long branch sniper ?

[Surpmil]

Very good point about the front pads shooting loose, and one more reason why SAL LB went looking for a new design from 1943 on, settling on the improved Griffin & Howe mount.

Regarding the "T less Telescope" rifles Peter, I was wondering why they seem to be all early Savages and 1944 BSAs, since those are out of sequence ostensibly: one would expect 1945 rifles logically, not 1942 or 1944.

[Peter Laidler]

I would imagine - although I don't know - that the early Savages etc etc were pulled in for conversion and when the production BSA's were fully on stream, the Savages and other odds and sods were left in the what they called 'bond store' or Armoury. Likewise the end-of-the-line late BSA's. When the plug was due to be pulled, they just finished what was left. They only got paid for what they'd finished. 28,000 T rifles = the 28,000 (by serial number) telescopes. That can't be a coincidence....

[Craig Eberhardt]

I would imagine - although I don't know - that the early Savages etc etc were pulled in for conversion and when the production BSA's were fully on stream, the Savages and other odds and sods were left in the what they called 'bond store' or Armoury. Likewise the end-of-the-line late BSA's. When the plug was due to be pulled, they just finished what was left. They only got paid for what they'd finished. 28,000 T rifles = the 28,000 (by serial number) telescopes. That can't be a coincidence....

Does that mean a rifle with a scope serial number higher than 28000 is not legit? It is an AK&S 280xx 1945 on a 44 BSA T

[Roger Payne]

No Craig, don't worry. In fact the last scopes are numbered high in the twenty eight thousands & the very last ones are 1946 dated. The numbering system wasn't perfect; for example production scope serials started at 1000 & upwards, not at 1 (though UIC who did much pre-production work did start there......just to confuse matters! I have a UIC scope serial number 9).

ATB

[Surpmil]

....Regarding the "T less Telescope" rifles Peter, I was wondering why they seem to be all early Savages and 1944 BSAs, since those are out of sequence ostensibly: one would expect 1945 rifles logically, not 1942 or 1944.

I may be able to answer my own question: perhaps the Savage rifles were set aside because it was realized that as Lend Lease rifles they were strictly speaking still US property and as such might have to be returned or subject to some other terms or conditions, and it was therefore unwise to invest more in converting them if they had to be returned or destroyed at a later date etc.

The removal of the markings was probably also a violation of the terms of Lend Lease.

[Peter Laidler]

Some of the pre-lend lease Savages were a direct outright purchase by the UK Purchasing Commission, paid for, up front, in gold. Same as Thompson guns, Hudson aircraft and......

[Roger Payne]

Yet some Savage's were fully converted as well as those not. I had rather assumed that the rifles partially converted to 'less telescope' status were the late ones converted at the death by H&H so that they got paid, & the fully converted (ie scoped up) rifles were just amongst the early run of conversion rifles, along with BSA's & Maltby rifles. It's a further assumption but I'd assumed the directive to use exclusively BSA made rifles kicked in around late 1942, explaining why these 'assorted' rifles from various manufacturers are all 41 & 42 dated, with 43 onwards being exclusively BSA's (or at least, to the best of my knowledge that is the case). It would mean the last of the Savage rifles (generally Mk1* rifles) being stored from 1942 to 1946 of course.

Peter, do you have a commencement date for the instruction to use BSA rifles only?

ATB.

[Beerhunter]

Some of the pre-lend lease Savages were a direct outright purchase by the UK Purchasing Commission, paid for, up front, in gold. Same as Thompson guns, Hudson aircraft and......

It is sometime difficult to convince some people that we paid for those M1917s that were used to arm the Home Guard in 1940; in spite of the purchase pre-dating the Lend Lease Act (1941). I'm sure in later years is will be difficult to convince some people that U571 is not history.

[Peter Laidler]

No, never seen anything to that effect BUT..... I would assume that would be a decision taken during a discussion early on by H&H with BSA who put it up to the Chief Supt of Armaments (CSA) who simply confirmed a request. It wouldn't've been an order for BSA to continue supplying but rather an internal order for the two ROF's to CEASE diverting some stocks away for conversion. Also presumably the logistics of transport and cost would be more convenient too.

Your presumption is very/most probably correct as it logically fits in. H&H had a large 'bond' store that would hold at least 400 or so rifles at a guess - albeit tightly packed. And they had to get rid of them at the closedown of the contract. So get paid for what you've done while you can.

And don't forget, the conversion/production figures I give, according to the ledgers are for completed No4T rifles - and that UN-or IN-completed rifles

[Surpmil]

It would be interesting to know when the Savage MkI rifles first arrived in the UK, as rifles like the 0C1 and 0C150 rifles we have seen here must have been from the first shipment received.

Could they have sat around for 3 or 4 years in store until converted by H&H? Possible, but seems more logical that they were converted in 1941/42 when the need for No4s good enough for conversion was greater. Some Savage rifles of that vintage were completed as No4(T)s, so perhaps a decision was made at some point early on to stop using the Lend Lease rifles when others became available? We also see quite a few early production 1941 Maltby No4(T)rifles, but it seems no BSA or Fazackerly(?)

Your statement the other day Peter that Maltby got up to speed (my term) much more quickly than other factories due to their more skilled workforce, would seem to fit with that.

Near the end of the war, when BSA rifles were so plentiful that not all the TR selected rifles were even converted, seems an odd time to be pulling Lend Lease Savages out of store (assuming any had been in store for 2-4 years) and converting them, since with the cessation of hostilities, Lend Lease equipment that was still serviceable might well have to be returned or destroyed.

This is from "Without Warning":

In fact UK production of the [No32] Mk.I was so slow that, of 65 scopes allocated to the Canadian Army Overseas by the London Munitions Allocation Board up to September 1941, only 11 had been supplied. When questioned by Canadian Military H.Q. the War Office replied that the allocation should be considered cancelled "due to the inferior type of Rifle, No.4(T) being produced at that time, and the only exchanges are being made at present."....the inability to deliver scopes left the Canadian Army in the UK to complain that they were deficient 263 No.4 sniper rifles and had only 165 of other types to offset this deficiency.

(Apparently P14s and/or Ross MkIIIs fitted with Warner & Swasey scopes. This deficiency would explain the 1942 and 43 dated photos of Canadian "snipers" using P14s with target iron sights etc.)

So the "War Office" reply suggests there were problems with the supply of rifles as well as telescopes. All the more reason one would think, to use the high-quality Savage rifles, until perhaps the Lend Lease issue arose?

Obviously I'm only offering that as what seems a logical hypothesis in the absence of solid records.