Help with markings No 4 Mk I

[RobD]

Surpmil, here are more pics of that front scope mount - does it look OK now? Can anyone explain some anomalies with this rifle (clearly what I am dreading is that this rifle was put together as a 4(T) by a civilian):
1. for a BSA it does not have the M47C on the buttstock ring (though it does on the trigger guard).
2. The number Y4515 is on the bolt, forestock, electropencilled on receiver and on wrist beneath the butt socket - yet the main serial number on the butt socket (see pics earlier on this thread) really does look like Y1515 not a mis-stamped Y4515?
3. Is it wrong for a 4(T) to have the forestock numbered across the wood and not down it?
4. Is it wrong for a 4(T) to have a short butt? The rifle comes in its transit case, the case is legit, so the rifle is half an inch short for the box, because of the butt.
Thanks for all the thoughtful posts.
Rob

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[RobD]

I can take any more views you need, even take off the handguard if it will help.

[Surpmil]

I can take any more views you need, even take off the handguard if it will help.

I've heard that the Enfield examiner's marks were sometimes placed on the Nock's form of the barrel. Might be worth posting some photos of that area too.

I wonder if this was a genuine early T, which someone added the "TR" stamps to later in an attempt to make things 'fit'. The "TR" stamp is awfully fresh looking...

The front pad is still a problem, perhaps the back one too - I haven't seen a decent photo of it yet.

Perhaps an early rifle that was stripped of pads, and then refitted by some enterprising person, who may have added the "TR" stamps. The "T" stamp may have been there longer by the look of it.

Clean around the front pad and see if there is a machined flat on the receiver wall; it's usually a little larger than the pad itself.

[jmoore]

I wonder if this was a genuine early T, which someone added the "TR" stamps to later in an attempt to make things 'fit'. The "TR" stamp is awfully fresh looking...

The front pad is still a problem, perhaps the back one too - I haven't seen a decent photo of it yet.

Perhaps an early rifle that was stripped of pads, and then refitted by some enterprising person, who may have added the "TR" stamps. The "T" stamp may have been there longer by the look of it.

That's my guess. Not so sure that the "TR" is added, but too many things don't add up. The most telling issue is that the bracket number (on the other thread) does not match the S/N whilst the scope S/N placed on the wrist DOES match. If this rifle was rebuilt in service, the bracket number surely ought to match even if the old number had to be crossed out.

[Surpmil]

1. for a BSA it does not have the M47C on the buttstock ring (though it does on the trigger guard).
2. The number Y4515 is on the bolt, forestock, electropencilled on receiver and on wrist beneath the butt socket - yet the main serial number on the butt socket (see pics earlier on this thread) really does look like Y1515 not a mis-stamped Y4515?
3. Is it wrong for a 4(T) to have the forestock numbered across the wood and not down it?
4. Is it wrong for a 4(T) to have a short butt? The rifle comes in its transit case, the case is legit, so the rifle is half an inch short for the box, because of the butt.
Thanks for all the thoughtful posts.
Rob

1. That is a problem, perhaps the biggest and most obvious one.

2. Not good, but not really relevant. Mistakes like this happen.

3. Makes no difference AFAIK. Originally forends were numbered vertically I believe.

4. No, depends on the sniper's needs. That would explain perhaps why the cheekrest is even farther up the wrist of the butt than usual though.

Other problems:

1. Lack of the Enfield examiner's marks on the top of the but socket.

2. "TR" stamps look VERY fresh indeed. Notice how the sharp edge where the metal is displaced around the letter is unworn? Have a look with a loupe.

3. Backsight modification looks like it was done last week.

4. The large gap under the front pad sans solder.

5. The too-short screws holding the front pad; they should be flush with the receiver wall on the bolt side. Notice how clean the ends of the holes are?

6. Never seen those milling/fly cutter marks on the face of a front pad before.

7. Edges of front pad are too sharp and face too large.

8. Scope numbers on butt obviously put on fairly recently from the condition and font used.

9. Is there any sign of milling on the receiver wall to prepare a flat surface for the front pad? I don't see any and if there had been, there probably wouldn't be that large gap under the pad.

On the good side, the "S" stamp on the cutoff boss looks right and the "T" stamp doesn't look like it went on yesterday either. Althougth it has too rounded a top corner to the crossbar compared to other "T" stamps perhaps.

If this was a very early T, before M47/M47C was used exclusively, one would not find the "T" of course, unless an armourer had added it later as sometimes happened, we know.

The fact that it is a Fazackerly rifle and lacks the Enfield examiner's marks (apparently) are the biggest problems.

The only way this can NOT be a fake is if it is a very early T, which had it's front pad replaced (and by who with that workmanship?) and even then, how do we explain the lack of the examiner's marks which I believe are found on all genuine No4(T)s and of course are almost impossible to fake?!

[John R.]

Maybe I should chime in every morning with "MANGWANANI MDALA" as most of us are getting up to "mdala" status around here.Not too many piccannins in our hobby/affliction or so it seems..

Mkulu Baas John R.

[jmoore]

The rear sight not only looks too freshly done, it doesn't have the typical "look" of a Hollands' job. Not that it matters particularly, as it was a '48 FTR, but they surely wouldn't have left it "white" at that point.

The rear pad also looks newer than the receiver- no pitting or refinish as is evident on the body itself. These almost never get replaced, so that's another concern.

I, too, find the whole front pad area suspicious, and for most of the same reasons as Surpmil posts. Additionally, the countersinks seem a bit deep. Again, the FTR program indicates that even if it was replacement/ repair, they should have finshed the job w/ Suncorite or similar.

S/N on the fore end doesn't matter, unless it doesn't match! It was a post- war inventory convienience, according to Captain Laidler. The short butt is OK and may be why the scope S/N is odd, however, that would indicate the very worn "S51" is bogus- they are quite inconsistent with each other.

Pull the handguards and check the insides.

Can't comment on the new receiver marking pics, sorry, these monitors are just too dark- and can't be adjusted any more. Will be at a better viewing location friday.

M47 marks are BSA, 1943 rifles may not have the "C" for some reason, but all the '44s I've seen do.

The "T" could be OK, as well as the "S".

I'm wondering if its a rifle that's been restored.

You ought to shoot it and zero the scope to see how centered the aiming point is in the field of view. More than about five minutes Right or Left from center would be another clue. (Don't worry whether the numbers on the dials are "correct"- what you're checking is to see whether the post itself is optically centered.- Peter Laidler has many posts on this subject, plus a whole series of more substantial writings.

W/out seeing it in person, its looking kind of scary, depending on the price and your expectations. Of course, the rifle is the "cheap" half of the equation these days. Scopes and brackets seem to be the pricy bits.

[Surpmil]

RobD, I see you mention on another forum that the "S51" code is present on the butt. Could you post a photo of that please?

Isn't that an Ishapore FTR stamp below the "TR", by the way? Does the forend had the Ishapore cross screw?

[jmoore]

The "S51" is on page one of this thread.

[Surpmil]

The "S51" is on page one of this thread.

I see only four photos on the first page. None of them show the underside of the butt or the S51 that I can see.

11 photos on page two, not one of them either.