Post WW2 Sniper conversion question

[mcnuttwa]

Have been reading up on the Post WW2 work on converting rifle to the T configuration and how slow it was in comparison to war time production.

What I'm wondering is, whether the Ts being produced in 1945/46 were all from 1945 produced rifles or whether rifles from previous years were converted into Ts at that time and whether a 1943 or 44 rifle with a 1945 scope should be considered a plausible rifle system or a fake.

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.

[Roger Payne]

That's actually a series of questions & not as straight forward as it may at first seem. The wartime contract with Holland & Holland did not cease till April 1946, so as you say rifles were being set up until then.
I don't know of anyone who can say unequivocally whether or not post war dated rifles (ie 1946) were ever set up, as none of us have seen or at least had access to the serial numbers of every No4 T ever set up. In my personal experience of a fair number of 4T's & L42's I have never seen a rifle dated later than 1945, but in amongst the list of L42 conversion serial numbers that Simon & one or two others have are one or two very late BSA serials that look to me as though they could represent possible 1946 rifles (Y prefix). But, one cannot be sure from serials as I suppose the Y range could have commenced in late 1945; I certainly can't say for sure. Maybe someone else can.

Your second point over whether earlier rifles were converted at the end (the scopeless Savage & BSA rifles are often mentioned) is also a difficult one. I think the general opinion seems to be that some early rifles were partially converted late on. I have always had some reservations about this subject & I don't want to muddy the waters too much but there are minor variations in the shape of 4T front body pads that studying them over the years reveals; the front pad on a 1945 rifle will be subtly but most definitely different in several minor respects to one off say a 1943 rifle. Having seen quite a few Savage Mk1* 'less T' rifles over the years, their front body pads have invariably been of the 'early' type not the 'later'. But, I suppose pads could have been fitted but not final machined early on, or I could just be talking a load of XXXX! But as I said, the official view is that some BSA rifles (the ones I've heard of have mostly been of 1944 mfr) & a quantity of Savage rifles were completed then, minus their scopes. I have never heard of earlier rifles being fully completed with Mk3 scopes in 1945/46, so I would doubt that you are likely to see a 'genuinely originally matching' 1941/1942/1943 rifle with a Mk3 scope.

Having stated the above, one has to differentiate between 1943 (& earlier rifles) & 1944 rifles. In my experience 1944 rifles may commonly be found with Mk3 scopes (the Mk3 went into production in the Autumn of 1944). However, they can also be found genuinely matching with Mk1, Mk2 & Mk2/1 scopes as well. The Mk2/1 appeared in 1944 & the Mk2 was produced through most of 1944 too. There is also the oddity that the scope manufacturer William Watson was bombed by the Luftwaffe & introduction of the Mk2 scope was seriously delayed, hence 1944 dated Mk1 scopes produced by Watson are not uncommon. It therefore follows that one might plausibly expect to see one of these Mk1's on a 1944 dated rifle, though I've not owned one as yet.

Does this help or have I confused you more?

ATB

[ssj]

RP, fasinating. Pads...were they a job lot? make eg 10000 in 43 and then just use up the stock? and make more in 1945? or small batches as they went along?

Do the front pads differ in thickness? if its all jigged I assume they wouldnt have to be.

[Roger Payne]

To be honest, I don't know ssj, but they vary a little as production goes along, so I suspect they were probably made in a number of batches rather than just a couple of big ones. As we know from Peter's book the final machining of the spigot was done with the pad on the body of the rifle anyway.

ATB

[ssj]

I dont have Peter's book, yet...

---------- Post added at 08:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:39 AM ----------

I think I read that the front pad could be replaced by an armourer? if the original was machined after, then potentially its in-accurate? or did it go back to H&H for that?

[Roger Payne]

It is quite easy to replace the front pad but a skilled job to ensure the scope still collimates to the bore after the job has been done. Peter will correct me if I am wrong but I would assume an experienced armourer would be deemed qualified to do this.

ATB.

[mcnuttwa]

That's actually a series of questions & not as straight forward as it may at first seem. The wartime contract with Holland & Holland did not cease till April 1946, so as you say rifles were being set up until then.
I don't know of anyone who can say unequivocally whether or not post war dated rifles (ie 1946) were ever set up, as none of us have seen or at least had access to the serial numbers of every No4 T ever set up. In my personal experience of a fair number of 4T's & L42's I have never seen a rifle dated later than 1945, but in amongst the list of L42 conversion serial numbers that Simon & one or two others have are one or two very late BSA serials that look to me as though they could represent possible 1946 rifles (Y prefix). But, one cannot be sure from serials as I suppose the Y range could have commenced in late 1945; I certainly can't say for sure. Maybe someone else can.

Your second point over whether earlier rifles were converted at the end (the scopeless Savage & BSA rifles are often mentioned) is also a difficult one. I think the general opinion seems to be that some early rifles were partially converted late on. I have always had some reservations about this subject & I don't want to muddy the waters too much but there are minor variations in the shape of 4T front body pads that studying them over the years reveals; the front pad on a 1945 rifle will be subtly but most definitely different in several minor respects to one off say a 1943 rifle. Having seen quite a few Savage Mk1* 'less T' rifles over the years, their front body pads have invariably been of the 'early' type not the 'later'. But, I suppose pads could have been fitted but not final machined early on, or I could just be talking a load of XXXX! But as I said, the official view is that some BSA rifles (the ones I've heard of have mostly been of 1944 mfr) & a quantity of Savage rifles were completed then, minus their scopes. I have never heard of earlier rifles being fully completed with Mk3 scopes in 1945/46, so I would doubt that you are likely to see a 'genuinely originally matching' 1941/1942/1943 rifle with a Mk3 scope.

