Lee Enfield No.4 Mk1* with R.E.L. No32TP scope

[Cantom]

See p. 39 in Without Warning, rifle with 32TP scope has modified Mk. I sight. Rifle with C67 type scope on p. 45, and rifle with experimental 5X scope on p. 41 also have altered Mk. I sights.

I looked and see you are correct and thanks. (I have that book)

Funny thing is, I've been collecting TP pics lately and every one of them has a stamped sight on it...

[tiriaq]

One of the considerations in what is and is not original to any rifle is where the rifle has been, and what has been done to it by whom, where and when. Because the Mk. I sight allows for finer adjustment than any of the later versions, it would SEEM to make sense that it would be used on T rifles. But Canada standardized on the CMk.3 sight for all standard No. 4s. Surely somewhere there are directives about which sight would be installed, when.

[Cantom]

One of the considerations in what is and is not original to any rifle is where the rifle has been, and what has been done to it by whom, where and when. Because the Mk. I sight allows for finer adjustment than any of the later versions, it would SEEM to make sense that it would be used on T rifles. But Canada standardized on the CMk.3 sight for all standard No. 4s. Surely somewhere there are directives about which sight would be installed, when.

Here's a few of the pics I've found. I won't include the pics of that fake bitster for sale in the US for 8 grand. Most of the pics I have just show a scope and mount.
These rifles are not well photographed. We should change that...

As for the rear sights on Enfields...I truly wish they had been made adjustable for windage and elevation, not just elevation. Too cumbersome to adjust...the Ross rifle rear sight, Springfield 03, better setup IMHO.

[Cantom]

One of the considerations in what is and is not original to any rifle is where the rifle has been, and what has been done to it by whom, where and when. Because the Mk. I sight allows for finer adjustment than any of the later versions, it would SEEM to make sense that it would be used on T rifles. But Canada standardized on the CMk.3 sight for all standard No. 4s. Surely somewhere there are directives about which sight would be installed, when.

I've been looking into this...it seems many TP's are seen with the MkIII/Cmk3 sight because with it in the rifle, the bolt can be removed without lifting the rear sight, a real pain when trying to clean a rifle and maintain zero with the scope. And, since the rear sight on the sniper would be for emergency use only anyway, the stamped sight would suffice. (especially since it was standard issue from 44 or so on anyway)

[Claven2]

I've seen more than a few Mk1 T sights modified by grinding a relief cut into the base so the bolt can be removed with sight in place.

[Lee Enfield]

I've been looking into this...it seems many TP's are seen with the MkIII/Cmk3 sight because with it in the rifle, the bolt can be removed without lifting the rear sight, a real pain when trying to clean a rifle and maintain zero with the scope. And, since the rear sight on the sniper would be for emergency use only anyway, the stamped sight would suffice. (especially since it was standard issue from 44 or so on anyway)

A TP with a MkIII rear sight is almost certainly a fake; This is especially true being as ALL of the photo's on the internet are of fakes (except possibly for the 1 fellow out of Italy).

[Lee Enfield]

I've seen more than a few Mk1 T sights modified by grinding a relief cut into the base so the bolt can be removed with sight in place.

I envy you, because I've never seen one (other than illustrated in Laidler's "Armourers Perspective").

[limpetmine]

From my experience and reading, 1943 is the first year of production for the LB sniper program. A 1942 dated LB sniper screams "FAKE" to me. As stated, a shame to have bubba'ed a nice rifle.