1944 BSA No. 4 Mk 1 (T) Less Telescope

[jmoore]

That's the reason why they'll rarely, if ever be modified. No swivel because who's going to use it in the single-point position? Not staked either as with no telescope...

So how to explain all of these rifles (including Surpmil's late entry in Post #20) with staking and rear swivels that aren't any advantage unless there's a center swivel?

[Peter Laidler]

There's a chance that they were in service with telescopes but were sold off without telescopes. There were roughly the same amount of rifles as there were telescopes, numerically speaking, telescopes went up to about 26xxx, which coincidentally is the approx amount of No4T's. The attrition rate of telescopes was greater than rifles so if we needed a telescope at Base workshop for an otherwise serviceable rifle, then we'd ask Ordnance for one. As they were not an issueable item per-se, (they were a 'starred item' or accountable item in their own right don't forget.....) there'd be a covering report with the indent request. The telescope would come in a long off-white/buff thich sailcloth type material bag with a tuck-in top flap (if you ever see one in your travels), tied at the top.

Telescopes/brackets could only be fitted at Base workshops (that's not strictly correct of course as some of the big Command workshops were really large Field workshops but were capable of Base workshop repair standards). The replacement telescope came from somewhere of course and that was most probably from an unserviceable or used rifle up for disposal languishing in Ordnance. And, as I say, in this case, that rifle now missing a telescope then became just another rifle! Thereafter the rifle would be marked as 'less telescope'

[boltaction]

So, Peter, that would then suggest that these rifles which are in cases "less scope" might have been ones with issues, or unserviceable, or just plain spare, or maybe all three were possibilities? I would expect that if they had scopes with them at some point, then they should have had the scope numbers on the top of the buttstock. The rifles pictured don't have scope numbers on the buttstock so those must have been sanded off? Do you know why would they be sanded off instead of just x'd out like ones are which are reissued a new scope? Is is possible that some of these were "spare" so to speak, waiting for scopes to be delivered for them and then none were, while others might have had scopes issued and then the rifles were damaged or whatever and the scopes swapped off? Maybe the unserviceable ones were never sold for surplus, or does anyone have one which has clearly definitely had a scope mated to it at some point? These rifles do seem to be an oddity. The one I posted pictures of is sold to someone else (I didn't want it because the price was too high for something with a switcheroo rearsight) so I'll never be able to have it in hand and look at it closely to see if the butt was sanded or not.

Cheers

Ed

[blurrededge]

Just had my Less T out for a good look at the staking on the pads through a jewelers loop and the Brunofix finish looks to have been applied after the staking of the screws, The finish is inside, coating the punched/disrupted metal. Now, as my Less T is in very good condition, with no real dings to the wood and clearly hasn't had any sort of hard life in service, I ASSUME it just sat in it's chest until disposed of, so I ASSUME it had no need to be refinished since it left Hollands, I'm therefore wondering if Hollands may have staked the screws on late war 4T's!
There's a couple of big assumptions there I know!
Also the area on the pads where the bracket contacts had a pretty much undamaged finish to them too, I wouldn't be surprised if the rifle never saw a scope until it left service.

[Surpmil]

Just had my Less T out for a good look at the staking on the pads through a jewelers loop and the Brunofix finish looks to have been applied after the staking of the screws, The finish is inside, coating the punched/disrupted metal. Now, as my Less T is in very good condition, with no real dings to the wood and clearly hasn't had any sort of hard life in service, I ASSUME it just sat in it's chest until disposed of, so I ASSUME it had no need to be refinished since it left Hollands, I'm therefore wondering if Hollands may have staked the screws on late war 4T's!
There's a couple of big assumptions there I know!
Also the area on the pads where the bracket contacts had a pretty much undamaged finish to them too, I wouldn't be surprised if the rifle never saw a scope until it left service.

I think your deduction must be correct. Does yours have the "T" stamp on the body side? Mine did not, nor have a number of others seen over the years. As Peter's books tell us this was the last operation performed at H&H, I assume these rifles were never fitted with scopes.

Why so many 1944 rifles? Could it be that there was a lag period when production of the MkI and MkII scopes ended and production of the Mk3 had not come on stream? Could it be that H&H to keep things rolling, continued to do the conversions and ship them, only without scopes?

The only other explanation I can see is that they were done after production of complete No4(T)s ceased, to 'use up' "TR" graded rifles that had previously been selected in greater numbers than the supply of telescopes or perhaps just the No4(T) contracts called for. It would have made sense to mark those rifles when they were found during the routine test firings, as if they were required later for conversion or some other purpose, they could not all be tested again.

TR rifles do surface that were never converted. I have on here at the moment in the X35--- 1945 range from which many rifles were converted to T specs it seems.

Here's a photo that just showed up in another thread:



Notice that the pad screws are staked and the rifle refinished before the "T" stamp went on as the finish flaked off went the stamp was struck. The only way that could happen is if the finish was put on at H&H as we know for certain that the "T" stamp was.

