Is my 4 (T) fake?

[madcratebuilder]

I received my copy of Mr laider's book "An Armourer's Perspective:..." today and I'm reading about the foresight and that the solid block band foresight is not acceptable. That is what is on my rifle. It has the Mk 1 blade, also unacceptable.

Further examination of the backsight indicates it is a Mk 1, but with incorrect marking. At first look the backsight appears correct, the battle sight is removed but the marking on the front is N67. I believe it should have a SM41 or 42 on the face.

I can understand the backsight, after all the rifle is older than I am and I wore out my backsight some time ago. I am very concerned about the block band foresight. That is a part that would not normally be changed.

The rifle was all the normal external marking you would first look for. The "T" and the "TR" look like all the photo's I have studied. The S stamped on the right side of the receiver at the chamber. The S51 on the butt stock, and of course the No32 and mount.

Do I have reason the be concerned, has this dullard been duped?

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.

[Amatikulu]

No, you haven't necessarily been duped. I have seen several genuine No.4 Mark 1(T) rifles with a solid front sight block.\, and own a couple.

N67 is the later mark for Singer Machines and is perfectly correct

[madcratebuilder]

Thanks! I got to quit reading these books, it scares hell out me sometimes.

[jmoore]

I've had to come to the conclusion that not all British armourers were as conscientious as Captain Laidler when it comes to following the REMEs to the letter. Lots of split base sights in split bases, and definitely plenty of rifles (T's, that is) that weren't fully upgraded to the latest spec. Answers to the above dilemma may include that these rifles were sold off to countries that may not have followed the full REME standards. As well, as the fact the the standards slowly evolved means that the rifles that left early on never got the repeated inspections and mods. Add indifferent arms traders and many years out in "unregulated" civilian land and you wonder that any of these are "correct" at all!

Too late to make that more coherent- little pea brain's fading fast!

[No4Mk1(T)]

I have to echo all the above. I’ve only been privileged enough to own 4 No4T’s so far and all of them had the solid front sight block. In my case all my rifles were late war examples.

[Brian Dick]

If it's a BSA rifle converted at H&H, especially in 1944, chances are it's original. They definitely slipped through. I've seen quite a few with the solid front sight base and also a couple of complete, matching 1944 rifles without the finish "T" stamp on the left side of the receiver/body. It's just a wild *** guess but I'd say the best explanation is that there was a war on and some obvious pressure on the production line.

[PrinzEugen]

As Peter himself said on the rear sight subject:

While the rifles were in service, you can take it from me that we didn't search through boxes and boxes of parts to sort out a special manufacturer! If a No4T needed a replacement cocking piece, then it got whatever came out of the box next. Likewise, with a backsight. Next one out of the box, chop the battle sight aperture off then out on the range the next week with the sniper and loads of ammo to range test it!

The old time Armourers look aghast when I tell them that the collecting fraternity search high and low to the Nth degree for the correct parts by manufacturer and year

In other words someone might buy a 4t with the 'wrong' rear sight and search high and low for the 'correct' one. But, of course, in actual fact the sight he bought it with was fitted actually 'in service' and is more original and 'correct' than the, er, 'correct' one!

[madcratebuilder]

Thank you gentlemen, you have eased my mind on this. The solid block band foresight had me going for awhile.

[Roger Payne]

Sorry a bit late in the day but have had internet access problems for a couple of days. I think Peter would confirm that often relaxations were permitted. Indeed NEARLY ALL of the unadulterated BSA 44 rifles I have seen have had solid foresight blocks........but then again rifles with atypical markings, 2 groove barrels (yes, a few), D6E's on the knox instead of the rear of the body, lacking the triangular swivel, etc., all exist, once you really start looking. I guess it's all part of what makes collecting so interesting (tho 'not that I've ever been able to persuade my wife of this....).

ATB

[Peter Laidler]

You're all dead right of course. The original specification stated that they should conform to the standard spec with the addition of the parts that configure it ' ....to indicate its telescope status'. However, and quite clearly, the 'standard spec' changed as the war went on......, so did the rifle!

I NEVER saw a 2 groover in service, but that was only in the few thousand that I ever saw or worked with, but I know they existed. Maybe older Armourers before me sifted them out. But as we later learned. The 2 groovers were just as accurate as the others (and the barrels have a longer life too.....). If it was better than the average, it was selected!