Do I have a Savage sniper?

A friend sold to me a No4MK1*"sniper." Please help me verify that it really is one.

The story is that he got it some 46 years ago from a friend of the family that was a WWII vet and gun collector. It does not have a scope. It has no import marks that I can see.

Peeking out from under the front scope pad are the letters "TY" Based on pictures I have seen, I'm guessing that what is covered up by the pad is "US PROPERTY." The left side of the receiver socket has the following on it:

15C 7XXX
S (looks like a 5)
1942
Flaming Bomb
ENGLAND

On the top right side of the reciever socket is a flaming bomb. There is also a Crown BNP proof mark in the front left side of the receiver ring next to the gas escape hole.

The bolt handle has the serial number OC19XX followed by what could be a lightly struck flaming bomb. The bolt cocking piece is the button variety.

The letter "S" (which looks like a 5) can be found all over this rifle (front sight wings, barrel bands, mag and mag follower, rear sight, bolt, and bolt head---which is also marked with a number 1). The front sight wings look like they are stamped metal. On the bottom of the nose cap appear the letters "SM."

On the underside of the the buttstock, close to the receiver socket, is an S inside a box. It is above a crown with what looks like a 13 underneath the crown. The buttstock has the H&H "S51" stamp on the bottom. Behind the nose cap in the underside of the stock is stamped JC or JG 1122. Below that is an arrow of sorts made by three 1/4 inch lines.

It has a simple loop in front of the takedown screw with what looks like a lightly struck "S" next to it. I have not disassembled the rifle to examine the barrel or the inside of the stock for any manufacturing or inspection marks.

The rear sight is rounded out on the back. The pads are tight although 4 of the 5 screws look like I had a go at them. The three front pad screws are rounded and the two rear pad screws are flat. The pads look to be well installed with the front pad screws visible through the reciever wall but polished down flush with the surrounding metal in a very professional manner.

The butt stock has what looks like an aluminum butt plate in nearly "like new" condition.

The rifle is in very good shape and the barrel cleaned up very well...it looks like a five groove to my untrained eye and while I would not describe the bore as "mirror" it is very nice.

This site contains information from a helpful article by Terry Warner about spotting a fake sniper rilfe. It appears to suggest that there were no Savage sniper rifles made with No4Mk1* marked receivers, only No4Mk1 receivers. In addition, it does not have a (T) stamp next to the model designation. It does not have a scope number stamped on the top of the buttstock waist behind the receiver. It does not have an S on the right side behind the receiver ring that I can see. It does not have an angular sling swivel on the takedown screw in front of the magaine.

I would appreciate an expert opinion about the provenance and authenticity of this "sniper" No4Mk1*.

Thank you.

RJW-NZ RJW-NZ is offline
Junior Member

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 20
Default
Sounds like the real deal, end of discussion. Savage did send rifles to be made into snipers, mostly in their early days when serial numbers were low, and not very many compared to other makers. A swag of them reached civilians without scopes but are the real deal.
A swag is a new unit of measurement superceding metric in australia.
I had one of these and it was very smooth to use the bolt and bloomin accurate, 5 groove barrel too. Mine had a PH marked barrel in small letters, parker hale, yours? Mine did not have the S 51 but the serial number was right in the range known to have been shipped for the conversion.
There is a fan on this forum who collects data on savage snipers, no doubt he'll be happy to hear from you.

Value? About the same as any other T sniper without scope and the same with, ie about $1,000 without seems to be not uncommon, but cheaper of course is always better if you're buying, and with a scope they can easily be $2500. (Trouble is the scopes are hard to find and they can cost $2500 on their own too!)
If you want some ideas browse gunbroker, there is always T's for sale there with and without scopes.

Funnily enough I might have a scope and mount for sale next week, got $?

Well done, good find for you.
Reply With Quote

JB White's Avatar
JB White JB White is online now
Senior Member

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Illinois
Posts: 157
Default
The buttplate is not aluminum but Mazak/Zamack/pot metal depending upon where you live.

The SM is a Singer (Scotland) manufacturers marking so at least one non-Savage bit found it's way onboard. Nothing to be especially alarmed about today.

"England" is the country of origin for importation back into the US. It's not a martial stamping. It's an older import mark so to speak, but an import marking nonetheless.

Sounds like a nice find.
Reply With Quote

John Sukey John Sukey is offline
Very Senior Member - OFC

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 320
Default
The clue here is that the scope number should be marked on the small of the stock right behind the reciever. If it's not there, then while the rifle was set up for a scope, it never had one, which is true of most Savage rifles.
Reply With Quote

The markings verify that it is indeed a Savage production (A square S is savage.) No4 Mk1* that has been through the British Civilian ownership (BNP = Birmingham Nitro Proof) and imported to the US (ENGLAND).

