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

[Peter Laidler]

No secrets there at all. It's just a well worn used No4T from the RScts who were based at Tidworth at the time that at one time has had the telescope and bracket replaced from a Mk1 to a Mk3 removed from rifle 38207. You will see from the two route labels that it has gone into a Field (that'll be 3 Inf workshop at Weyhill) or, as I suspect, Base workshop (that'll be 43 Command at Aldershot) as a CES and been separated in that the tele has been diverted to the Instrument shop. Both been overhauled and meet up again at the Armourers shop and then returned to the unit.

Very early rifle from Maltby and early conversion by H&H who really were only just getting into their stride and hadn't production-lined their factory yet. It was H&H who found it impossible to convert rifles piecemeal from different factories who called time on the practice and told the MoS that in order to up production they needed a standar rifle from ONE factory. BSA it was!

To be honest, this is just a good example of how 99% of all the No4T's were in service. It's quite possible that the fore-end was changed at the Field or Base workshop at the time it went to the workshop as fitting a fore-end was a field workshop repair

Incidentally, the AFG 1028 Issue voucher dated 1965 (I was still an apprentice then.....) was the ISSUE from Ordnance paperwork. It would be entered in the QM's ledger and then the original part of that (see that it's a carbon copy...) or another form, an AFG 1033 would be sent back to Ord as the receipt. There will be (?) a small tin 'envelope' at the end of the chest with the destination/documentation labels would be inserted.

[Brian Dick]

It looks like a legit late to post WWII FTR and is marked as such. I'd bet the RT=TR was added during the FTR process and stamped backwards….. oops. He was in a hurry but could be wrong.

Hey Frederick, I always thought Scotch was something that you drink!

[Roger Payne]

Yes, it's quite possible the RT might have been stamped during the FTR process I suppose. I just doubt it was done at Maltby, or at H&H for that matter. The forend looks nearly new does it not? If it was original on a 41 rifle it would almost certainly have the scoop out on the RHS rear for the (redundant) cut off. Unfortunately I don't think we have any views of this area, though I'm sure it's a later replacement anyway. Did my eyes deceive me or did I see a small Faz examiner's mark on the underside of the forend? Certainly the 41/42 dated early conversions by H&H are usually stocked up in Beech (unless they are Savage rifles, in which case it is likely to be stained birch); we seemed to start with walnut on the Trials rifles, then go to beech on the early run of production rifles, & then revert back to walnut for the 43/44/45 production.

I spent many years looking for my first Maltby 4T - they are scarce, & I'd give it house room any day, replacement parts or not.

[Frederick303]

A few questions based on re-reading Capt. Laidler's excellent books on the No4 T and the No32 optic.

In your book you have a 1944 Maltby shown and give a mini history of its assembly in 1944. Given that here in the US almost every No4 rifles I have seen that was done at H&H seems to be a BSA, (except for the 1945 dated re-barreled 5 groove Savages, few if any of which seem to have a scope fitted). You indicate that H&H wanted only BSA guns to increase production. When and why did that order end? Why were Maltbys once again considered to be acceptable, and along with that, why the 1945 re-barreled early Savages that were never finished?

The mark FTR on the 1941 Maltby: the FTR marking does not look like the FTR marks I would associate with either post war Maltby. Were these marks applied by a depot or did the rifle actually go back to either Maltby just after the war? How would Maltby do a rebuilt on a No4 T, especially since barrel replacement meant an entire recalibration of the optic?

Given that the rifle was sold to the fellow who owned it in 1967. It was reworked in 1965. That seems odd that such rebuilt kit would be surplused so soon after being rebuilt. Does that indicate that the rifle was sold off in the general reduction of the British Territorial Army in the 1966 time frame? I seem to recall reading that the reduction in land forces in 1966 put the kibosh on re-barreling No4 rifles to 7.62 NATO and that with that force reduction the No4 (regular service rifle) was finally no longer an issue rifle for any territorial land forces. Would there be another reason for selling of that rifle, after all in 1966 the No4 T was still the sniper rifle and would be for another 5 or so years.

I ask as increasingly here in the US we are seeing all sort of fake No 4 T rifles. Trying to figure out some of the less common markings would help. Prior to seeing this example I would have had deep suspicion of a No4 T without the “T” marking on the body and a FTR marking on the socket, unless it was clearly an Indian return.

Brian, the exact words my wife’s family uses is “scoti” or “bloody picts”. No idea why the enmity exists, but apparently the Royal Welch Fusiliers did not like one or more Scottish regiments for some reason. Also every dish tastes better with leeks in it and daffodils are called "Peters leeks". It is all quite comical, my sister-in-law was all impressed by the fact my mother’s family had a passing acquaintance with Robert Graves, not because he was a English poet, but because he was a commissioned officer in the 2nd Battalion, Royal Welch Fusiliers in the Great War and also his son during WWII.

[Brian Dick]

The F.T.R. was applied post WWII when it was done at Enfield or one of the other big workshops that did No.4T rifles. I've seen rifles rendered "Z" and "ZF" after being through FTR in the 1950's that look new but obviously failed specification during their final inspection AFTER FTR. In the case of very early rifles like this one, it's usually because the body is worn beyond acceptable standards. I think the forend was legitimately replaced as well as the handguards. I had a similar 1944 that looked almost identical right down to the paper tags and mismatched woodwork that was most likely done at the same place, (Enfield?). I'd bet money this one isn't a fake by any stretch of the imagination. As for the L8T project, they weren't adopted because they couldn't meet the accuracy standard. The L42 design solved those problems later. It's a neat rifle with some traceable history to boot and has seen the s--te so to speak. Treat it with TLC and enjoy it.

---------- Post added at 07:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:54 PM ----------

Almost forgot: I've got perfect leather chest handles here if in need. I'd put the old ones in the chest and replace them if I were you.

[Gurn]

I'm very thankful that it retained it's tags and papers or it would probably be thought of as a put together. With this one the saying should be " Buy the papers not the rifle". This example shows how very early snipers can be unique and inconsistent with later standards.

Thank you for your comments everyone and Brian I took the leather handles off last night and stored them away safely in the case. I was thinking about having some replacements made up when I can afford to. This rifle set me back a bit.

Mr. Laidler, do you recognize the names or handwriting on any of its tags?

off topic but what should I insure this for?

[Seaspriter]

the saying should be " Buy the papers not the rifle".

You are so correct. You very wisely (or inadvertently) purchased a gun with "provenance" -- the historical record of validation of the chain of ownership and evolution. Between the papers and stampings on the gun, you have a far more detailed record of the history of the gun. Any antique with provenance typically fetches a substantially higher value than one without. Be sure to find out all you can about the former owner's story of acquisition and document it with the other papers. Also, for the historic record, copy and print a hard copy of this thread as documentation for posterity of expert opinions and evaluation.

Think 100 years from now when some museum curator purchases this weapon and his/her delight with the provenance.

[RobD]

Q: "off topic but what should I insure this for? "
Insure for $5000 - $6000, I would suggest.

[Gurn]

Wanted to show some nice deserving pics. ( handles removed and stored in case to preserve what was left of them. New labels in lids added.)












Thanks again for everyone's help and comments.

[browningautorifle]

Insure for $5000 - $6000

Around my neck of the woods (Canada)...I might be tempted to go to the high end. I'll bet it would cost you nearly $8000 to replace it here...and that IS what the insurance is for, replacement.