"T" things that shouldn't exist

[Lee Enfield]

So I have a 1945 dated 'X' block BSA No4MkI(T) which has a barrel issue due to poor storage.

It has an beech F56 dated forend fitted and numbered to it with what appears to be "M over 16" as a fitters? Marking.

There is a non-serrated cocking piece fitted which appears to be original to the matching bolt.

It also has a solid, non-split front sight block fitted, also appearing original to the gun.

I'm puzzled why the cocking piece wasn't replaced when the forend was?

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.

[Peter Laidler]

So am I! But maybe the bloke who replaced the fore-end was just an enthusiatic amateur who didn't realise that it was an obsolescent part. We know that solid, non-split block band foresights were fitted - as were mazak butt plates and......... and so on!

[browningautorifle]

mazak butt plates

I've heard this a few times around here...all in the last few days. These are the white butt plates I take it?

[Roger Payne]

Yep. Zinc alloy. I think known as zamak in North America.

[CINDERS]

This had me looking at the one on my BSA '44 T and it too bears a solid block which is an out of spec reject Page 56 An Armourers Perspective.
But the sight block itself has an S-23 stamp on the rear ramp section of it also the front blade is a MK-1 type it bears no cross hatching this again is unacceptable or out of spec as per reference on Page - 56.
So I do realise in the scheme of things during war peculiar things happen were the T's required to come back to base workshops for repairs or could they be done in the field by the armourers.
I am not that much of a purist that I am going to swap it out I have the parts but like the earlier forum members observation with his '45 BSA T it appears to be part of the original make up.

If any thing was changed on the weapon Peter do they mark the rifle I realise the FTR stamping for major repairs but what if they only changed the front sight block for some reason would you be able to explain this.
Mine also has the Ali looking butt plate.
Thanks in advance.

[Lee Enfield]

So am I! But maybe the bloke who replaced the fore-end was just an enthusiatic amateur who didn't realise that it was an obsolescent part. We know that solid, non-split block band foresights were fitted - as were mazak butt plates and......... and so on!

I've never seen a 1944 dated BSA 'T' that has a split foresight block.

Mind you that's only a few dozen....

My other 1945 dated BSA 'T' has a split front sight block.

My Brit 'T's are pretty evenly split between brass and zinc butt plates.

My Long Branch 'T's are split between steel and zinc.

Any idea who or what "M/16" was?

[CINDERS]

According to Skennertons "The Broad Arrow" British and Empire Factory Production, Proof, Inspection, Armourers, Unit & Issue Markings 2001 issue.

On Page 41 Production markings for the Rifle No.4, .303 Mk I & Mk I * the stamping query identifies M 16 as Bullers Ltd., Tipton, Staffs.

[Lee Enfield]

According to Skennertons "The Broad Arrow" British and Empire Factory Production, Proof, Inspection, Armourers, Unit & Issue Markings 2001 issue.

On Page 41 Production markings for the Rifle No.4, .303 Mk I & Mk I * the stamping query identifies M 16 as Bullers Ltd., Tipton, Staffs.

Sorry the manufacturer of the Fore-end was Fazakerly in 1956, my question was regarding the additional marking of M/16 which I assume to have been a workshop/repair depot or individual armourers identification marking.

[Peter Laidler]

If you change something on a rifle, there's no need to mark the rifle. There is no hatching on the foresights or foresight blocks. But these foresights and blocks and foresights are a LOOOOOOONG and convoluted saga of varying heights and formats and........ and........... I wrote it all up a few years ago. If anyone is interested, mjaybe one of the computer literate forumers can resurrrect it all!

There is no need to mark any change or modification that is plainly visible as a rule. See Bayonet thread for reason and recent history

As snipoer rifles were really a one-man-dog, they were not taken away from a unit/sniper lightly so they were pretty much totally repairable at unit level. Much like the L42 and later L96. The exception is barrel changes.

[Lee Enfield]

Sadly I'm probably going to have to change the barrel of this one and certainly going to have to replace the forend as its warped and twisted to boot.