Need info on this lee enfield sniper

[Surpmil]

Is the pad screwed straight to the receiver/body wall or is there a machined flat under the pad?

Some armourers liked to add the "missing" stamps as we know from other examples; this can explain the variations in stamps used for the "T" and "TR" at times.

[CINDERS]

I cannot see an armourer butchering the rear sight like that if he did then I am sure they would have gotten a rocket for sub standard workmanship.

[Roger Payne]

And an armourer would have 'touched in' the scar with suncorite....

[Surpmil]

Yes the backsight is an abomination clearly done by a Bubba, presumably in civvies, but we *might* be looking at a genuine "T" action which has been "restored" out of service. I suggest the only true proof of that will be whether there is a machined flat and perhaps the examiner's marks?

[Roger Payne]

If it's very early I don't think you can place too much reliance even on the examiner's marks, although a D6E on the Knox might persuade me a little...! I would not expect to see it in the 'usual' place. The milled flat, & if present, how well done, is very important IMHO, plus the general fit of the pads/pad screws. If you look at the rear pad the screw heads are quite distinctly visible, whereas the heads generally merge almost imperceptibly into the surrounding pad on most UK conversions.

[Surpmil]

I quite agree. My impression is that few such rough looking actions are seen converted to T specs, but as we've learned before, never say never!?

[CINDERS]

Just one thing I did notice on this T that the rear pad is not down flush I have a pic of my (Part of) rear pad on my T and it is sitting flush down at the bottom on the very small ledge Pic #1 it appears to me the OP's one is raised not sitting on that ledge also sitting proud above the receiver wall Pic #2. Just saying what I see.

[GeeRam]

Just one thing I did notice on this T that the rear pad is not down flush I have a pic of my (Part of) rear pad on my T and it is sitting flush down at the bottom on the very small ledge Pic #1

Which is exactly the same as on my '44 BSA T.

[Surpmil]

The reproduction pads offered all have this simple bevel rather than the convex curve do they not?

The best interpretation I can put on this is a civilian "restoration", can't see it ever passing muster as an armourer's work.

[Roger Payne]

The good quality repro body pads, such as those sold by Fultons over here, do have the radius on the bottom edge of the rear pad.

As a general rule of thumb, if I see a British made No4 set up as a T that has the angled receiver ledge rather than the radiused version (with rear pad shaped accordingly), I smell a modern assembly.......& this is why: Fazackerley & Maltby both switched from the radiused ledge to the angled ledge during the course of their production of the No4 rifle, but both switched well after the point at which H&H had stopped converting their rifles anyway (H&H moving to converting only BSA rifles).

The above does not apply to Canadian set up 4T's, the vast majority of which will be found with angled 'ledges' on the receiver side wall.

Until somebody shows us differently, of course!