No.4 Mk1(T) M.47 1944

[Hambone]

All matching. One of my favorites. Purchased walking around at a show in 1995 for $400 cash. He wanted a "deer rifle".

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]

$400 ....

That's a beautiful old girl that's appreciated far more than the stock market over the same time period ...

Regards,
Badger

[Hambone]

Tks Badger. Probably done better than the markets and it's more fun to handle and play with than share certificates

[Surpmil]

Interesting how rough that N92 bracket is. Anyone else seen one like that before?

[jmoore]

No, now that you mention it... I didn't want to be the first.

[Hambone]

In hand it's got all the indicia one looks for. The unmachined portions are a bit rough. At the time I bought it, ca. 1994, I don't know that they were reproducing them, and the guy that had it, young dude, had no idea what it was really, other than a scoped Enfield that he wanted to sell for the exact amount that it took to get a Remington 700. At that time the rifle alone would have been worth about what I paid for the entire rig. I've done nothing to it, and have never had an interest in selling it and would not. If you had it in your hands I don't believe you'd be hung up on the roughness.

[PrinzEugen]

Looks great. It's a very low scope number for a '44 rifle isn't it? Did that happen very often (digging out an older scope for a rifle during the process?)

[jmoore]

I,ve seen that low scope S/N syndrome on several 1944 rifles that appear quite legitimate. The N92 brackets are just generally smoother castings. I'm NOT saying its wrong, just weird!


ETA: The "old" scopes are invariably in just that faded condition, even though the rifles often are in far better shape. This one's actually about the "youngest" of the lot, so far, But I haven't seen this one in person, so no judgements at this point.

No good viewing for me until the weekend w/ the high def-monitor...

[Peter Laidler]

I have seen one or two No4T's and L42's and haven't seen anything quite that rough........ ever!

[Hambone]

All I can do is honestly relate the circumstances of its purchase and what I see. Other than the rough casting, it looks textbook to me, from the Laidler textbook . I bought it from a younger guy and it had a commercial sling on it, with no no magazine. In short, he was quite ignorant of what it was and this was 1994, perhaps even 1993. I'm not a denial type person, have been setting up and doing shows for 25 years, and I didn't hesitate buying it and wouldn't sell it. The components are textbook correct as well, and if someone in the late 80s, early 90's went to the trouble of assembling an early scope to a fake mount, that they renumbered to match the rifle and scope, and numbered the rings properly, I don't know they would send it to a show with someone to sell for $400 or trade for a Remington 700. I would jump on it now for much more, and would not sell it for much much more

I can take better pics of the components, but I'm not unstaking any screws that have never been removed.
Cheers,
Hambone