Interesting #4 sniper!

[superbee]

Any ideas on this one!

British NO 4 MK I T .303 British (R16644) - Collectors Firearms

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.

[Roger Payne]

I'm not even clear why it is described as a No4 (T) at all - wouldn't it be fairer to describe it as a refurbished LB No4 fitted with a commercial scope & mount?

Or have I overlooked a priceless gem?

ATB.

[Peter Laidler]

Imagine it........ A sniper rifle without range and deflection calibrations! Load of er......... Anyone help me with the words that I just cannot find.......?

[Gil Boyd]

Peter,
They are found on rowing boats and used for oars...........rollocks

[CINDERS]

Or is that B*llocks Gil

[Gil Boyd]

Didn't want to be so rude

[Ridolpho]

Just to be contrarion I'll point out that this bracket looks a wee bit like the one very poorly displayed in fig. 85 of the Clive Law "Without Warning" book which differs in profile markedly from the other brackets used on the Longbranch "experimentals". Of course, the one pictured in the book has a proper calibrated scope (REL 5X). Getting back to the advertised rifle, is there absolutely zero evidence of any field conversions of Rifles, No.4, during WW2? I too have been hit up with this "canadian armorer blah blah" story a few times after pointing out missing or incorrect features on supposed T's. On the other hand, you'd think that there might be the odd time that a T took battle damage and an enterprising field armourer arranged to refit the bracket and scope on another rifle. To broaden the question, did any countries other than Israel make No. 4 type sniper rifles?

Ridolpho

[Roger Payne]

Ok, again I might be passing over a gem, but a few more points to consider about this rifle.

I received a copy of the 1955 RCEME EMERS on the No4 rifle in Canadian service yesterday from Cornell Publications, & very pleased I am with it too - I have only had time to scan it quickly but I can see no reference to Mk1/2 or Mk1/3 rifles in Canadian service, only Mk1 & Mk1* models. The rifle shown has either been converted to Mk1/3 or has a wrong forend fitted.
Secondly, it bears a 76L serial number. It has clearly been restamped, but we know that was done in service at times, but why, on a late receiver, does it bear the radiused ledge of the receiver side wall when it should by all accounts be angled, & why does the body bear the prominently milled panel at the front (where a front body pad would be, in a regular 4(T))? I'd like to see if there are any receiver markings under that scope mount. I'm not saying it isn't even a LB rifle, but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't a LB.
It also has a fabricated rear sight & the woodwork is beech - nothing against the law about that - but on a Canadian 'sniper' - set up in a land awash with American black walnut?
Everything I have mentioned in isolation could be explained away......but these little points start to add up.

At the risk of missing out on a rare 'field' sniper I'll keep my cash in my wallet!

ATB.

P.S. Just noticed it's a Mk1/2 rifle or an unmodified Mk1 with a wrong forend. Have a look at the action viewed from the RHS. There's definitely a bolt release catch - on a late war 'LB' rifle that has obviously been re-numbered........

[limpetmine]

Roger,
You caught the big errors. A Mk1 with a Mk 1* serial number. A poorly done copy of a Long Branch serial number. NONE were ever that large. The first 3,000 were large, but not anywhere near that large. Never.
He would have been better off using a 1943 Long Branch than what he used. I hope he didn't butcher a Long Branch Mk 1. There aren't many of these. Whoever buys this pretty pig will need some lipstick.

Ok, again I might be passing over a gem, but a few more points to consider about this rifle.

I received a copy of the 1955 RCEME EMERS on the No4 rifle in Canadian service yesterday from Cornell Publications, & very pleased I am with it too - I have only had time to scan it quickly but I can see no reference to Mk1/2 or Mk1/3 rifles in Canadian service, only Mk1 & Mk1* models. The rifle shown has either been converted to Mk1/3 or has a wrong forend fitted.
Secondly, it bears a 76L serial number. It has clearly been restamped, but we know that was done in service at times, but why, on a late receiver, does it bear the radiused ledge of the receiver side wall when it should by all accounts be angled, & why does the body bear the prominently milled panel at the front (where a front body pad would be, in a regular 4(T))? I'd like to see if there are any receiver markings under that scope mount. I'm not saying it isn't even a LB rifle, but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't a LB.
It also has a fabricated rear sight & the woodwork is beech - nothing against the law about that - but on a Canadian 'sniper' - set up in a land awash with American black walnut?
Everything I have mentioned in isolation could be explained away......but these little points start to add up.

At the risk of missing out on a rare 'field' sniper I'll keep my cash in my wallet!

ATB.

P.S. Just noticed it's a Mk1/2 rifle or an unmodified Mk1 with a wrong forend. Have a look at the action viewed from the RHS. There's definitely a bolt release catch - on a late war 'LB' rifle that has obviously been re-numbered........

[ssj]

It has the bolt release of the no4 mk1 so it is a mk 1/2? as it has a mk2 type bolt hole and screw on the rear stock except it has a canadian "L" serial number. The serial number stamps are overly large? like nothing I have ever seen.

VNS? on the front upper wood, no biggee I suppose, I dont think its genuine....but I know diddly.