#4 trials "sniper"

[boltaction]

Good morning:
Here's another rifle which I have also been offered from the same collection. The original owner has passed away and the rifles are being sold by another fellow; the provenance of the items is not really known. Again, I have not had it in hand yet, and the photos are a bit blurry (not deliberate). It is a 1931 dated #4, set up as a sniper. However, there are a few things about it which strike me as odd. All could be explainable, but I'd like some opinions from those who have probable forgotten more than I have ever known.

1. The rifle has a Mk I scope with sunshade mounted on it, which is fine. However, the scope seems to be completely devoid of markings from what I see in the photos and from what I have been told. I've run across a decent number of Mk I scopes over the years, but they've all had a maker mark and model number on them.
2. The mount seems to be unmarked as well--there is a small mark on the side of the mount which the seller can't make out. The rear ring seems to be stamped with a 257, or maybe a 4 digit number with the second one not really visible.
3. The screws holding in the front scope pad are not staked. I haven't seen a photo of the rifle with the scope off so don't know what the rear mount looks like.
4. The rifle does not have the waisted front sight protector, or the hinged bands. These of course could have been switched out in the course of the rifle's service, but from what I've read about these (pretty much all on this forum is where the info is) all others described have the early furniture. Maybe someone has one which doesn't but it just hasn't been mentioned.
5. The front band and the metal "shoes" on the front of the top and bottom forewood are quite worn, which is fine, but the sight protector and the muzzle aren't, making me think they were mated together at different times in their service life. In my experience, if the bands are worn in finish, so should be everything else around them.
6. The rifle does not have a cheekpiece on it. There is no number stamped on the top of the buttstock. Where the number should be, as can be seen in the photos, the top of the buttstock has been badly chipped at some point, like perhaps it was jacked back and forth in a rifle with the stock bolt loose.
7. The bolt is the correct early type, but is un numbered.
8. The marks on the buttsocket seem to be scuffed in the photos--have to see it in person to know if they've been messed with in some way.
9. The magazine cutoff seems to be the earlier milled pattern, not the later stamped type which are described as being on these rifle.

Attachment 42026Attachment 42042Attachment 42043Attachment 42044Attachment 42045Attachment 42046Attachment 42047Attachment 42048Attachment 42049Attachment 42050Attachment 42041Attachment 42040Attachment 42039Attachment 42027Attachment 42028Attachment 42029Attachment 42030Attachment 42031Attachment 42032Attachment 42037Attachment 42036Attachment 42038Attachment 42051

So, thoughts? Real, fake.....? Could one ever know? It is a 1931 #4, which is kind of neat in its own right. It has an early Mk I scope on it, although it is unmarked. One could postulate it was set up as a sniper along with the rest and had its furniture changed out at some point in its life, and either never had a cheekpiece (did that EVER happen?) or the buttstock was changed. Alternatively, it could just be a #4 trials which someone ruined by putting a set of mounts and early scope on. Actually, looking at my own list of things which might be wrong with this rifle, maybe I can answer my own question......

Ed

Moderator Edit: After you click on images to ENLARGE them, you may find they automatically size smaller in your browser's window making them harder to view. The auto sizing is your browser's way of keeping images entirely within the screen size you have set. Move your mouse pointer to the bottom centre of the pic and you will see an options panel appear. There will be a small square box next to the large X, which will have a pointer arrow sticking out of it. If it's illuminated, it means the pic you're viewing can be enlarged, so click on this box and the pic will EXPAND and open to its normal size. You can then grab the pic with your mouse (hold down left mouse button) and move it around to look more closely at various parts of the photo.

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.

[Brit plumber]

Im no expert but the bracket looks bad repro to me and muzzle/forsight looks refinished unless its got a complete new barrel fitted.

[bigduke6]

Like BP no expert, but the bracket to me looks rough enough to be original going by the finish marks, just odd size rear holder ? but for me I would be more interested in LEC or LMC that is in pics 6, 8 & 9.....