However as far as I know, no Savage No4Mk1*s were converted by H&H and so the butt stock and its markings are a bit of mystery.

The missing TR and T are also odd. I await more knowledgeable comment about it being a sniper rifle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mudhut

I would appreciate an expert opinion about the provenance and authenticity of this "sniper" No4Mk1*.

Thank you.

---

Hi .... :)

Pics would be helpful, however, if you want to compare your Savage Enfield against an "all correct" as originally issued one, go to the England - Milsurp Knowledge Library (click here) and view two different entries.

There's an 82 picture photo gallery montage for a 1943 Savage No.4 Mk1* Enfield Rifle (click here).

Also, with thanks to Advisory Panel member Lance, there's also a rare "all correct" 1942 No.4 Mk1*(T) Savage Sniper Rifle (less scope) (click here) .....

Lance's article, accompanied by a detailed 165 pic photo montage, speaks to this example as being one of approximately 3,400 Savage rifles converted by Holland and Holland and re-barreled with an Enfield 5 groove barrel, however, it was never fitted with a matching No.32 scope.

Hope this helps... :)

Regards,
Badger

Two 15C rifles

https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif

Savage Mk1* (T)'s -- generally 11C to 15C range. Often rebarrelled with UK made 5 groove barrels, but have owned two with their original 2 groovers (explain that!). All were converted by H&H, along with all other T's save for the Trials rifles & Long Branch rifles. Markings on these early conversions (1942) are totally out of kilter with the marking system quoted in Peter Laidler's book, but I think most people now accept this is because the marking system did not arrive in its definitive form on day 1 of H&H's conversion run, but rather evolved into what is quoted in the books & what is seen on most later rifles (late '43 onwards). Some Mk1* rifles WERE scoped up, though they are probably in the minority.

Your rifle sounds just fine....

ATB

Thanks to all for the feedback. It is much appreciated. I'll try to post some pictures.

My apologies...my "old" digital camera is not up to the task of taking close-up pictures to show the markings. It is, nevertheless, marked as described. I did notice another mark: an R is stamped inside the lightening cut in the bolt. I'd like to remove the stock and take a peek to see who made the barrel but I don't want to damage anything.

Question: Who would have likely made the barrel? It looks like a five groove.

Question: Is it common for the bolt serial number not to match the serial number on the rifle?

Question: Is the number 1 that is stamped in the bolt head an indication of the headspace? If so, is 1 better than 2?

I have noticed a red wax-like substance on the top rear surface of the raised cheek piece. It is really just a one to two inch smudge but I wonder if it may have been grease pencil or paint marking at one time.

One defect I have noticed, other than handling marks, is the rear sight adjustment screw--the shaft is bent making it difficult to dial up or down. Are S marked replacements available or am I better off leaving well enough alone?

Assuming I took the plunge and put a scope on this rifle (somewhat likely), what is recommended other than original equipment?

I'll post a range report later.

Thank you.

Does the Camera have a MACRO setting and timer?

...MJ...

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC00073-1.jpg
This one has been in a private collection for over 50 years and not humped. The wrist is marked with the scope number (not matching) and has most of the relevant markings for a "T"....
They do exist. There is also a very nice matching unit in western Canada that an old deceased chum used to own but sold off when his health began to fail..

Wheaty, is that bracket really as devoid of file marks as it appears on my crappy work computer? Most of my brackets (except maybe the N92) look like they were deburred/cleaned up w/ a chunk of concrete!

Where they on a 1941 dated rifle and scope ??? I also have a Canadian bracket that is also the same and again....very early. I have no explanation, so hopefully someone will.... I seem to recall the other Savage unit also having a rather smooth bracket, but then again...the mind is the second thing to go.

I emailed Badger pics and he put them in this thread for me ... :)

Needs more expert advice than I can give!

Interesting that the bolt serial number is a 0C....I know that 0C01 is a T config and mine is OC1XX....Most others were 15C so wonder if the 0C and the 15C were used/stored together at some point...someplace. Mine is WELL WORN and was like that when I got it over 40-50 years ago.....long before the days of the humpers (I think)

hey Mudhut, that is one really nice rifle! I can just imagine it with a no 32 scope on it, lol.
Here's a pic of my 55 with one of those no42mk1 scopes. You can think of these as a no 32 but without the adjusters. I set mine up in standard rings and shimmed it to a 100 yard zero, then for longer ranges I use the range scale inside or aim over.
btw,I made a longer reply to your/this post on jouster yesterday about what folks do for a scope without spending like a king to do it.

Mudhut ...

If you want to mount a modern scope on it, so you can shoot it without damaging its collector value, here's an option.

I have heard (and read) on other boards that some people have had zeroing and alignment issues with these mounts, but I have to say our own personal experience was positive and we had no problems. Perhaps we were just fortunate with the particular No.4(T)'s she's mounted them on.

