No.4 Mk1(T) M.47 1944

[enfield303t]

All I can do is honestly relate the circumstances of its purchase and what I see. Other than the rough casting, it looks textbook to me, from the Laidler textbook . I bought it from a younger guy and it had a commercial sling on it, with no no magazine. In short, he was quite ignorant of what it was and this was 1994, perhaps even 1993. I'm not a denial type person, have been setting up and doing shows for 25 years, and I didn't hesitate buying it and wouldn't sell it. The components are textbook correct as well, and if someone in the late 80s, early 90's went to the trouble of assembling an early scope to a fake mount, that they renumbered to match the rifle and scope, and numbered the rings properly, I don't know they would send it to a show with someone to sell for $400 or trade for a Remington 700. I would jump on it now for much more, and would not sell it for much much more

I can take better pics of the components, but I'm not unstaking any screws that have never been removed.
Cheers,
Hambone

Hambone it looks great and what a deal. The mount looks rough but your logic on all that work to fake it and sell so cheap is so correct. Lets face it maybe this mount was one that should have been discarded but wasn't. Quality can vary so much on anything, like the old problem of buying a car made on a day after a "long weekend" no one wants that car. I would be more than happy to have it in my collection.

[Hambone]

Tks. You know, if I was peddling this thing at auction with some longwinded tale, or even had I just bought it at the SOS for $3750.00, I might be inclined to be persuaded there was a problem. I was collecting Enfields back in the 80s and 90s, and I just don't think mounts were being knocked off like this. Back then I think this rifle would have sold for $1000-1200, original, matching, in this shape, retail. But that's still all my story, albeit the truth.

I can take better pics of the mount if there are any other indicia that anyone needs to see other than the roughness issue.

[jmoore]

No, but more pics wil do much for the NEXT "rough" bracket study. You just got to go first.

Otherwise, everything looks dandy- wrist looks unmolested, usual post-war numbered bracket and fore stock.

However, I warn folk again, during the week, the monitors here at work are absolutely horrible. It's a 12 hr day today- first in a while-and I'm DONE! 'Bye!

[Hambone]

NP. The rifle is at the back of the safe, the scope I believe is in a case very accessible on the shelf so I can take pics of the inside, bottom, etc. As Badger will tell you, on the K98k forums I moderate it's about the truth and good info, not telling people what they want to hear to the detriment of the knowledge base. My story is not to puff wind up my own behind, or anyone else's, it's just the actual circumstances that lend themselves peripherally to the analysis.

At the time of purchase, the fakes weren't sophisticated and I'm not even sure that the knowledge was generally available to fake the mount and scope, and put the postwar numbering on the mount mating the units. I don't know that it was mounted postwar given the Mk.I scope. Obviously, it went through stores as it got the mount numbered. Certainly, the guy I got it from would have had a hard time finding his arse with both hands, much less doing this work. I further doubt anyone in the State of Mississippi at that time possessed the knowledge to to this.
Cheers,
Hambone

[Hambone]

Otherwise, everything looks dandy- wrist looks unmolested, usual post-war numbered bracket and fore stock.

JMoore, I was always under the impression that the fore stock numbering was done when the rifle was manufactured and not postwar in the case of these. From my Skennerton/Laidler 4T book I was aware the that mounts were numbered with the rifle serial postwar, that originally the scope was mated to the rifle with the scope number on the top of the stock flat.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the pad staking looks original WW2 period and not restaked.

[jmoore]

Pad staking is either VERY late war or post war sevice mod. Yours would most likely been staked when it, the bracket and forestock were numbered.There should be a mark on the stock if done whilst in service. (BTW The added forestock/fore end numbering was apparently for inventory purposes whilst the rifles were in racks, according to Captain Laidler.)

The scope itself may have been w/ this rifle since the RIFLE was built, but it appears that in 1944, some early scopes were released from parts unknown to Hollands'. Possibly to keep things flowing? No evidence aside fronm a scattering of otherwise "original" appearing rifles (not so reworked as to have major bits moved, or more or less of late '40s configuration).

