out of line- RH front in particular, anyone see that before?

2. How many other brackets have been noted w/ the little broadarrow?

3. One thing that really tends to indicate an "ancientness"/original character is the even discolouration and change in surface texture of the bracket's rear mounting surface. It loks like it was assembled and left in an adverse environment for some time. Not something a faker is likely to try, because it isn't commonly seen on brackets I've seen. Shiny rubs or a fairly nicely machined surface here, yes. An even corrosion (although light), well , um, no. -See below...

How does the rear pad look under the mating area?

Somehow, now, in my pea brain, there's ideas that India or, maybe, Israel were involved w/ this bracket.(?) Doesn't make sense even to me. But there it is.

Regardless, it's been most interesting. Can there be just the one?

Thanks, Hambone, for letting me learn a bit. More please!

[Peter Laidler]

I was going to mention the mis aligned cradle screw holes and the front spigot mounting area. The latter is critical in the fit of the bracket to the pad. I have seen one or two and was going to suggest that metallurgy would answer its originality, but alas, I feel that it's not required.....

As to the WD arrow, it is still used in India today. Might this, the blown, sand cast appearance and dire machining answer the question?

[jmoore]

Well, at o'dark thirty this morning I had a looky at four easily accessible N92 brackets.

2 had broadarrows at the same location, one in the same style as Hambone's. The other two, no arrows at all.

Whilst the front pad machining of the bracket in question is the worst I've seen, it varies only in degree from two of mine. (Now I don't remember if the arrows are on the same brackets, dang! Not so smart I am..) I do note that the "oblongated" area is actually a bit higher than the actual mating surface. My guess? An additional bit of cutting was done to remove excessively thinned areas of the casting or to remove sharp edges. T'ain't pretty, but doesn't actually impair function.

Three of four brackets displayed some porosity, but were filed/scraped to a better overall appearance.

None had the offset that appears to be just fwd of the rear ring on Hambone's.

So....


ETA What really sets this one apart from the "norm", I think, is the lack of file or scraper marks that were used to "pretty up" the raw casting.

[Peter Laidler]

Looks like metaullurgy is the only way to go then.............. I know that when we (the MoD) accepted 50 or so 'repro' brackets in the 80's or so - or was it the early 90's, then we insisted that they were the same malleable whiteheart cast material. No deviation was permitted.

Sorry to say, but the misaligned taperlock screws and the dire machining to the mating surface of the front spigot clinch it for me.

[Hambone]

Thanks Peter, JM. I think it's a proper Dalglish N92 mount, particularly if JM's bear the same broad arrow, unless India was reproducing N92 mounts, markings and all, which I think unlikely. If my memory serves me, this rifle was one of those imported in the 60s as it had been bought "in the crate" then. It is marked "ENGLAND" and has all the BNP and tonnage markings.

I think it may simply be a "cruder" wartime mount. If it was rejected and used late war then I would wonder why it was mated with two rifles, apparently. Odder still is why an early scope would be used very late. I appreciate all the input as this has become more interesting, as JM noted, than I thought with the initial post.
Regards,
Hambone

[Hambone]

Looks like metaullurgy is the only way to go then.............. I know that when we (the MoD) accepted 50 or so 'repro' brackets in the 80's or so - or was it the early 90's, then we insisted that they were the same malleable whiteheart cast material. No deviation was permitted.

Sorry to say, but the misaligned taperlock screws and the dire machining to the mating surface of the front spigot clinch it for me.

I think the problem with that theory would be that the rifle would have had to have been imported here to the US during that time (80s-90s) and legally it would not have gotten in without importer markings which it does not bear. The costs of that importation and fees would have easily approached half the $400 cost of the rifle. The alternative is that this family of Mississippi country people smuggled this No.4T with faked mount into the country or found one of these MoD mounts, imported it into the US, stamped it with rifle numbers, broad arrows, learned how to properly fake a No.4T, then after all the effort sold the whole rig for less than the price of the rifle at that time, or about 1/3 the value of what such a rig would go for.

None of that makes much sense, though those are theories, just like any other theory. Is it because the unit appears crude (though utile)? Many many of the British firearms from WW2 I've owned, still own, and have seen are quite crude, relatively speaking, but served their purpose. If we accept that a cruder unfinished N92 mount could have been used on one of these rifles, then that makes much more sense than redneck rifle smuggling or the reproducing of mounts that no one has seen with counterfeit markings. This is the reason I requested pics of Roger's mounts....it isn't one of them and he stated his were those used. The next question is did MoD request that the 50 repro mounts from the 80s and 90s have counterfeit N92 markings and broad arrow stamps? I appreciate the comments and theories and don't mean to be argumentative or rude. I'm just not seeing how this could be an as yet unseen reproduction or MoD copy from the 80s-90s under the circumstances an facts.
Cheers,
Hambone

[Hambone]

Peter, this is, in your opinion, a reproduction mount from the 80s-90s? Has anyone seen a reproduction like this and better yet, is there a picture available of one? I've seen other original 4T mounts that were not pretty and did not have perfectly set screws. The issue is final finishing?

I'm curious as this mount, albeit not the prettiest of N92 examples, looks everything like ones I have seen and depicted, except for, again, not being the prettiest. It still functions quite fine and I note the exterior quality of British wartime pistols, rifles, and subguns (Sten) is less than attractive (except to me).
Cheers,
Hambone