(T) ?

[Pete04]

My question is, can a Lee Enfield No.4 rifle make it to full (T) development, without being stamped with a T on the left side of the reciever? If this is so are there other marks that may or may not appear?
Pete

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.

[Badger]

It's a good question....

I've never seen one without, but I suppose it's possible. I'll have to get out my copy of "AN ARMOURER'S PERSPECTIVE: .303 NO. 4 (T) SNIPER RIFLE AND THE HOLLAND & HOLLAND CONNECTION" by Peter Laidler and Ian Skennerton and see if the answer is in there anywhere.

I bet wheaty can also help us out here with an answer.

By the way, if you are into collecting No.4(T)'s, this is a great book and is currently being sold in our Quartermaster Stores (Dealer Section) by Murray Militaria. Don McIntyre's a good guy to deal with and he has a terrific selection of research books and material.

Murray Militaria Ad for "AN ARMOURER'S PERSPECTIVE: .303 NO. 4 (T) (click here)

Regards,
Badger

[stencollector]

Yes they could. Especially some of the Cdn ones, where the instruction to stamp the T was after the rifles had already headed to the units. As such, if they ever even got the T mark, it may not even be the proper droopy ear T anyway.

Also, there were many TR marked (but no T) rifles which were in stores less their telescopes. Eventually some of these would have gone into service, and mated to a scope/bracket combination, with the scope number getting stamped onto the butt, and eventually the rifle number getting stamped onto the bracket (post war, I believe).

As to the rest of the stamps, yes they should be there, but with Enfields you can never say always, and never say never.

I had one of the troop trials no4mk1 rifles which had been converted to Sniper....there was no T on the sidewall of that gun.

[Claven2]

but with Enfields you can never say always, and never say never.

I disagree! For example:

-Lee Enfields ALWAYS had receivers made of steel.
-Lee Enfields made at longbranch ALWAYS were of the No.4Mk1* pattern from 1942 onwards.
-Lee Enfields made in Australia after 1940 ALWAYS had Coachwood stocks with threaded brass re-inforcing pins
-Longbranch NEVER manufactured the No.1MkIII.

See? Easy!

[stencollector]

-Lee Enfields made at longbranch ALWAYS were of the No.4Mk1* pattern from 1942 onwards.

I would be careful on that one. Between stocks on the shelf of the mk1 action, and the narrow margin on the date of changeover, I am not so sure I would bet the farm on that "always".

[Claven2]

I dunno - I've seen 1941 dated Mk1*'s, so if any were assembled as Mk1's in 1941, they would have to be in the single digits IMHO.

[Lee Enfield]

My question is, can a Lee Enfield No.4 rifle make it to full (T) development, without being stamped with a T on the left side of the reciever? If this is so are there other marks that may or may not appear?
Pete

Rather obviously the answer is "Yes".

The commonly "accepted" markings did not fully develop until 1943ish, and guns were produced from (Trials production starting 1940? @ Enfield) 1941 on. The instructions are quoted in several published works (Skennerton, Laidler & Law) to bring already in-service guns up to the new standards of markings.

This is one of the reasons that there is confusion about when & who (Enfield or H&H) converted the majority of the Savage (MkI & MkI*) based snipers. They don't tend to exhibit the "standard" H&H markings~ However, they also don't exhibit the "standard" Enfield trials rifle conversion markings, leading [per Payne] to the belief that they were in fact early H&H conversions.

About the only markings which would (should?) always appear is the scope serial on the butt, but butts are often & easily changed in service.

While the markings all mean something, the individual rifle might not of required that marking. For example~ The "S" on the cut-off reinforce, would only appear if the original rear sight was retained. [ Eg) Per Dr. Payne: There are numbers of 1944 produced Maltby/BSA T's w/Savage MkI sights which don't have the "S".]

[Badger]

Great thread....

I've learned a heck of a lot that I didn't know...

Regards,
Badger

[Warren]

Did you check the mount to see if it was not a Canadian made mount???? Canadian mounts (some) had the ring number on the LEFT side and not the right.. Also, the early Mk.1 REL scopes had the name and serial number on the BOTTOM of the scope and you had to remove it from the rifle or turn the rifle on the side and look into the bottom of the scope tube to read the numbers. I have a couple REL scopes with the info on the bottom, in case anyone wants to see a picture of them.
PS: I posted this in the wrong spot, so have moved it here...
Hope this sheds a little more light on the subject.

[303sniper]

Hi All,

In the book The Britsh Sniper, from Ian Skennerton, are some pictures from an Savage Sniper. There is no T in the wrist or on the side wall. The other feature is the screws in the mounting pads, they are missing the center-punch mark to keep them from unscrewing.
I have seen an Savage with the same markings (or missing of the T markings) not such an long time ago. It looked real to me.

So I think it could be possible,

Have Fun

303Sniper