No. 4 (T) DP rifle

[tower06]

Thank you for all the info gentlemen. It definately helps. Does anyine have any ideas about the New Zealand markings. Would that have been a unit marking ir their serial number?

[gsimmons]

From what I've heard they are NZ inventory numbers.

[tower06]

From what I've heard they are NZ inventory numbers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks

[Brit plumber]

I see that the white tape on the butt mentions 5L-4242 as having gone to England too. Looking at the fore-end number (pic 2) I would imagine that someone has read the SL maker as 5L and added the 4242 to come up with this red herring.

I'm wondering if someone has filed paperwork to state AT4242 has gone to England and someone has found this rifle and realised rifle 5L4242 (Longbranch) was sent instead and so this rifle has a sticker with some dodgy hand writing to highlight that the wrong rifle was sent or the wrong serial number was recorded. It appears to say somthing like '?????? #10 listed as gone to England 5L-4242 went to England'

I also suspect the person who wrote the note on the sticker was an idiot and was most probably the same individual who sent the wrong rifle in the first place. I don't think I've ever seen some one fluctuate back and forth between capitals and lower case letters so much in such a short note. Perhaps he was what we like to call 'A Blanket Stacker' AKA, a storeman.

[Surpmil]

Seems a bit odd that the TR and T are not struck out if the rifle was really converted to DP by a military force, rather than just being stamped by someone.

Also rather odd to have black paint on the side of body, but not on the butt socket. Presumably put on to cover the bare areas where the pads had been.

Overall, the wood and finish look quite original. I would wonder how a rifle could be worn to the point of DP status and yet never have been even refinished in workshops once?

Looking at photos like this one there is very little wear at all!

:

I wonder if this was just a T that was orphaned somehow and stripped of its pads to make it as close to being a standard No4 as possible, or made into a DP just because of its "odd man out" status as an ex-No4(T), rather than because it was worn out?

IRRC, there is evidence that other arms were converted to DP status because they were considered obsolete or non-standard, rather than because they were worn out.

[Thunderbox]

Oooh ..... don't restart the DP debate!

But yes, I think you may well be right. Hard to tell from photos, but the rifle doesn't look as beaten up and worn as might be expected for something out of gauge. Perhaps the scope got broken or lost, so the rifle just went onto the pile for the local cadets or recruits. Probably a common occurrence in countries in which 4(T)s were the only remaining bolt rifles in service.

[Peter Laidler]

They're not struck out because there was no requirement to do so! It was only for the L59 that there was a requirement to delete anything - and that was the proof marks

To be honest Surpmil, a selection of photos isn't really a true indication of wear. The best indicator is the Base Workshop examiners gauge set!

I know one L42 that was scrapped because the front pad had sheared off and no one could find it. After it had been returned to Ordnance, it was found, still screwed to telescope bracket

[Roger Payne]

I must admit I'd want to gauge it & if it checked out ok to restore it to original trim, if I were lucky enough to own it.

[jmoore]

I like it as it sits. Possibly even more pulled apart. It's a useful reference for the machining steps that went into the creation of these rifles. Cutter paths, tooling set-ups, lots of possiblities! It's not often the H&H modified areas on the action body are exposed for long periods on reasonably complete rifles.

As noted before, interesting! And potentially useful. Certainly has value, just perhaps not as a .303" projectile launcher.

[Roger Payne]

That's the engineer in you speaking!