1943 Maltby No4 Mk1 T F.M.P. marked

[bigduke6]

Dave, check the outer screws on the front pad, it looks like it is only held by the middle screw, other two dont look like they are doing anything,
make sure they are in the thread, was,nt that clear on the pics, as this can make the difference between a good day and a bad day on the range, i know from experiance when i made my repro No4T, it was only when i removed the scope that i found the problem, and it was the screws on the front pad, after 5 -10 rounds i had lost zero.

[daver1984]

Bigduke6

Thanks for the info I'll keep an eye on it next time I'm at the range.

Dave

[RJW NZ]

What does the barrel registration mark look like? Does anyone have a pic? Was it done to all T's? cheers chaps R

[breakeyp]

Assisting the gentleman by telling him it is an unwise purchase is admirable. But, should we go into detail as to why so that the next fake will be better?

[bushcreature]

Confused!
First time I've posted on this site or any other come to that so bear with me.
I read with intrest all the comments bouncing back and forth, but have
become a little confused with the Maltby 4T post 1941 issue.
I consulted my green bible on all things 4T (Great book by the way Peter) having remembered the evolution of a 1944 Maltby No4 (BJ 17289) transported from yorkshire in the summer of 1944 to H & H for transformation to 4T, Emerging resplendant on Thursday 20th October 1944 fit for active service. The same chapter ( chpt 6 page 31) describes the manufacture of the rear pad stating that they were of rounded or chamfered to suit body profile, before being sweated and screwed to the receiver (Drawing D.D.E 2441/3 for part CR508 rear pad supports this).
Chapter 18 (page 98) of the good book details the conversion of a Maltby 4T 43 vintage to an L8a2(T) trails rifle at the RSAF Enfield in 1971.
So Guru's out there can you please help put the matter straight Maltby 4T's post 41 yeah or Neah?