[Simon P]

Looks to be a Rose Bros bracket, is that a feint JG?

[paulseamus]

If the trials Sniper were not built up by Holland and Holland it makes sense hat the normal markings would not be there. That is the T, the TR , the S etc. I'm sure that Peter Laidlers' little blue book refers to some early scopes not being marked.

I agree with Simon in that it does look like there is a feint JG stamped in the mid of the bracket.

As to the darker finish on the fron sight and exposed part of the barrel, I would be removing the handguards to check if the barrel has been replaced. The foresight ears look like they are from a later production rifle.

Either way I would be happily parting with my cash to buy the rifle, it's just the price that would need to be determined.

[Peter Laidler]

Bolt action, do you want the acid test......................? Just mount the telescope and bracket on the rifle, set the druns to zero and see if the tip of the pointer is collimated exactly with the bore of the rifle at your diatant aiming point. If it ain't, then someones been playing around with it.

OR. Rotate the telescope and set the tip of the pointer to the optical axis of the bopre of the telescope tube. NOW mount it onto the rifle and do the same test as above. If it ain't correct, to within a few clisks left/right or a few mopre clicks up and down, then start looking more deeply

Just my starting poiint for these 'original, just as it left the factory' horror stories I've heard about. Not casting any aspersions on that offering at all of course. But always worth a chect

[Roger Payne]

I would entirely agree with what Peter has said about assessing if the scope/bracket/rifle combo are genuinely mated, but going a little further to address the question of is the rifle/bracket/scope a fake then I'm pretty confident none of them are.

The lack of markings on the scope is far more likely to be because somebody has removed them at some point rather than for any other reason, like it being 'experimental' or whatever.

The bracket is probably a genuine JG marked Rose Brothers product, though I would concur the rear top clamp looks suspect & I think it has been heavily filed/linished, although has not had the numbers re-stamped onto it.

Within the limits of the photographs IMHO it's a perfectly real Trials No4 T but it has had many/most of its parts replaced over the years. The butt is most definitely a replacement as it is made out of beech. Not sure if the fore end is beech also & just a little darker. The butt marker disc looks as bright as a new penny, & as others have pointed out there is a considerable discrepancy between the remaining finish on the nose cap & the foresight protector/end of the muzzle. The barrel could be a replacement & the foresight protector clearly is. Maybe the vendor had a another needier Trials rifle & only one waisted foresight protector; or maybe he saw how much they make on that auction site!

It would be interesting to know if there is an EFD examiner's mark on the front pad & also whether the rear sight is of EFD manufacture (if it is is it a 4 or 6 click?). I suspect the pad probably will turn out to be examiner marked, & if the sight is EFD that it will be a 4 click - but I'm now sticking my neck out!

ATB

Forgot to mention but the bracket also looks to have been refinished.

[limpetmine]

A wild out of bounds question. Could that scope be a Bren telescope?

[Warren]

A "few" scopes from the same region of Canada have shown up with no markings and I suspect they were rusted tubes with the markings polished off. One such No.32 scope I recently checked out for a chap from the same area was an REL Mk.1 scope and again no markings. Once you get the scope in your hands and compare with a British and an REL you soon see the difference.
As to the trials rifles, I have three on the floor right now and all exhibit numerous different characteristics. The 1931 and 33's all show minor differences and does anyone have a 1932 that they can shoot me some pictures of or will they post them here. These trials rifles had so many reincarnations in their life time as a none standard arm I really doubt if two in 100 would be the same. One of mine came through India so "nuff said" on that one.

[Roger Payne]

Thanks Warren. Out of curiosity, has anybody seen any Trials rifles with even year 1930's dates? It may just be the luck of the draw but every one I have owned has been a 31 or a 33, & others I have heard of have been 35 & possibly one 37 dated. What happened to 32, 34, 36 etc?!? I have owned 1930 dated No1 Mk6's, but here I am specifically referring to Trials rifles.