Looking for some help/direction with a No 4 Mk 1 T

[Surpmil]

That's very interesting Roger, and one is left wondering. I had the remains of a 1941 Maltby T myself and we've seen three or four on this forum over the years, usually in MkI type birch forends n'est pas? Mine had a smaller S51: 1/4" to 5/16" going from memory now. When these rifles were converted is the mystery isn't it? Could it be that a decision was made to set aside rifles of at least presumed better quality, in 1941 or early 42, for later sniper conversion? It might have made sense if to put away enough rifles for the contract, or at least part of it, if there was concern that later production might be of lesser quality for a few years, or that bombing might interfere with production, or shipping losses with supply from North America. Those things were all somewhat unknowns in 1941/42. There is the precedent of 10,000 Winchester P14s being set aside after WWI, though obviously from a situation of surplus rather than shortage, or potential shortage.

Pity H&H didn't keep a ledger or two!

Rob,
There were a number of 1941 dated BSA Savage & Maltby rifles in the batch we bought back in the 1990's, & of those that still had butts on them, all bore the S51 except one, which had obviously been rebutted at some point. You might be right, but for this reason I've always assumed that as far as the marking system went, the S51 was probably the first to appear in regular use (our rifles generally lacked the other characteristic markings such as the 'T', 'TR', etc.). Admittedly we are talking of a small sample size, but of around ten or a dozen rifles, all the same. We also bought some cannibalised spares & amongst the several sacks of bits was an early 4T butt bearing a TINY S51 stamp, only about 1/8" tall. Perhaps it was added after the event, or maybe it belonged to one of the first rifles to be converted & marked by H&H, before they'd got into their stride......??

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.

[bigduke6]

Out of interest was the stamp "S51" a stamp itself or impressed from individual stamps ?

[AR44]

I have attached a Dropbox link to a file with more photos. If there is a another preferred method to viewing photos, let me know. Or if folks want more photos.

Dropbox - Enfield Milsurps shared files

It has been a few years since I have opened the box. While taking photos I managed to tear one side of the leather scope cover (see pic) and have noticed a few things. Those and some based on what I've been advised to look for. Others will surely see more:

1. The scope tool has broken teeth. Though it sounds like this may not be part of the kit anyway
2. There is some frosting of one of the lenses within the scope (see pic). Causes some blurriness when looking through the scope
3. The rear stock number doesn't match (28070 vs 33968)
4. Forestock and bolt numbers match
5. Scope number doesn't match (34168 vs 33968)

[PrinzEugen]

People a lot more expert than me can comment on the woodwork - but the scope (no 25502) is clearly matching with its case. The rifle is marked with a different scope number on the (28070) butt top. The scope bracket is marked with the rifle number of the rifle it was originally matched with (24168?) rather than the one it's on (33968). So... it's a lovely matching scope and case with probably the bracket it originally came with then put together with this rifle (which looks refinished).

So as you can probably work out from what I've said rather than the mismatches you suggest above, on no4ts the scope no is marked on the butt, and the rifle no is marked on the scope bracket and the scope number is the one on the scope, not the bracket. I hope that's not too confusing!

[Peter Laidler]

The S51 was done with 3 individual stamps. How do I know this? I took the actual 5 and 1 (the S wasn't there.....) off the examiners bench when I went to the old original H&H factory before it closed shortly afterwards. Did I take anything else interesting? Don't even ask but look at the Armourers perspective.

I think that the rifle is the real McCoy etc etc but like the hundreds of other No4T's sold in the USA and Canada in the 50's or so, you took a rifle and then took a telescope/bracket/case out of a cupboard close by. Or so the story goes..........

[bigduke6]

The S51 was done with 3 individual stamps. How do I know this? I took the actual 5 and 1 (the S wasn't there.....) off the examiners bench when I went to the old original H&H factory before it closed shortly afterwards. Did I take anything else interesting? Don't even ask but look at the Armourers perspective.

Thanks Peter, Have read the book a few times and the scope book.... still can't take all the info in, but they are well thumbed.

[ssj]

Pic of front scope mount on receiver please?

[Roger Payne]

I don't think the rifle has been refinished. Look at the sharpness of the stamps. You still see crisp rifles like this sometimes - little used examples. As everyone has commented it is unfortunately mis-matched, now having the scope & bracket off a U prefix 1945 dated BSA rifle.

It might not be so valuable as a fully matching example, but it's still worth money.

[AR44]

ssj - Some receiver area and mount photos added to the Dropbox folder. Thanks for the comments thus far. As noted earlier and having done some reading, I understand the buttstock number is related to the scope. Not the rifle. Short of taking the buttstock off (which I'm not willing to do at this point) I have to assume the buttstock matches. When I look at the milling of the metal to the wood, it's part of the original setup. Wood is something I do know things about and I can confidently say this was not refinished. To crisp. No finishing oil build up or bleeds into the stamps. no sanding marks or sharp edges around the stamps. No grain pop.

[Seaforth72]

The old adage is "Buy the rifle, not the story". The Enfield factory story is unlikely I think. In that case one would expect a matching set. The numbering of the rifle serial number on the scope bracket ("U34168" ? in this case) began on British rifles circa 1950 (ref. Peter Laidler's AN ARMOURER's PERSPECTIVE p.83), years after the factories had released the items to army stores.

Is there an ENGLAND stamp on the body anywhere? If it is stamped ENGLAND then it likely went through the surplus system enroute to the USA. Such a marking would not likely be found on a rifle still at the factory as it relates to the requirements of the U.S. McKinley Tariff Act to mark the country of origin for import to the USA. The lack of the ENGLAND stamp would not be proof that it remained in the UK, as it could have been imported directly to Canada.

Is there an "S" stamp on the right side of the (metal) body on the small flat area just below the bolt head? I would expect to see it there as it was made at a time when the markings had been standardized.

The rifle is lovely and as mentioned by others and the scope with its bracket is mismatched to the rifle. Great for display, but as Peter Laidler points out elsewhere on Milsurps, the scope is not collimated to the barrel with mismatched No. 4 T sets. This is a very common problem in North America due to some major surplus dealers who did not realize or care that these were meant to be matched. I agree that the set looks original but is mismatched. The bayonet and scope tool have been added at some point as I believe snipers did not carry bayonets and one does not encounter the bayonet in the chest usually. The tool is for the earlier scopes and would not have been used with the No. 32 Mk. III (aka No. 32 Mk. 3). Also this scope case No. 8 Mk. II does not have provision for holding this tool (note its label states this) whereas the earlier No. 8 Mk. II steel cases have a clip for the tool.