T less t's

[tonyd]

so whats the general rule about a no4 t with no T stamped on it, a partly finished one or a regect? or is it early enough to have missed out on the t? the one im looking at is a 1943 m47c serial number ap### has the tr and the s but no T. its definatly no fake the pads are original and have been there from day one. this rifle has had a LOT of use im guessing its had a military life as no hunter or target shooter could bruise and wear the bluing off a rifle this much. surely if it was a regect/ spare they would have taken the pads off it and put it back into service or were they just left as is?

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.

[Seaforth72]

Key evidence is a scope serial number on wrist of butt, ... or not.

By the time the BSA Shirley "M47C" mark was in use (1944) the British markings were pretty standardized. A 1944-1945 British made rifle with pads and cheekrest but with no T mark almost certainly indicated that it was a No.4 Mk.I (T. LESS TELESCOPE). This means that for some reason the conversion process on that rifle was halted partway through the process.

If it is a late one e.g. Serial number X3xxxx, it would likely be end of war ... stop conversions. If it is earlier like 1943, then that would likely be a reject.

It is a very tricky area.

[bigduke6]

Pictures can say a thousand words...........

[Roger Payne]

As mentioned some photo's might help, as would the knowledge of whether there is a scope serial on the butt or not. If there is the serial would also be useful.

I've never seen a No4 (T) that had got as far as being fitted with pads at H&H that was a 'reject'. Very few were rejected. It is likely that it is either a conversion to a rifle 'less Telescope' or a full conversion that escaped getting the receiver side wall T. The H&H marking system evolved during the course of production, but had pretty much been standardized by late 1943. Additionally BSA moved from marking their rifles from a simple 'B' followed by the date, to M47, & then to M47/C, all during the course of 1943 & in that order. I would agree that a rifle bearing the M47/C suggests production in lateish 1943, & so might be expected to be more likely to bear the full complement of markings, but in my experience it is unwise to be too pedantic about these things. Depending on what the OP can tell us additionally about the rifle we may never know for sure, although if it retains it's original butt bearing a serial number of a Mk1 or Mk2 scope then it probably just missed the 'T' or was one of those rifles that came off the production line 'the week before' they standardized! If the butt bears the serial number of just one scope but it is of a Mk3, then it is likely a 'less Telescope' rifle that was subsequently scoped up. If it bears more than one scope serial number; a Mk1/2 followed by other(s), then it is probably a completed 'pre-T' or 'missed out on a T' rifle that was subsequently re-equipped with a later model scope.

I don't know whether this helps much........

[tonyd]

cheers so far guys, actually this one is stampd m47 no c, it does have a scope number in the wrist and the scope it now has is a mk1, tho it is a forced match to this rifle as the old rifle number is still painted on the scope tin and this rifles number stamped on the lid beside old rifles number, the lable inside the tin is matched to the scope number too. no number on bracket. so scope and matching tin came off another rifle but has been forced matched to this rifle at some time, also its been rebarreld with a 44 dated barrel. possably a new forewood too this rifle has seen some heavy use.

[Roger Payne]

If the rifle is a M47 no C, then the fact that there's no receiver side wall 'T' doesn't matter a lot. I've owned a number of these 43 rifles &, if not all, most didn't have one, or it was applied after the event by a judicious armourer.

Can you decipher the (presumed) original scope number on the butt? I'd expect it to be a Mk1 or an early Mk2 instrument.

[tonyd]

no old scope number there at all just the mk1 scope number it has now.

[bros]

I just picked up, a M47C a couple of months ago and it is all correct and matching.........matching fore-end, scope, bracket, butt. Has the TR on the wrist, T on the receiver wall, S51 stamped butt, but is missing the S on the magazine cut off. Like Roger said it was probably just an oversight.....I used to get all wound up about a sniper missing a single stamp in the lineage of things, not any more. I also recently acquired a LB 1945 T......no Maltese cross on the rear sight as should be because it's a Savage but they did stamp it on the fore-end. Lets not forget the human element and that there was a war going on.

[Roger Payne]

Bros, out of curiosity, what manufacturer is the rear sight on your T? Some rifles arrived at H&H for conversion with battle or stamped rear sights, but were otherwise suitable, & rather than rejecting them H&H fitted replacement Mk1 sights. To make it clear that these rifles needed re-zeroing with iron sights the 'S' was intentionally not stamped, as the rifle was not yet sighted in with its iron sights. So, it could be an oversight, or it could be intentional. A quantity of Savage made rear sights were supplied to H&H for exactly this purpose, although I have only seen them used on 1943 dated conversions to date.

Cheers.

[bros]

Bros, out of curiosity, what manufacturer is the rear sight on your T? Some rifles arrived at H&H for conversion with battle or stamped rear sights, but were otherwise suitable, & rather than rejecting them H&H fitted replacement Mk1 sights. To make it clear that these rifles needed re-zeroing with iron sights the 'S' was intentionally not stamped, as the rifle was not yet sighted in with its iron sights. So, it could be an oversight, or it could be intentional. A quantity of Savage made rear sights were supplied to H&H for exactly this purpose, although I have only seen them used on 1943 dated conversions to date.

Cheers.

Roger, funny that you asked about the manufacturer for the rear sight...you reminded me that the sight is still MIA.....hopefully not for eternity. The old fellow that I purchased the rifle from had removed the rear sight so he could remove the bolt without removing scope each time. My friend took possession of the rifle from the elderly gent upon payment (as they live close to each other) and apparently the rear sight was packaged separately but was included at the time of delivery. My friend flew with the rifle to Whitehorse, Yukon where we met at a gun show. He informed me that he forgot to bring the sight with him...... are you getting the picture??
Sight has not been located yet.....he is tearing his house apart now looking for it after I was reminded by you that I have still have not received it.
I will certainly answer your question at least I hope I am able to in time. Good point about the possibility of the rifle originally having a stamped or a battle rear sight, I never thought of that!
Regards.