~Angel~ uses them her No.4(T)'s that didn't come with their own matched No.32 scope, or at other times, simply to put a more powerful scope on any of her No.4(T)'s to see how well they shoot with better glass.

They install easily and work well, plus zeroed without any problems at all. She shot as accurately with it and the Weaver 4x, as she does with any of the actual period No.32 Mk1 or Mk3 scopes. I understand that there's also one that looks similar and its manufactured in India, as is the one from Sarco, plus if you contact Advisory Panel member Roger Payne, I believe he may be having manufactured some "reproduction" No.4(T) scope brackets as well.

Reproduction Scope Mount (Sarco Brand) for Enfield No.4(T) Sniper Rifle with Weaver 4x

http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...20_Medium_.JPG(Click PIC to Enlarge)http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...20_Medium_.JPG


Enfield No.4(T) Repro Scope Mount (lots more detailed pics ... click here)

Regards,
Badger

Been thinking about this rifle off and on since yesterday, so some obsevations and questions-

Obs:
1. Having no "T" mark is not unusual for Savages, it just means it was never fitted w/ a scope whilst in military service. That means, technically, it is NOT a sniper rifle.
2.No "TR" mark means it was not selected for accuracy in the normal method before conversion. Also, not unusual for Savage rifles.
3.Savage No4 MK1 rifles were converted at Enfield into snipers and would not have the "S51" on the buttstock. According to Mr. Laidler, Holland and Holland received their rifles direct from the factories in England, so the question remains as to how a Mk1* ended up at the converion falilities.
4. The body pads were finish machined AFTER installation on the rifle. The whole works were then "blued" - so, the pads and body (receiver) should match in colouration, yes? This has been true of all the "T's" I've seen, although some of the later rifles have an odd almost "sandy" black finish.

5. This is pure speculation on my part, but as a machinist and mechanical engineer (designer) I have a theory as to the origins the "non-sniper" Savage conversions. That is, when creating new tooling (jigs, fixtures, and such) its best to make test runs, if possible, using either substitute materials (i.e. hard foam or wax) for the more expensive or hard to machine production materials, or using "less desirable" units that can be easily replaced if something doesn't work out right the first time. (This is even true w/ the newer CNC equipment- ya just never know!!!!)
Thus, as Savage rifles came on stream early and in considerable numbers, they would have made convienent test mules for the conversion process, w/o the time and expense of selecting those few rifles that shot rather better than most! Hollands (and Enfield?) could have worked out set-up and machining dramas as well as smoothing out the production flows by figuring out bottlenecks on the rather limited floorspace available with these Savage rifles. But I could be completely wrong!

Questions-
A. Does this rifle have 2 or 5 groove rifling?
B. Is the foresight block split (w/ the wierd screw in front) or solid. (Ya, its a split sight blade, but it wouldn't be the first time things got mixed.)
C. Have you had the buttstock off the rifle?
D. Could you post a pic of the front pad's screw ends (the part protuding into the bolt raceway)?
E. Also a pic of the rear of the receiver (w/o the bolt installed) near the safety for the little stamps on either side of the raceway would be nice.
F. If I'm full of hot air, could someone let me know?!

Here are the results from my range visit. So it's only 50 yards...but I'm happy! Given my aging eyes and bifocal glasses, I'm sure it is much more accurate than this.

(Click PIC to Enlarge)

Congratulations Mudhut ...

Even at 50 yards, that is a mighty fine grouping .... :super:

Regards,
Badger

Thanks to all for the feedback. I'll try to get some more pictures on board tomorrow (with Badger's kind assistance, of course).

I forgot to mention, my savage snipe had its PH stamp on the right side, just below the wood line and (on the fatter section), where the barrel first becomes that widened bell that screws into the receiver.

..5 groove 15C9 I think.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...2102848b-1.jpg

You have a nice rifle there.

jmoore,

It looks like a five groove barrel. The front sight is solid (and a good bit off center). I have not removed the furniture and am somewhat reluctant to do so because it seems to shoot well in it's current state of assembly...and there are no extra parts! I sent some more pictures via Badger.

Mudhut

A No4 Mk1* (not Mk1) conversion has got to be way up there on the "unobtanium" scale!
Have fun w/ it!:)

I asked Badger to host some more pics for me here ... :)

https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif

Wheaty, JMoore,

I have Savage 0C0769 a MkI. It has all the pieces you would expect on an early MkI, button cocking knob etc. It was converted by H&H and apparently never scoped or issued, it is as new. The previous owner had it in his collection since the early 1960's. It may have sat in the rack next to yours.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif

Great rifles there!!

MJ1, is your No4 Mk1* also S51 marked? It also seems to have been never scoped whilst in service. You and Mudhut ought to compare inspector's marks and such! Most "real" Savage Mk1 (no *, but both "T" and "not-T") conversions I've seen did not carry the Hollands' mark (presumably as they done at Enfield). Quite educational this thread!

