No4MK1 "T" RESCUED

[Seaspriter]

I've had several complete, original 1944 No.4T's without the finish "T" stamped on the left hand side of the body. I've also had several 1944 No.4T's with solid foresight blocks.

Brian is about to get another 1944 Long Branch sporterized sniper for restoration (Serial #71L0279). Solid-block front sight, no "T" designation, but with original scope mounting brackets, serial numbered on the top of the wrist behind the bolt, and mounting holes in the stock where the cheek pad once sat. And no one in the Long Branch factory was facing attacks by V-1 rockets from Antwerp or bombing raids or Messerschmitt fighters. The Long Branch factory (60% women) was renowned for its quality....so what's the reason why the "T" was left off? Perhaps it was because any dimwit could see the scope mounts and scope, plus the cheek pad, plus the special stock serial number, so why need the "T" (maybe they put the T in the place where the scope pads were eventually fitted?). Maybe the "T" was added after all the accoutrements were put on the rifle and some production manager didn't want to set up another post-production engraving/stamping position -- after all the LB arsenal was priding itself in 1944 on how it had lowered production costs significantly from the 1943 production year -- so: just move the damned guns into the packing and shipping department FAST, don't waste another step, engage another person, and create another bottleneck. To put this in perspective, the Long Branch Arsenal was also reducing staff in 1944. Savage had stopped production in June '44. Long Branch production hit a peak of 31,000 units in the month of October, '43. From there on production orders fell continuously to reach 1/2 that rate by December 1944. IOW, the plant was seeing the war coming to an end and its future was uncertain. Keeping production costs low and quality high was a way to attract new orders. I would think that the plant manager was clear that adding another person/step in production was not a smart business move.

Why a solid block foresight? Maybe the rationale was that the scope adjustment was a far better means of adjusting for accuracy and they just didn't want anyone fiddling and diddling with the foresight and screwing up the scoping process? Anyone have any other logical guesses?

I've learned from following lots of Enfield threads on this site that there are still many mysteries, contradictions, and anomolies that we have yet to unscramble (Like the Maltby No.4 MkI* etc., etc.). Being too-tightly-wound about Enfields can produce lots of constipation and little enlightenment. You must have some tolerance for ambiguity, a very inquisitive nature, a dose of humbleness, a love of history, and a sense of humor if you want to enjoy Enfields. Devoid of any of these, and your Enfield passion will diminish proportionately. (I'm not implying you or anyone else is deficient in these traits, just observing and musing .)