No.4 Mk.I(T) mfg.1944 with Scope No.32 Mk.I mfg. 1941/2: An odd pairing!

[jmoore]

The rifle is legit as the "A" series s/n in 1944; in 1945 they started with the "R" and "S" s/n blocks. The electropencil s/n is correct for '43-44 BSA rifles (see pic's below) and due to their light engraving, many were re-stamped later. The electropencil s/n on the upper sidewall I have on my '45 BSA's and possibly they are there on later '44's too. Since the butt is factory H&H and the scope can is matching I would put up two possible scenario's.

One. The original rifle was damaged and a unfinished left over H&H converted rifle was chosen to be mated with the early Watson scope as the scope mount is a later production example and the scope pads are staked.

Two. Due to the original "T" stamp on the receiver the scope was returned to H&H during early 1944 where it was added into the system again and issued a new mount. Why send it back to H&H?? No idea, remember they had the '44 dated Watson Mk I's they still sent out from the factory so re-issuing a '42 is not impossible.

The history of this rifle is very interesting, thanks for sharing. I am envious as I "need" a '42 dated Watson for my collection with matching rifle. So if you tire of her let me know!!

Yah, there's some prefix overlap with BSAs. However, the first run did not all have the first digit "3" and only four digits total. With the second "A" prefix S/Ns went to five digits, but the first number was "always" "3". (So where's the exception?) Sorry for the delay in clarification, but it wasn't even an item that I thought of discussing and had to double check some references.


So, back to the weirdness.

Thanks for the various theories as to how this incongruity might have occurred. I bought this thing eight or ten years ago ONLY because it was a bit out of the ordinary. I also like the scope can and it's little "homemade" adjusting tool. With the turrets set per Captain Laidler's instructions, the tool works fine for fine tuning purposes.


ETA: added some more captions to the photos on the first page.

Upon the revisit the scope bracket was examined. The drama w/ Lance's second theory is that the bracket condition matched the scope much more close than the rifle. Granted, the brackets have a far different finish regardless, it's just that the "brown-ness" works well with the scope. Wouldn't rule it out, though, IF the scope assembly were stored separately from the rifle in a more humid environment.

I will do some more photos of the bracket rings screws.