1933 Trials sniper

[Brian Dick]

Looks like an honest FTR Trials "T" to me. I'd have to agree with the Prinz that it's most likely been sanded and stained post service. I think it's just several coats of linseed or maybe Tru-oil finish, not varnish. I've been stripping gunstocks this week for customer repairs. Polyurethane on an SMLE just doesn't cut it. Yuck!! What a job.

[Roger Payne]

I would agree entirely with Brian on the refinishing issue. The butt is definitely a replacement as it is made from beech. All the Trials rifles went out stocked up in walnut.

ATB

[Surpmil]

I suspect this thread may do more to keep the price down than drive it up. Anyone considering spending thousands on a rifle off the Internet is well advised to do some research on said Internet, and doing so, they would certainly find this site, and very likely this thread. Particularly if they enter the URL of the auction in their Google search!

So, as StenCollector pointed out, there are numerous replacement parts, in fact it is easier to mention the parts that are original: the receiver/body, the backsight, the trigger (apparently)...and that's about it! Except perhaps for a few internal parts we can't see, probably not including the barrel.

The cutoff appears to be the No4 trials model, but as previously mentioned, would it survive a few trips through workshops? Probably a later addition by an owner trying to "restore", which we've probably all done and fair enough. The forend is not a MkI however: the relief for the cutoff is an obvious modification by someone.

The rifle number on the bracket looks like a home handyman job done recently.

Looks like someone has emery papered the bolt body to make it look more "original".

I'm trying to puzzle out the original scope number on the wrist: 3562 ? Doesn't look struck out or effaced in the way one would expect for a service job.

Is it an S51 marked butt? We're not shown.

So, it does look like an FTR'd rifle that's had most of its parts replaced over the years, but I wouldn't bet a dime that the scope and bracket were a service fitting.

I have the impression that the photos are quite carefully arranged to exclude certain points, such as the lack of a butt marking disc. As well as avoiding closeups of number stamps etc. This shows IMO that the seller has some knowledge of the weaknesses of the rifle and is trying to steer our eyes away from them.

If someone wants a trials No4(T), they'd do better to keep looking IMO.

[stencollector]

The late model canvas scope case leads some credibility to the scope being military matched to the rifle. The numbering on the back matches this setup. But it's not definitive. I would agree though that the re-numbering looks kind of cheap. It does not have the quality stamping you usually see on a renumbered bracket. They don't seem to make the number punches that hard anymore.

If the seller knows it's a trials, I don't see any advantage to excluding some collectors by not promoting that fact in the listing.

I personally would far rather paid the price for the all matching trials T that was listed on gunnutz earlier this week. Either that, or have a chance to buy back the one I purchased at the local gun show for $325 about 15 years back.

[Roger Payne]

It's still a real Trials T & I guess whether I wanted it or not would very much depend on how much anyone asked me for it. Of course I'd want it if the price was right, though I agree with Surpmil in that I believe the photo's may have been taken purposely as they are, intentionally showing what they do & not showing what they don't! The butt could well be original to an early run of production BSA or Maltby T but it is not original to the shown rifle. The fore end is also likely a later made replacement.

However, I return to the comment that despite its various shortcomings the guts of it are perfectly genuine & desirable up to a point. Peter is right - have a maximum punt & stick to it.

[Brian Dick]

The first scope number on the wrist has been struck with an original cancellation stamp. It looks correct to me other than being sanded on considerably. I'm pretty convinced the scope is an original replacement to that rifle for reasons mentioned by stencollector above. I've seen all manner of ugly cancellations and restampings on brackets so it doesn't look out of place to me. We know that the rifle has seen FTR at least once and you can bet it's been worked on by Armourer's shops elsewhere too before being surplused onto the civvies market. I'll stick to my opinion that it's honest with some work done on the wood by a previous collector to pretty it up a bit.

[superbee]

When I found the auction listing.It wasn't listed as a trials rifle.I called them and told them the difference.I also told them about the 1933 date hidden behind the England stamp.
I told them them it wasn't done by holland and holland,but they never removed it.
What sold me ,was the numbering on the canvas scope case.I had 2 other #4 snipers that were FTR'ed with new scopes that were marked with the same size/color markings on the case.
Good news is,I am still the high bidder!

[Roger Payne]

That was a very noble thing to do superbee; to let everyone else know about a rifle at auction even though you were hoping to buy it yourself.

[superbee]

here is another one that sold last fall to compare it by.

LOT #1402 - ENFIELD NO. 4 MK1 T BRITISH SNIPER BOLT ACTION

[Surpmil]

Personally I've never seen a bracket or photo of one renumbered by a few shallow chisel marks through the previous rifle number. Either it was "X"s all through, or peened out with a dull punch, or ground out, or some combination thereof. The goal being to make the previous number illegible.

Since the rifle has been painted at FTR why would the bracket not be also, and the scope for that matter? Not following SOPs from what I've read about them. Bare metal exposed by the stamps and no effort to rust-proof or dull it?

That bright shiny metal in the chisel marks and the matching number stamps also says "not done 50+ years ago" to me. I don't remember seeing oversize letters being used with smaller numbers either.

The case is nicely numbered to match the scope and the rifle, and the marking does closely match, almost, the original stenciled designation on the other side of the case. but of course the scope & rifle numbers didn't go on at that same time and place those markings, so how odd that they should so closely match!

Could it be that some enterprising soul thought it would be wise to copy the same style markings as near as possible?

There were 30 or 40 years ago lots of mismatching No4(T)s on the North American market; it wouldn't be surprising if some dealer was in the habit of "improving" things.

I could be wrong of course, but in what scenario would this kind of work have been done, if not in an FTR?

I do see indications of the "cancellation mark" on the original scope number, but why was it not also used on the original number on the bracket if it was done at the same time?

Could it have been a rifle that was FTR'd without a scope and bracket and that was the reason for the cancellation mark being used on one, and not the other?

I suppose it's possible some armourer somewhere, sometime did it this way, but it does not fit the pattern IMO.