No.4T Advice

[Dombo63]

I will and thanks again for your help!

Loads of sage advice here craig. Youve already had my two penneth and while I think it looks a really good rifle I am still not 100% sure about it being the genuine article. Strangely enough ive been talking to someone today who has had a 4t for several years - all correct and each component genuine but the rifle is fake, only given away by subtle little things that only an expert would spot. Take your time before taking the plunge.......

If you haven't already, it might be worth joining LERA, the Lee Enfield Rifle Association. Very friendly bunch and plenty of expertise there and excellent advice to be had from the members.

[HALODIN]

Thanks for the tip off, I'll look in to it over the next couple of days!

If you haven't already, it might be worth joining LERA, the Lee Enfield Rifle Association. Very friendly bunch and plenty of expertise there and excellent advice to be had from the members.

[HALODIN]

Hello,

I had an epic look at this rifle at the weekend, Chris is a gent, extremely helpful to the point where we ended up chatting for 5 hours!

OK here is what I know about the rifle:

1942-1943 Shirley M47
Marked No 4T (Savage 1*)
No 4 T markings on receiver
Inspectors marks on collar crown (Holland & Holland)
Trigger marked M47C
Woodwork and rear sight marked Savage marked S1 (wartime Holland and Holland code)
British barrel bands
Consecutive serial numbers of the scope mounts
Pin punches on the scope mount
Underside of rear sight ground down so the bolt can be removed with removing the scope

Mismatched serials across wood, bolt and scope
Receiver, end of the barrel and trigger housing was reblued in the 60's

I have to say I really like the rifle, it's very honest and personally I don't believe it has been tampered with. Hopefully that will come across in the 104 macro photos at the following link.

http://www.flickr.com/x/t/0090008/photos/warpig13/show/

Robert at Fultons has seen the rifle and liked it. Chris has also offered to ask Robert for an appraisal. My only concern unless someone highlights a problem, is it might not be accurate enough to keep me happy.

Any thoughts or observations?

[saddler]

"Holler & Holler"
...really?

S1 codes?
...1...

[HALODIN]

Fixed...

"Holler & Holler"
...really?

S1 codes?

[HALODIN]

Yes. S1 is correct AFAIK.

"Holler & Holler"
...really?

S1 codes?
...1...

[HALODIN]

My mistake, I didn't pick up on that. It should be S51 (wartime contractors code of the Holland & Holland). Thanks for pointing that out. The "S" I presume is Savage's stamp.

"Holler & Holler"
...really?

S1 codes?
...1...

[Rearlugs]

Good photos!

Where actually is the rifle/receiver number? What is it recorded as? The left butt socket, where the number is supposed to be, is scrubbed.

My analysis of the photos:

1. Scope is original, but would have been on a very early BSA or trials No4 conversion;
2. Bracket is original, but comes off a 1943 BSA;
3. Bolt is from a 1945 BSA;
4. mid band is wrong way around;
5. band and woodwork is probably off an Indian rifle, judging by the type of black paint;
6. target swivel is prker hale, wrong for 4(T) - should be just marked broad arrow;
7. wrong butt swivel - should be Savage wide loop pattern (makes it easier to pass the 1907 sling through);
8. rear sight is a Savage - should be N67 or BSA. Bonus is that a savage Mk1 sight is worth about GBP100 on eBay!!!;
9. bolt head proof isn't clear - but if it isn't London, then rifle is out of proof;
10. "S" on cut-off boss is (a) above woodline and (b) appears double-struck => genuine 20% chance, fake 80%;
11. butchered front pad screws - not done in service, so pad has been off;
12. "S1" on forend is meaningless - the butt should have an "S51*" on the underside, on 95% of BSAs;
13.front band wrong way around;
14. no butt socket markings - no number or TR conversion to check;
15. Sykes Ltd butt; possible on a BSA 4(T);
16. magazine from a No4 Mk2;
17. forend wrong grain for a 4(T) - probably whole set is from a standard No4;
18. cheekpiece appears to be a repro (are the screws iron or brass?);
19. front handguard poorly fitted - likely to foul the front sight protector and hence give stringing on shots.

There are a number of other things I'd check, but they are all under the wood.

My opinion is that the rifle is a bit pricey for what it is - a genuine scope (but only a Mk1) and bracket attached to a 4(T) receiver that I'd guess has a 50/50 chance of being an early fake. The rest of the rifle just appears to be a collection of rather indifferent random No4 bits.

Shooting performance on a normal No4 depends entirely on bore condition and forend fit; in this case you'd need to test whether the scope is functional and has enough adjustment range either side of bore. Mismatched scopes often do not boresight adequately, and if the rifle is indeed a repro, then it could be long way off (H%H milled the pads to fit the rifle when it was on a jig).

[HALODIN]

Rearlugs you're on my Christmas card list, that is a fantastic appraisal, thanks! I had no idea anyone could give me as much detail as you have on that rifle. If nothing else you've proved to me I have much to learn about No.4T's and as such, I'll let this one pass. Ultimately I think I'd like to shoot the one I buy anyway and it isn't possible even if I decided to buy it.

Thanks for taking the time to put that together!

Cheers,

Craig.

[dromia]

Yes you have benefitted, as have we all from Rearlugs critique of the rifles authenticity.

Many thanks Rearlugs.

It just goes to show what a minefield collecting becomes when things start attracting substantial values.

As always caveat emptor.