No.4 Mk1 (T) restoration project

[Roger Payne]

I might be wrong but I think the serial number is the original - certainly a 'T' prefix serial would be correct for early 1945. Also, if you look at the photo showing the barrel reinforce & receiver ring you will see the original number on the reinforce - no letter prefix, but quite clearly 322whateveritwas.

If you want to shoot it I'd do as Peter suggests re the forend, but would otherwise leave the restoration to a minimum - you'll never lose the big heavily stamped marks on the receiver side wall, so I wouldn't try, & just accept it in its Indian guise.

[Peter Laidler]

Yep....., Roger is right in my opinion. I'd restore it to how it should be - that is properly - without trying to hide its hard worked Indian provenance. You haven't mentioned the state of the telescope yet but I expect that.......... No, I'll stop there!

I rebuilt its older brother 14568 in 2001. There are some 40 or so ex Indian telescopes around this serial number batch

[CINDERS]

Another question that I have and it is probably a no brainer but why are witness lines on the T"s one on the underside of the barrel and one on the receiver? I just checked an old action I have lying around and its not on that one nor from memory on my 2 Savage No.4's yet my No.4 T BSA Shirley has those marks. I have included a pic of the underside of my T's action and barrel and you can see the line just in front of the action screw hole. As in Thread #5 Pic 9 of peval65's T

[Lee Enfield]

Clean it, shoot it, then determine if you want to "restore it". Your Butt stock is marked by the Indian Ord Corp.

Your rifle currently as near as I can see is as Indian issued. Due to the extra markings added in Indian service, I would leave it as is.

[Peter Laidler]

Nobody really understands the breeching-up marks on No4T rifles because they weren't unbreeched during the fitting up stage - so why bother? Additionally, any sort of breeching up mark is notoriously fickle and depends too much on the fitters opinion as to whether it is or isn't aligned. (The SA80 is a good example of this.) If you need to re-barrel a No4 or a T, and I have done one or two zillion, then you don't need a witness mark...... you use the gauge or the surface plate!

Additionally, no one at H&H put the witness mark there so far as we know. What about at BSA once it was selected as suitable for TR? Good point but that'd mean it had to be stripped, marked and re-assembled again after the range test. And to achieve what?

Back to the T in question. If it was a rusty old bodged up E Type Jag that looked like it went to Italy deck cargo on a submarine, would you be happy with it? Or would you at the very least, make it presentable? What about the telescope. Should he leave the old Indian coathanger wire graticle and string crosswire? I know it's a tad glib of me to say it like this but this tired but grand old lady deserves a bit of TLC at this stage of its hard life. And the Indian markings and its equally proud heritage will still be there.

[peval65]

I thought much to all the replies to my thread....I decided for a soft restoration, leaving in place the woods and the irons I found together.
Just that horrible black sprayed paint... I would remove it and would see the remaining finish...
I shot any weapon I have every once in a while...I enjoy it.... so I hope to align the telescope.
Here are some telescope pics.....the black brush painted lacquer was flacking off easily and I removed it...the only original paint remains underneath the rings and it is solvent proof like many military paints.
I found no other lettering on the tube like the "W" or so.
The vision is clear and crisp, no lense defects visible thru the scope at my eyes.
Is the reticle of the scope correct?
What do you think about the scope itself?
Thanks everyone.
Paolo

[Peter Laidler]

I would say that the tele is in remarkably good condition when compared to the usual Indian ones you come across. But it might not fare so well when subject to an optical examination and light test. It will not have a red W unless the drums are waterproofed

[peval65]

I would say that the tele is in remarkably good condition when compared to the usual Indian ones you come across. But it might not fare so well when subject to an optical examination and light test. It will not have a red W unless the drums are waterproofed

Peter
What means "waterproofed"? In which way the drums are waterproofed?..Maybe the W is gone with the original paint so I would check the drums.
It is my intention to buy the booklet on the telescope but...is there some simple test to do in order to verify the optical conditions without disassembe it??
In your opinion is the black medium matt paint visible on the rings band, the original??
The No.8 case is overpainted with gloss green paint and I do not know the meaning of the white lettering. Under the glossy paint there is a matt "olive drab" ..is it the original paint?
Again thank you.
Paolo

[Roger Payne]

Hope Peter won't mind me chipping in, but the original finish on those lateish Watson Mk2's was blued, though many have been painted (& not always with suncorite as in this case) after the event. You won't generally see a 'W' other than on a Mk3 scope, unless it has been re-worked post war.

[Peter Laidler]

The only W's you might see on Mk2 telescopes are those converted to Mk2/1 and those Roger mentions, reworked after WW2 for the Far East Land Forces. Easily identified by the little desiccation screw in the turret housing.

Since you asked, the drums were waterproofed by machining a recess in the underside of the index plate around the central thumbscrew opening and inserting a rubber (or second best, a fibre) seal. The seal was retained in place and slightly compressed by the clicker plate which made the drum waterproof

To be honest, the Indian paint makes later refurbishment hard work because it has to be totally stripped. The slightest trace of any left will pickle and lift the new paint and it'll never go off even after it's gone through the bake oven. That goes for those scopes given a quick blow job by enthusiastic amateurs using a cheap spray can. Talk about making a simple job difficult!