Looking for a No4 Mk1 T

[Roger Payne]

I'm not necessarily saying that it isn't a genuine T that has been mucked about with & then put back together again - it might be. However, the TR on the butt socket is not what i would have expected to find, & it bears serifs anyway, which is not 'right' even for a BSA Shirley rifle - though perhaps a jealous armourer might have thought it appropriate to add them after the event, perhaps.

The pads are original, but they have clearly been off, & in my opinion are probably off another rifle, having been subsequently fitted to this rifle. Note the file marks across the rear pad screws where they have been flatted off (photo 2). Note in photo 4 also that there is a 'ding' about a third of the way across the top surface of the rear pad, which is not evident at all on the adjacent receiver side wall.

The wood has been sanded & the rifle serial stamped into the forend looks to be stamped upside down compared to others that I have seen (which are 'the right way up' with the rifle held muzzle end to the left).

The bolt handle looks to have been filed at some point.

Safety is a LB (though only a trivial matter).

Style of font of the rifle number on bracket looks different to others I have seen......?somewhat more recent?

Bracket & scope look nice though, otherwise.

There are no doubt various other points that could be made.....but these are a few to start off with.

ATB.

[Brian Dick]

I'm going to stick my neck out and say it's a legit Savage as converted by H&H early on before the additional markings were standardized. It seems to have the correct examiner's marks but lacks the H&H wartime code S-51 stamp on the underside of the butt which is certainly correct for an early conversion as the well known standardized markings didn't start until some time in 1943 at H&H. Some might say it was converted at Enfield but I doubt that's the case. I reckon I could be wrong. The bracket matches so it should be good to go. I wonder if the butt is a replacement although it looks like Savage birch. Is there a scope number or two on the top of the wrist. Can't really tell from the pics. It's had Suncorite 259 applied in workshops at some point post 1944 when the paint became standard SOP. The wood has been scraped and sanded which is typical too and would account for the faint markings on the underside of the forend. Does the serial number on the wood match? There again: I can't tell from the photo. All in all; it sure looks like an honest, worked on and used No.4T to me. Does it sport it's original Savage six groove barrel of a five groove British replacement? Get a bore light and have another look-see.

---------- Post added at 11:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:53 AM ----------

Roger, I thought maybe the "TR" was added later as it's sometimes the case. You make great points though.

[Roger Payne]

Hi Brian,
Agreed it may well be an original 4T but I have reservations about the fitting of the pads. They just don't look like they were fitted at Base Workshops to me. Look at the screws in photo's 2 & 4 & the fitting of the rear pad. Just my .02c.

[Brian Dick]

Yeah, I agree that someone other than an Armourer has had his hands on it. Like you, I believe it probably started out as an original "T"!

[Lee Enfield]

It would be nice if it retained the original 6 groove barrel after FTR... they certainly bodged the FTR stamping, much like on one of my BSA (T) rifles.

Nice that it appears to have retained it's original fore-end.

I would like to pull off the butt stock to see what's under the shelf.

I would also like to see more of the rear pad. Front, back, top and sides...

I think that it's a real No4MkI(T) which has seen enough service to be FTR'd at least once...explaining the mis-matched front handguard, brasss butt plate and bands... and possible the "extra markings".


I would add that they're nice photos, but not the ones that I (and likely Brian or Roger) want to see.

[Lee Enfield]

Hi Brian,
Agreed it may well be an original 4T but I have reservations about the fitting of the pads. They just don't look like they were fitted at Base Workshops to me. Look at the screws in photo's 2 & 4 & the fitting of the rear pad. Just my .02c.

That ding in the top of the rear pad is where someone used a punch to remove it...possibly from another rifle I would say due to what appears to be a gap at the top of the rail...

That flat on the front hand-guard was filed to clear a tube front sight...I wonder if the rear pad was removed to clear a parker hale type receiver sight.

[IanS]

Many thanks for the feedback. I'm very impressed by the knowledge.
Sorry about the photos, it was difficult with time running out due to the weather. I thought I had taken a close up of the rear pad. By the time I had finished, I had more or less made my mind up to walk away from it, but thought I would post the photos anyway.

[Roger Payne]

Quite possibly, or the rifle may be from the 'batch' some of which I bought back in the 1990's. Although I bought a lot, even more than I bought were disposed of elsewhere, so I heard. They were all partially stripped & had various permutations of pads on them: both present, front present but rear absent, rear present but front absent, & both absent. The pads had also mainly been removed (or attempts had been made to remove them) crudely, often resulting in damage, as here. I note also, the Birmingham Proof House marking.

Ian, she's real, but she ain't a virgin.

[IanS]

Hi Roger, I like your summing up statement.
The owner is in the trade, he said he purchased it off a friend who had owned it for at least 40 years. Would it have been worthwhile back then to "put it together" so to speak? I suppose it's possible the work was done during the course of the 40 years.
What did the number struck out on the scope bracket relate too?
The question is, how much is it worth compared to an original with its matched scope? At this stage, I still think I should walk away.
Ian.

[bigduke6]

What did the number struck out on the scope bracket relate too?

Its the original Rifle the bracket was fitted to, the font is all wrong for the current number, its looks like the type of font that would be seen on an 1888 or 1907 bayonet.