[blurrededge]

Yes, my Less T has no T stamp to the action or scope number on the wrist and never has had, believe me I've really looked for them :-)
That's an interesting picture Surpmil, if that is a late war BSA 4T with it's original finish from Hollands, as I guess it is, it does look like it was staked, painted, and then got it's T stamp.
I think these Less T's are a great resorce because of their reletive originality and lack of use in service.
I had wondered if the reason they didn't get the Enfield inspectors final stamp was because of the off spec solid foresight block band, if H & H converted the rifle but the foresight band was wrong they wouldn't be paid so maybe they just stored the rifle hoping to deal with it at a later date or at the end of production, only problem with this theory is that apparently there are plenty of late BSA T's out there with original "off spec" solid F/S block bands out there. Anyone got one like that?
Loads of risky speculation here again but I like this thread a lot.

[jmoore]

I had wondered if the reason they didn't get the Enfield inspectors final stamp was because of the off spec solid foresight block band, if H & H converted the rifle but the foresight band was wrong they wouldn't be paid so maybe they just stored the rifle hoping to deal with it at a later date or at the end of production, only problem with this theory is that apparently there are plenty of late BSA T's out there with original "off spec" solid F/S block bands out there. Anyone got one like that?

At least one from '44. Probably more, but it's so common, I quit noticing! All have had scopes and have been "low mileage".

ETA: Two albums with wartime "T"s one has 95 photo, the other 30 some odd- No front sight photos!


But one, an "A" prefix '44 BSA has always baffled me by having it's matching scope being several years older than the rifle. No sign of it having had another scope assigned:



Stock is Hollands' marked, and goes with the rifle...

The plethora of '44 scopeless rifles reinforces the theory that scopes may have lagged rifle production, so some few either went without or had scopes pulled from earlier unservicable units to fill the need. Have seen at least one other '44 rifle with the same sort of "mismatch" in scope vintages, whilst otherwise appearing "correct".

[Roger Payne]

This is proving an interesting thread & I'm learning a lot! I must admit that I've always assumed (& it is an assumption) that the 44 scopeless rifles were converted at the very end of the production run, so as to use up any rifles still on hand. Why the rifles seem to be 44's rather than 45's I don't know, but I know Paul Breakey's theory re 'first in last out' would certainly make sense here. If, in the meantime, the loose pad problem had declared itself then it would be perfectly reasonable for H&H to be informed to stake pads on all rifles before they left the factory.

I don't think the lack of a D6E is related to the solid foresight block, though I could be wrong. I say this simply because I've seen a lot of 1944 T's over the years & I cannot remember one off the top of my head that DIDN'T have a solid sight block, apart from one which was an obvious replacement. Most of these rifles bore the typical markings, including the examiner's stamp. However, go back a year to 1943 & you will see lots of anomalies!

I have seen a few TR rifles that were never converted. I have a receiver of one awaiting a rebuild at the moment. As with Surpmil's mine is also a X prefix 1945 body. The other two or three I have heard of were also all X prefixes. The 'TR' is neatly lined through on mine, yet it bears the D6E examiner's mark - so I guess there's another anomaly to throw into the melting pot!

ATB

[blurrededge]

I like that last in first out theory, I can imagine those '44 rifles being stacked against a back wall at hollands or elsewhere, awaiting scopes and filling up a store room, then MK3 32s coming into the factory in increasing numbers as well as '45 rifles at the same time, they could have just carried on production and used the 44's as a fallback if the 45's arrival slowed down.

"stick 'em over there with them Savages, they'll all get used up in the end, who knows how long this bloody war 'll last"

[Peter Laidler]

Like most other wartime contractors, H&H were told one day that rifles completed by a certain day would be paid for and that work in hand would be paid for on a pro rata basis. Raw material that was supplied, such as telescopes and brackets for example would be removed. Incidentally, this material that was supplied to complete the job was called 'embodiment loan' material, (such as, say, the Pyrene CTC fire extinguisher supplied to Bedford to be fitted into trucks during manufacture). BUT if the contractor wished to retain this material, such as brass sheet or other valuable strategic material for example, for post war production, they could purchase it for a nominal fee. Any other material bought in would be paid for too. No doubt H&H made hay while the sun shone and completed all that they could and their job don't forget was converting rifles - not making telescopes which were simply an embodiment loan to complete the job don't forget. Well, wouldn't you do the same................? Nett result loads of useless rifles sent back wothout telescopes and loads more sent back, partially completed with absolutely no value or worth whatsoever.

I often wonder if it was these partially completed/now worthless rifles that are just an expensive way of storing fresh air were those we occasionally see turned into DP or Skeletonised rifles

So they just completed all they could and the rest of the stuff, in fact TONS of the stuff just stayed in draws and cupboards until it was eventually dumped when the factory closed. That's how I ended up with the boxes full of half machined brackets and pads and thumbscrews and...... and............. which you see pictured in the book.

An almost identical scenario manifested itself when production of Sten Gun parts came to an end. Production will cease on XYZ day to allow work in hand to be completed and paid for. Embodiment material purchased, taken away or mutilated (with thick white paint poured over in the case of one Sten gun parts contractor) and bought-in material paid for. All spelled out in that little book 'wo' I writ......' a few years ago. And a very good read too.