PL also recently revealed that the the first 6000 scopes were originally slated for other than No.4 Mk.I(T)s, although some seem to have been installed rather early on onto rifles. Sequencing these early scopes defies logic it seems, so far, perhaps due to their previous allotments (i.e. BRENs).


Mind you, I'm a puny "ammy-toor" compared to some on this forum!

[Roger Payne]

Thanks Hambone. Is there any chance of any more pix of the bracket, especially of the back end curve as it sweeps down to the part that mates with the rear pad (good view obscured by the rear thumb screw in your present pix)? Also of the inner aspect (on the bracket) of the mating surface against the front pad spigot?
I note also two rifle serials on the rear of the bracket.

Reproduction brackets have been generally available since about 1989/90; from me at least. Please don't misconstrue me because I think the rifle is a beaut, & the scope's nice too, but I suspect the bracket could be one of my early ones. I usually fettled them up, sand blast & black them, but sometimes, especially to dealers I will sell them 'as they come to me' from the machinists, & I leave the purchaser to do the final finishing as they see fit. When left unfettled they look exactly as per yours. Plenty have crossed the Atlantic over the years. But, I can give you a much better guesstimate with a few extra views, if you wish to, of course (FWIW - you clearly have a great rifle regardless).

ATB

[Hambone]

Hello Roger, no problem. I'll get extra pics out this week. Would have today but was busy. Will take detailed shots. It would be surprising to me if this was a repro mount though, given the circumstances of the purchase. Though who knows. I would think if someone had gone to that trouble, of knocking off a mount though they had the matching original scope, only to sell the whole rig for $400, even back then, is highly unusual. At that time these were retailing on tables for two to three times that. Someone would have also had to fake the rear flat.

What is the appearance of the areas you want photographed? Do you have pics of yours for comparison and can you post those?
Cheers,
Hambone

[Surpmil]

For the money you got a very good buy. IMO the rifle is one of the "T Less Telescope" ones that was never finished. I had a 1944 in the N3---- range that had identical nearly new wood and finish. I see no "T" stamp on yours either.

The bracket is 'unique'. I'm guessing it might be made by some nation that No4(T)s in service, such as Israel or Belgium/Holland...the list goes on. (Ignore that, I see it has the N92 mark!) But it could be a genuine UK-made WWII production bracket that was semi-finished, either due to production problem at the manufacturers (shortage of abrasives/war damage/worker shortage, who knows?) or just a "relaxation" in standards of finish to speed up/cheapen production.

It looks like it has seen military service from the two rifle numbers, but the rear cap is an obvious replacement IMO, unless standards were "relaxed" so far that anything was accepted that held the scope in place. Extremely rough, crude finishing, and obviously too narrow, but in wartime you have to take whatever morons the labour allocation boards send you I suppose.

If the wear to the bluing on the scope tube matches the non-standard width of that ring cap, I'd say you've got an original pair though.

Whether the bracket and scope were a service fitting to the rifle would depend on the "T" stamp or lack thereof. They cannot be the original scope and bracket, obviously, due to the earlier number on the bracket and the very different amounts of wear to the scope/bracket and rifle.

[Hambone]

Thanks Surpmil. Honestly, I would not bet money on this being a repro mount given the appearance, circumstances, etc. I'm not one to pipe sunshine up my own arse over such things either, and certainly not at $400. The mount does have another rifle number on it, but is also numbered to this rifle, thus fitted to it, and matched to scope by the buttstock flat. It has not other identifying marks, no rework or FTR markings at all, other than British BNP. Doesn't look monkeyed with, and I can about guarantee that at the show where I got it, and state, at that time, there probably wasn't anyone that knew these better than me and that's not saying much Certainly no one knew enough to put all the right markings on the bracket, add two sets of rifle numbers, etc., all for $400 cash (or a Remington 700 deer rifle straight up in trade, which I did not have). More detail to follow. Thanks for the time and info, good, bad, and otherwise.

BTW- I believe there are very ligth vestiges of a T stamp on the receiver side, very light.
Cheers,
Hambone