Having stated the above, one has to differentiate between 1943 (& earlier rifles) & 1944 rifles. In my experience 1944 rifles may commonly be found with Mk3 scopes (the Mk3 went into production in the Autumn of 1944). However, they can also be found genuinely matching with Mk1, Mk2 & Mk2/1 scopes as well. The Mk2/1 appeared in 1944 & the Mk2 was produced through most of 1944 too. There is also the oddity that the scope manufacturer William Watson was bombed by the Luftwaffe & introduction of the Mk2 scope was seriously delayed, hence 1944 dated Mk1 scopes produced by Watson are not uncommon. It therefore follows that one might plausibly expect to see one of these Mk1's on a 1944 dated rifle, though I've not owned one as yet.

Does this help or have I confused you more?

ATB

Roger, based upon what you're saying above the setup below seems implausible....

Attachment 58747Attachment 58748Attachment 58749Attachment 58750

[Roger Payne]

Hello. Yes. The scope & bracket have been added after the event, IMHO. The font of the rifle serial on the bracket does not look right. I can't quite make out the serial of the scope stamped on the butt, but assuming it is that of the scope illustrated, I would suggest it has either been added to the butt of a scopeless rifle; been added after a previous number has been sanded out; it is a replacement butt. There is no receiver side wall T on this rifle so I think there is a good chance it is one of the 'scopeless' rifles, & so there may not have been a scope serial on the butt until someone added this one. Of course, it could have been done in service, but I doubt it, as if done in service it would probably have been as part of a FTR with a wholesale refurbishment & refinishing of the rifle.

I am also a little worried about the area on the body of the rifle just behind the ejector screw - has there been some welding or other interference here? If you have a chance take the scope & bracket off & have a good look at the fit of the rear body pad.

P.S. Bolt body looks likely a replacement as well.

[Seaspriter]

Gentlemen, I need your expert advice:

Situation: a friend had a nice ’42 Long Branch Enfield, but its barrel was bent about 4 inches aft of the muzzle crown.

Original Plan: I purchased the '42 Enfield from him for $150, with the intent of finding a good Long Branch barrel, putting the good barrel on the ’42, and thus creating a restored gun.

Purchase of Donor Gun: I found a ’44 Long Branch, just receiver (stripped), stock, and barrel for $38 plus shipping on Gun Broker. It has a good, shiny, straight bore, 2-groove barrel. The receiver looked like Bubba had “upgraded” it with an aftermarket scope. Allocating $100+ for the gunsmith to put on the new barrel, I had a decent gun without overspending on the project.

The Surprises: However, in my elation to find a barrel, I inadvertently did not see from the photos that 1 ½ inches had been cut from the muzzle crown when it was sporterized. (Mia culpa, caveat emptor). But there may be a silver lining: There is a possibility this was originally a Sniper outfitted at Long Branch.

The Evidence: (see pics) On the left side of the receiver, the three empty screw holes seem to match a sniper bracket, and the remaining rear 2-holed bracket still has the original Suncorite on it, and the bracket is a precision fit. On the top of the stock are screw studs where a cheek plate was once fitted, and on the top of the stock just behind the butt socket is a stamp code 15639 (a little hard to make out all the #s). The stock is walnut, not maple (which would be common with the 1944 serial #71L0279). Underneath the serial number on the butt socket is a stamped code: P 12. There are no other cartouches on the stock. What’s clearly missing is a “T” on the receiver or butt socket. There are all the other miscellaneous proof marks on the barrel. No import marks. (Attached are pics of what’s evident. )
(if these little boxes don't open up, just right-click and choose "open in new tab." I'll figure out how to master this pic insertion soon) or hit this link: Dropbox - 1944 Donor Enfield
Questions:
a) Was this originally a sniper? If yes, should I restore it? Or is it too far gone? Would I be best just putting it back into sporterized configuration? (Note: Bubba is an “alien creature” in my workshop, so I’d rather do nothing than do something that screws up a piece of history and I’m not proud of the results.)
b) Any thoughts on what to do with the cherry ’42 Enfield with the bent barrel?

Thank you for your wisdom, insights, and advice.
Robert

[mcnuttwa]

Hello. Yes. The scope & bracket have been added after the event, IMHO. The font of the rifle serial on the bracket does not look right. I can't quite make out the serial of the scope stamped on the butt, but assuming it is that of the scope illustrated, I would suggest it has either been added to the butt of a scopeless rifle; been added after a previous number has been sanded out; it is a replacement butt. There is no receiver side wall T on this rifle so I think there is a good chance it is one of the 'scopeless' rifles, & so there may not have been a scope serial on the butt until someone added this one. Of course, it could have been done in service, but I doubt it, as if done in service it would probably have been as part of a FTR with a wholesale refurbishment & refinishing of the rifle.

I am also a little worried about the area on the body of the rifle just behind the ejector screw - has there been some welding or other interference here? If you have a chance take the scope & bracket off & have a good look at the fit of the rear body pad.

P.S. Bolt body looks likely a replacement as well.

Thanks.