No4 MK1 T

[smle addict]

Interesting rifle. I was left scratching my head looking at all the pics...

I can clarify one thing; The "GF" on the scope bracket indicates "Gujarat Forces," so the mount definitely had a stint of Indian service.

I have a 1943 (T) that has the same, upside-down GF mark in almost the exact location on the mount. Mine also spent some time in India.

[stencollector]

Well I learned something today with regards to that GF marking. I had a scope bracket some 20 years back that had that mark....never could figure out what it was. I even asked on one of the gun boards back then, and nobody else had seen it either.

The font on the serial of the rifle in question looks more European than Canadian. The font of the S51 on the butt also looks more European than British.

[stencollector]

Here are a couple shots of mine....a totally different bird, but shows the Cdn property marks on a British made rifle.

[Surpmil]

I'm afraid I don't buy the "Gujarat Forces" story.

First of all, is there any evidence of any formation(s) called "Gujarat Force(s)", now or since WWII? I can't find any.

And if there was, why would such a marking be put on the scope bracket, rather than the logical place: on the rifle? Totally out of keeping with normal practice in firearms marking.

And if it was a military mark why would it go on upside down?!

"G------ Foundry" seems a much more logical and likely marking to me, just as we see "JG" and "N92" for other makers.

Plenty of possibilities here.

[smle addict]

Mr Laidler answered this one back in 2009 and 2011 when the topic of GF was brought up.

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=33307

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread....1&daysprune=-1

It was explained the Gujarat Forces were Indian State Forces, and not part of the Indian Armed Forces.

[Roger Payne]

A most disparate collection of parts! I feel quite sure that the rifle itself is a genuine 4T, but it is very difficult to come up with an explanation for how it is now that fits in with what we have been told of the provenance. Every potential explanation I come up with I then find I can shoot full of holes with a little thought.

Is it possible by any chance that the good Colonel of the gendarmerie may have acquired it by other than official channels, & that the scope & bracket came from elsewhere? The re-serial numbering may indeed have taken place in Canadian service, but 'cloning' weapons with the numbers from rifles that have been scrapped is also something which goes on from time to time. And the Belgians, among other nations, received a lot of Canadian equipment after the war as we already know. There would have been plenty of Long Branch No4's in the Belgian supply system.......

And most curious that somebody has gone to the trouble of applying the S51 in the wrong font to the butt, as well as cleaning off the butt socket markings & reapplying the M47C 1943 & the new serial number. They even went to the trouble of using a different set of stamps for the serial number to the set used for the rest of the butt socket markings.

I was open minded about the GF marking, but PL was clear that it meant Gujarat Forces, & TBH I can't think of anything better.......I know it could be a foundry marking but this bracket is clearly a Rose Brothers variant & also bears the typical JG inspector's stamp.

I just wonder if skyder was given the full story about how the rifle was acquired......if maybe somebody felt the need to protect themselves...........or did it go through the hands of an unscrupulous third party faker on its way to the good Colonel??

Somebody with thorough knowledge of the Belgian military stores system, & specifically their practices in procurement, marking & disposals, would no doubt be able to shed more light on the issue, at least in knowing what normal practice was........

[GeeRam]

Mr Laidler answered this one back in 2009 and 2011 when the topic of GF was brought up.

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=33307

Yes, its true what Peter posted in this thread about the Thompson collectors in the USA (and elsewhere) identifying these marks about Indian paramilitary forces markings, as I've been recently finding out about the marks on one of my M1928 Thompsons, which I thought was a British issue, but appears to have been Indian Army issue, later seeing Indian Police/Paramilitary service.

[CINDERS]

That scope is 396 after my AK&S 1944 MkIII Ser 16684

[GeeRam]

That scope is 396 after my AK&S 1944 MkIII Ser 16684

Yours is a really early Mk.III scope then, one of the first 500 individually checked.

Its clear how the scopes were obviously plucked from store and put on rifles in a very random way at H&H, and rifles pulled from store as well.

The serial number of my 4T is only 66 numbers away from one of the 6 rifles used in the Mk.III scope trials on the scopes introduction, and only 84 and 418 away from another 2 of the 6, yet my scope number (original to rifle) is near the end of the 2nd Mk.III scope contract, so over 5000 units into Mk.III scope production rather than say, in the first 500 or so.

[Surpmil]

Mr Laidler answered this one back in 2009 and 2011 when the topic of GF was brought up.

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=33307

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread....1&daysprune=-1

It was explained the Gujarat Forces were Indian State Forces, and not part of the Indian Armed Forces.

Thanks, I reviewed the those threads. I had one of these No4(T)s with a "GF" bracket. The marking was not stamped, it was deeply cut, unless it was stamped as part of the manufacturing process and the resulting raised edges around the letters ground off at that point.

Gujarat was not one of the Princely States from what I can see online.

IMHO there are too many of these brackets around anyway for the purported issue to the tiny tinpot forces of some Indian Princely state to account for them. IIRC most of those states bought their own weapons privately and where would they have bought No4(T)s just after WWII??

Or does anyone believe the British Indian Army was handing such stuff out in 1946-47?

And if they were in the possession of some Indian force, why would they have been disposed of, when and to whom? None of the usual signs of Indian service are seen on them.