No4Mk1T BSA 1944?

[Toledobob]

Does the "Trigger" look original? If not, what would be the reason for changing it?

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]

Does the "Trigger" look original? If not, what would be the reason for changing it?

SMLE No1 trigger put in for the fluted face: better grip or feel in someone's opinion.

Has an SMLE mag as well I see.

Peter, what I was going to say in answer about the forend has already been said!

I did have a Maltby "T" in the 11000 range that had the same MkI beech forend, and matching butt. The butt was definitely the original. Have seen photos here and elsewhere of a couple more 1941 Maltby "T"s that had the same, as well as the odd regular No4.

Shocking bit of grinding on the backsight!

[Steve H. in N.Y.]

"Has an SMLE mag as well I see."

Very good observation there, Surpmil. I wonder, were magazines modified like that while in service or ...?

[jmoore]

"Has an SMLE mag as well I see."

Very good observation there, Surpmil. I wonder, were magazines modified like that while in service or ...?

I've never seen a No.4 type rib on an SMLE magazine body before- Very odd!


In fact, the whole thing is odd. Restoration seems likely as mentioned before.

Shocking bit of grinding on the backsight!

Ummm,... yeah. The mod to remove the bolt without removing the scope, you mean. Shocking...

The low wood beech stock looks otherwise like a much later piece of wood, but don't ask me to tell just exactly how.

The receiver finish is also not what I would expect to see. Not the usual "blued" finish, nor suncorite, nor brunofix. Front pad is a bit wierd, too. Multiple strikes of the "S" on the RH side? New to me.

I'd really like a "hands on" examination of this one. Also a look at the inside of the fore stock, particularly in the action area, front.

Very curious, and that's using the good monitor. What a difference!