A few questions about my No. 4 Mk1*

[Littlejohn]

Attachment 46652

1. The upper band seems to have the stacking swivel lug welded on. Was this common? I haven't seen another one that looked like this.
Attachment 46650

2. Were these rifles issued with stacking swivels?

3. The buttstock wood on my rifle is beech I think. The forestock is walnut and is original to the rifle. I'd like to replace the buttstock with a walnut one. Would this require fitting or would it be a direct swap?
Attachment 46651

Thanks

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.

[smellie]

Buttstock should just be a bolt-on.

Remember, there is a Washer and Spring which have to be shifted over as well. See the factory exploded view of the rifle.

When swapping the Butt, be sure to remove the fore-end wood prior to swapping butts. Only takes a couple of minutes and prevents splitting your forestock.

As to your Weld, I must say that that is the ugliest one I have ever seen! DEFINITELY not Factory!

[CINDERS]

If you look closely in the pic with the front band you will note the top wood is contacting the front sight block this will play havoc with your accuracy, you can put some packing under the band into the slot on the top band so it exerts a bit of pressure I use Balsa wood another trick is slivers of this between the two pieces up front and I do mean thin.
I use this on my 4's the balsa is cheap to replace and 1 small sheet will last a long time, after a while replace the slivers as it does compress but it will stop the top wood from moving forward and wrecking the accuracy there is another way that was described in a book but it involved putting a centre pop on the front and rear edge of the band so it went into the recess to stop the top wood from moving to far forward but I prefer the less invasive action using balsa.

[Peter Laidler]

The welded upper band is original. Seen hundreds like that. Just churned out cheap by the sub contractors. Yours is a good example of what we call the proof of the pudding. The fact is that while it might look crap, it has actually done the job it was made to do 70 years ago!

You don't need to remove the fore-end of a No4 to replace the butt. The two are not interconnected as on the No1 rifle. A replacement butt will need a degree of hand fitting and MUST be taper tight in the butt socket. But I'm bound to say that from where I'm sitting, your fore-end definately ain't walnut! It LOOKS a pale wood, pretty much a similar colour to the butt. Might be DIFFERENT wood but similar colour and that's all that mattered in our Army. If the rifle is pretty well original, then if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Re what Cinders says about preventing the top handguard sliding forwards and creating havoc with the accuracy. Not sure I'd insert wood into the recess of the metal handguard cap but if you just ding a small flat across the corresponding edge of the upper band, that won't look unsightly as a centre punch mark would but would catch the front and backedge of the upper handguard cap. Problem solved!

Just my 2c's worth on the Q's asked!

[Detroit-1]

Peter I have a 1942 Savage No.4 MK1 that when both hand guards are on they are so long that they hit the front sight. Is this common? To make them even with the fore stock I would have to grind part of the wood away.

[Peter Laidler]

There's DEFINATELY something wrong if the upper one touches the sight. OR do you mean it touches the foresight PROTECTOR part? Make sure that the RING, retaining, rear hand guard is right back against the body and that the stepped part of the front of the handguard aligns with the recess in the stock fore-end. Apply the same criteria to the rear part of the front hand guard. If it is still too long and touches the foresight protector then there's not too much you can do at the front so I suggest that you carefully trim the rear of the front handguard. THere's loads of meat there to play with.

[Steve H. in N.Y.]

"2. Were these rifles issued with stacking swivels?"

No.

[Detroit-1]

Yes it is the foresight protector. Ring is set right. That's what I thought I would have to do, trimming the hand guard. Just I never saw this before.

[Littlejohn]

The welded upper band is original. Seen hundreds like that. Just churned out cheap by the sub contractors. Yours is a good example of what we call the proof of the pudding. The fact is that while it might look crap, it has actually done the job it was made to do 70 years ago!

You don't need to remove the fore-end of a No4 to replace the butt. The two are not interconnected as on the No1 rifle. A replacement butt will need a degree of hand fitting and MUST be taper tight in the butt socket. But I'm bound to say that from where I'm sitting, your fore-end definately ain't walnut! It LOOKS a pale wood, pretty much a similar colour to the butt. Might be DIFFERENT wood but similar colour and that's all that mattered in our Army. If the rifle is pretty well original, then if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Re what Cinders says about preventing the top handguard sliding forwards and creating havoc with the accuracy. Not sure I'd insert wood into the recess of the metal handguard cap but if you just ding a small flat across the corresponding edge of the upper band, that won't look unsightly as a centre punch mark would but would catch the front and backedge of the upper handguard cap. Problem solved!

Just my 2c's worth on the Q's asked!

Thank you for the reply Sir. That advice carries a lot of weight, coming from you. I think I will leave the buttstock alone and address the hanguard issue.
On a side note, I understand that you spent some time in Malaya while in the service. I was there in the mid '70s as a tourist. I was based in Sungai Petani.
Used to enjoy going to the Hong Kong Bar in Georgetown, Penang. Loved the country. While there, I noticed quite a few individuals carrying Sterling submachineguns. Don't know if they were police or military, they wore green uniforms.
Attachment 46698

[ssj]

#1, yes, and yes its ugly. A milled one stamped LB shouldnt be hard to find if it bothers you.

#3, I'd have suspected the beech as original, walnut for early british made ww2 and pre-ww2 guns (others know more than me on that)

Its likely lots of parts have been swapped in and out over the decades so whats original and telling what isnt is a hard game IMHO.