Hi so pleased to be ‘on board ‘ !

[Roger Payne]

Nick, I hadn't menbtioned the point Lee Enfield made about the positioning of the front pad (the gap between its front face & rear of the receiver ring) as there was a relaxation in fitting standards that permitted a small gap. However, in practice I've never seen it & I can't recall off hand hearing of anyone else who has either, which does make one rather suspicious. Further pics would no doubt clarify the issue beyond reasonable doubt. The top edge of the rear pad also looks to be sitting a little high. If you need a good shooting Lee Enfield & you know this rifle is a good shooter then there's no reason not to buy it, but if it were me I'd base what I was prepared to pay for it on the value of the sum total of its major parts only.

But it's entirely up to you....

Best.

[nickenfield]

Ok thanks Roger appreciate your comments & observations & more importantly the time you have spent so far,one thing that does puzzle me is why it was ‘bought out of service’? at a time when rifles were probably in demand .....did someone just take a shine to the woodwork or the way it shot or perhaps an officer wanted it for himself ? Guess we shall never know only surmise.....
I have put a deposit on the rifle and shall as I say send some more pictures when I take possession. Interesting stuff nonetheless and even more so when we get it to the range and see just how it performs.Realistically what’s your gut feeling based upon the relatively poor pictures? & value as it stands ?

[Alan de Enfield]

one thing that does puzzle me is why it was ‘bought out of service’? at a time when rifles were probably in demand .....

Don't get confused with thinking this was simply a 'war-time' rifle.
My No4T was still in service with the RAF into the '70s and had a 'major overhaul' in '68 at Base Workshops.

These rifles were still in use until a replacement came into the picture.

In fact, about 1200 of the No4Ts were taken and modified into the L42A1 and calibre converted to 7.62 NATO for the Falklands campaign (we had no other sniper rifle available).

When eventually a new Sniper Rifle was procured the No4T would be 'retired' and go into stores, it would then eventually be declared obsolete and 'sold out of service' ('de-mobbed' if you like).

[Roger Payne]

Hello Nick. Well, the scope & bracket look nice enough & are probably worth 1500 GBP, or maybe even a little more to the right person, 'retail'. Then it depends on how you view the rifle. Is it a beautifully effected homage to a genuine 4T or is it a nice No4 buXXered up by Bubba? Of course, that assumes it is not correct, but I think that is likely the overwhelming view you will get, once we have more detailed photo's. Sorry if that is not what you were hoping to hear, just wanted to give you an honest opinion, FWIW.

[muffett.2008]

Roger, I did some repair work on what appeared to be a ridgey didge one a while back that had the front mount back about 1/8".
I had to replace the front pad screws that were loose, so I desoldered the front pad to see why it was set back as the pad surface was milled to accept the bracket.
The front hole location was partially drilled.....then redrilled and tapped slightly further back.....as if the surface was too hard.
I took pic's of it but they are long lost with a thousand or more due to a Ransomeware virus, I had no intention of paying bitcoins to any mongrel.

[Roger Payne]

Cheers for that. I know I may be asking a lot, but can you remember if the rifle otherwise appeared correct; TR, T D6E etc? Peter told me of the relaxation in the spec - I think it was to ensure that in every case there was always enough solid metal around the rear locking lug recess. Having said that, a hard spot up front would sound to be an equally plausible scenario. I suppose it would be that or abandon the conversion of an otherwise good rifle....

[muffett.2008]

Yeah Rog. all the markings were there, even down to the X in the timber in line with the front mount....I remember wondering to Warren if this cross was in relation to the bracket, but don't recall what his answer was.

I did mention this bracket position on one of the forums.....and got shot down for my troubles, but having handled a few of these over the years, I still reckon this one was the real deal......the gap was not as pronounced as the OP here though, and the receiver was milled the extra bit to fit the repositioned mount.(I would have thought a bubba job would not be as professional )

[Roger Payne]

Thanks Muff. I've seen a few dodgy 4T's over the years as well, & with only very few exceptions Bubba generally didn't even bother to mill the 'window' for the front pad to sit squarely onto. The fact that you noticed this on the example you worked on suggests it should at least be scrutinised carefully. And, a minor relaxation such as this would allow otherwise serviceable rifles to be completed, at a time when they were sorely needed.

Now you've mentioned it, I wonder if Peter or any of the other armourers have also come across a 'right' 4T that actually had this little 'front pad gap'???

[Peter Laidler]

The relaxation was to clear hardness caused by the induction hardening of the rear locking lug. There was no hardening at the front of the body. I was also told at H&H that a rear pad could be moved slightly to cater for uneven machining of the locking lug recess, where it mmight shallow and give insufficient thread. Whether THAT explanation - after 50 years had morphed into the actual explanation of the slight spread of the induction hardeing of the shoulder, nobody knows now. But there certainly was a relaxation/ And .060" seems to spring to mind