-
Advisory Panel
Originally Posted by
Toledobob
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!
“There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.”
Edward Bernays, 1928
Much changes, much remains the same. 
-
Thank You to Surpmil For This Useful Post:
-
08-11-2011 09:16 PM
# ADS
Friends and Sponsors
-
Legacy Member
"Has an SMLE mag as well I see."
Very good observation there, Surpmil. I wonder, were magazines modified like that while in service or ...?
-
Thank You to Steve H. in N.Y. For This Useful Post:
-
-
Originally Posted by
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 ...?
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.
Originally Posted by
Surpmil
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!
-
-
Legacy Member
I have to admit to doing the "Shocking bit of grinding on the Backsight" as I didn't want to remove the Scope each time I cleaned up from the range.
-
-
Advisory Panel
Originally Posted by
Toledobob
I have to admit to doing the "Shocking bit of grinding on the Backsight" as I didn't want to remove the Scope each time I cleaned up from the range.
Not a bad job for freehand, but as per Peter's previous posts, you didn't need to grind into the sight leaf, just the bottom of the sight body, then lift the sight slightly when withdrawing the bolt.
I've got a few sight bodies around here I bodged while doing that grinding job!
As for the finish, it looks like patchy wartime phosphating to me, not sure anyone could replicate that now! Someone's taken the emery cloth to the outside face of the front pad spigot.
One thing I've sometimes wondered about is why, "if" the pad mating surfaces were machined after the pads were attached to the rifle body, does one see so many "T"s with an angled gap under the rear pad where it meets the curve of the side of the body:
It suggests in a way that the front pad was machined on the body, then the gauge or bracket attached, and then the rear pad slipped under it, aligned with the bore then sweated on.
But that's not how it was done, was it Peter?
Last edited by Surpmil; 08-13-2011 at 03:26 PM.
“There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.”
Edward Bernays, 1928
Much changes, much remains the same.
-
Thank You to Surpmil For This Useful Post:
-
Nope........... the pads were fitted to the bodyside partially machined THEN machined with the depth of the spigot of the front pad and the chamfered dovetails of the rear pad cut relative to the BORE of the rifle. This is what enables the exact collimation of the telescope with the bore of the rifle
The lower dovetail on the pad you illustrate looks to me like it's had two passes of the milling cutter. But it's a good example of what I say. The dovetails are relative to the BORE and not the BODY. I know we've been through this many times but when people say that all (?) brackets fit all rifles............., well, yes they might 'fit' but while most of the mismatched numbered ones might fit, they are mismatched mechanically too. They 'fit' as in 14" Ford wheels might 'fit' your VW, but they ain't the RIGHT fit!
-
-
Legacy Member
"Someone's taken the emery cloth to the outside face of the front pad spigot". I also "emery'd" the rear pad just to get "metal to metal contact" w/ my RE-PO mount, thinking it would help w/ the scope mounting.
-
-
Legacy Member
Attachment 26509
Yep, got that. It's a question of the Faz Beech and not the age of the fore-end! But as mentioned in another thread, when it went out of the Armourers shop, it went out with a closest match to what was on the shelf!
Hello, here are pictures of the "Faz Beech" & other markings I found . Also-- the picture with the SHIM on the ruler, I don't know where it fell out from. Thank You.
-
-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
Lucky...
-
That shim on the ruler looks like it was used as a bodge to increase the height of the reinforce bearing in the fore-end. Uusally we'd just machine the low bearing out, patch and repair and do it properly. Anyone else seen a bodge like this. Still, if it works and all that ....................
-
PM
