Experts opinions would be greatly appreciated. #4 Mk.1 (T) find.

[Gurn]

I think I found something very special. First lets look at the chest. I read about "The Royal Scots" very interesting. What is the IRS stamp? Surly not the obvious? I will post more pics as we go along but I would love to get expert opinions on each detail if you all wouldn't mind. This is my first #4 Mk.1 (T) and I really never dreamed I would have one.

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]

IRS is the old abbreviation 1st Royal Scots before security and the 'new' UIN numbers came in. Like A&SH or 7WTR (Argyll and Suitherland Highlanders, & Wiltshire Regt)

[Gurn]

Thank you Mr.Laidlar, now that makes sense. More pics.

[Gurn]

More pics

[Frederick303]

Need to see a shot of the side of sniper scope bracket, specifically the side with the tightening knobs. looking for the shape of the casting and the markings. a bright picture would help to judge the cast mount.

also a shot of the front of the forend. looking ofr how it is marked and who made the forend.

also a shot of the forward trigger guard screw and sling swivel. the swivel marking would be of interest.

right hand side of the action bdoy, up be the action ring, there is a marking that may or may not be present.

A shot of the bolt handle so the serial number restamp can be seen, and how applied

A shot of the buttstock underside just behind the handgrip area. looking for the firm that set up the rifle.

reason is, there are some things on that rifle that do not look "right", specifically the use of a 1941 Maltby action body, the missing T mark on the left hand side of the action body, the RT being backwards, The front scope mount looks odd, the renumbered rear buttstock (generally the old markings are still visible, just canceled) and the re-numbered bolt looks a wee bit "off" but the actual degree of correctness would be much more obvious if more detailed shots are shown.

The scope has had post war far-east desiccation mod (red screw) and the use of the stamped rear swivel seems to indicate pot war rework.

Of course as the item is not quite the norm and being a 1941 gun, it might all be fine, but hopefully the real expert (Capt Laidler) who literally wrote the book will chime in at some point.

[Gurn]

Thanks and I will get better pics later. I took all these quickly with my camera on phone. Here are pics of the tags and papers I found in the chest.













---------- Post added at 03:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:40 PM ----------

The bolt, mag and front wood #'s match. Rifle # and scope number match O.H.M.S tag numbers and transport box is listed as well. I pulled out enough 1967 dated Washington Post news papers to stuff a grocery bag. (saved those as well)

[Gurn]

[Gurn]

---------- Post added at 04:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:34 PM ----------





---------- Post added at 04:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:40 PM ----------

The butt-stock and rear hand-guard were obvious replacements. The original scope and mount were replaced as well. But not stateside if going by the documents and tags.

[Gurn]

Apparently the scope can was wrapped up in this packing paper. It fits well. Amazing it wasn't thrown away years ago. Very cool time capsule.

[Frederick303]

Well the rifle looks like a legit TR rifle after all, with a replaced forend and buttstock. The scope and mount legit Because the rifle lacks the T mark, it would appear it was not mated with a scope at Holland and Holland.

I expect the rest of the story will likely be explained by Captain Laidler, as he was in service working on No4 T around the time that the armorer's tag says this rifle was worked on. Very neat set up.