FTR woodwork on a No4 (T)?

[Madzi]

Hi All

Had an open slot on my firearms certificate, and although my focus is WW1 platforms, couldn't resist this when it came up on auction recently. The metalwork is 1943 dated with a Mk1 scope and all the expected H&H markings, so assuming late 1943. However, it does have an FTR stamp just visible under the wrist number (and previous number stamped out) and has had a new barrel fitted in 1951 - still with a very good bore. Interested to find out from Roger and the other No4 (T) gurus what their thoughts are on the woodwork though. The scope number is correctly stamped in the usual place front top of the butt (and correct rifle number is on the scope mount). However, there is no S51 H&H code on the underside. Am I correct that would only have been a wartime code and would not have been added during an FTR replacement of the wood? Also, the fore-end number (matching correctly) is around the camber, and not vertical as was the standard practice with No4(T)s Would those two anomalies be expected with a 1950's FTR? Or am I looking at a later (but honest) replacement of the woodwork? With the scope number correctly stamped, I'm hoping that it is the former. It also has the angled sling swivel expected on later No4(T)s - I assume that would have been part of an FTR?

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.

[bigduke6]

Madzi, Can you get any better pics up of the pads and the TR etc, also the serial on the bracket.

The serial number would of been barred out normally with an X in service, never seen anything barred out with a 8 before? it would only be barred out if it wasn't legible and the correct serial re stamped, it would also have a prefix of some sort, relocation of numbers etc I haven't a clue, but Roger may have a better idea.

The serial on the bracket looks too neat to me.....

[Roger Payne]

Hi Madzi. Thanks for the post. As the Big Duke has said, if you could post a few additional photo's we may be able to give more info/a more considered opinion. Specifically, one or two pix showing the body side wall with detail around the front & rear pads WITH THE SCOPE & BRACKET REMOVED (sorry, not shouting!), & although the pix of the renumbered area on the butt socket are not bad, if you can get any closer up still, that might help. Also, apart from the rifle serial stamped into the bracket, are there any other markings evident? (May just be my peepers letting me down here.....).

My initial impression is that you have a nice genuine 43 BSA Shirley 4T barrelled action. It has clearly been renumbered & my gut feeling is that it would not have been done like that in service.......but let's see some more pix if you can manage it, before we go overboard. (I have seen other genuine 4T's renumbered in a similar fashion before, but they were done by civvy gunsmiths, not the military).

[Madzi]

Thanks Both! I've taken a few more photos here in natural light - hopefully that shows things more clearly. BigDuke - those are S's rather than 8's used for the cancelling - should be clearer in the new picture. I have seen an article on similar in the last 6 months which I must track down. As Roger pointed out though - that could well have been civvie renumbering rather than military. Also included a more clear view of the bracket number - the zero's are only partially formed so hopefully that might point to sloppy armoury numbering rather than a civvie gunsmith! ;-)

Roger - no makers stamps (JG or similar) that I can see on the bracket. Interesting (and I hadn't spotted that before) is that the forward bracket screws have been restaked, so the bracket could well have come off a different rifle? Put up a clearer photo of the number/fonts for the butt as well. Haven't spotted anything unusual on the other stamps on the receiver - just the Mk1* designation and the T. Only other marks I can see on the bracket are the expected collimation numbers on the rings.

Also done a close-up on the new number, and you should be able to make out the FTR characters under it.

Any further thoughts or observations most appreciated!

[Alan de Enfield]

Haven't spotted anything unusual on the other stamps on the receiver - just the Mk1*

If it is indeed a No4 Mk1* then it is either a Savage or Longbranch rifle, or, one of those 20,000 weird ones that Maltby produced marked as MK1* despite being Mk1

I am thinking / remembering that very few Mk1* actually made it to full "T" status. (On the boat with no reference books) - is that correct ?

[GeeRam]

If it is indeed a No4 Mk1* then it is either a Savage or Longbranch rifle, or, one of those 20,000 weird ones that Maltby produced marked as MK1* despite being Mk1

The BSA M47C code is clearly visible in the photographs.

[smle addict]

Looking at Madzi's pics, the rifle is stamped No4 Mk1", not Mk 1*. There was another thread discussing the use of quotes after the 1 was stamped. And as GeeRam pointed out, the M47C is clearly stamped.

[Alan de Enfield]

The BSA M47C code is clearly visible in the photographs.

That was my point - having BSA markings it cannot be a Mk1*
Maybe I was a bit too subtle (its not like me but I guess there is always a 1st time !)

[Surpmil]

Was it this rifle or another that was recently discussed in another thread? If another then at least the second instance of the "SSSS" over-stamping is noteworthy.

[Madzi]

Hi Surpmil - I was sure I had seen the SSSS recently, but couldn't find the thread, so mine is a different rifle. I'll try and track that now - been pouring through IDS as I thought I had seen it in one of his books, but it must have been here. Interesting thing, while the M47C code as GeeRam noted is BSA, there is another thread around that indicates that the 1xxxx number range is Maltby - so pure guesswork on my side - the original overstamped number would have been in the BSA range, but it received Maltby components during FTR (bolt is 10022 as is the rest of the renumbered components). And just had torch and magnifying glass out - agree with SMLEAddict - it is a ", rather than a * - I need to take a look at that thread as well!