I will have to dig them out and look but one had been restocked for some reason eventhough it looked unfired or close to it. I have never had the darker one out of it's wood. I just wiped the cosmoline off shot 10 rounds and put it back in storage. The lighter one became my shooter and has over 200 rounds through it now in seven years. A good project for later today maybe.

...MJ...

https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif

Thanks for the pics and info! Too little info on these rifles really, The restocked one is still valuable for the marks on the metal. I've always been suspisious of this variant, esp. w/ an S51 stamp on the buttstock.
If enough hard info surfaces concerning the original build of these non-scoped No4 Mk1* rifles it'll probably make it where I can't afford one, but it would sure fill a knowledge gap.

I think they're the production test run for the accuracy selected snipers soon to be built up by Holland and Holland.

(None of your scope pads have the Enfield mark on them do they? As per the Trials Rifle conversions, that is.)

I don't know what marks your asking about. None of my rifles has any marks on the pads. So I must have ten faked up rifle then. But then we do have the S51.

Cheers
...MJ...

https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif
https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif
https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif

What's intriguing about both of your rifles is that they appear to retain the original Savage "Parkerizing" finish whilst the pads are "blued". There's really no discrepancies between them, unless the inspecter's marks vary.

The Savage No4 Mk1 (no *)(no "T") conversions I've seen were of uniform finish, but I did not know to look for particular inspector marks at the time, as this was before I got my Trials "T". Seen 'em both w/ S51 and w/o and were in "like new" condition.

It seems that the previously published information on the Savages may not be altogether accurate! I'm going to guess that these rifles fell through the cracks as they weren't actual sniper rifles (i.e. no "T") but rather production proving units. It DOES appear that some went through Hollands' shop, though!

Now to find some Savages (w/ "T" or not) that have ENFIELD pads on them.

Anybody?

Good Luck! I've yet to see one...........it would be quite impressive.

ATB

I spoke to the last wartime fitter at the H&H works (they have never called it a factory.....) and as I remember it, he told me that those rifles without telescopes were rifles that had been left there, in store, after the decision was made to concentrate SOLELY on converting rifles from BSA. There's no reason to tell you why they did this but in short, standardisation, simplicity and known quantity.

At the end of production, those that were left behind were completed where they could be but the rest were returned as is. They didn't go back in chests either. Just the rifles, brackets and telescopes. They were delivered and collected by British Railways lorries, in low, wheeled racks.

The reason why the Savage rifles retained their matt phosphate finish was because H&H only had what they told me was 'spot blacking' or brunofix or they're usual pre-war blueing. They weren't paid to do anything else

Do you suppose the Savage rifles were left there the whole time, or that they had been shuffled off back in '42 and put in stores somewhere? They are often seen in like new condition. Mk1*'s aren't often seen at all, though!

I don't know why S Mk1*'s aren't that common but I just assume that at about the time the S Mk1*'s started coming on stream, so was the decision to concentrate on just BSA rifles. So while a few S Mk1*'s slowly went through, the concentration was on BSA. Concentrating on just BSA made the logistics simpler too. These are just my thoughts I must add.

This is the reason why there are so few Maltby No4T's. While a few M's started to come through, BSA was up and running so Maltby and Savage were kicked into touch

I'm feeling kinda stupid for passing up several over the years because the S51 marks kept me suspisious of 'em. Weren't all that expensive either, which should have been a subtle hint that they weren't "cobbled up". Will need to eyeball a few and get a load of detail pictures at some point.

Incidentally JM, When I was researching the book, the wartime man showed me everything relating to the No4T conversion over the course of a lovely day. And when we got into the examiners room, now/then the rest room, he put his hand into a little recess on the dest..., a sort of letter opening, and pulled out several stamps including sone of the little 'T's and the original '51' stamps of the REAL S51! There was no 'S' there...... but not bad after 45 years!

Peter,
Many thanks for your clarity on the subject of H&H conversions & the transfer over from converting BSA Maltby & Savage rifles to BSA rifles alone. I am pretty sure you're correct, in so far as we can ever be sure (unless more documents come to light). If one looks at the dates when production at the factories started (generally mid 41) the change over from Mk1 to Mk1* configuration at Savage (beginning of 42) & the time that H&H conversions came on line (mid to late 42) then it all fits. Like you, I have suspected for a long time that relatively few Mk1* conversions were effected simply because only fairly small quantities of rifles had arrived in the UK by the time H&H concentrated on weapons of BSA manufacture. This argument would also support why more Mk1 rifles (having come of the production line earlier) got so far as being scoped up.

ATB

The sequencing does all fit into place DRP and others. I even commented somewhere in the little No4T book about Savage Mk1*T's, to the effect that I had NEVER seen a S Mk1*T I think I'd have to wait a LONG time before I ever saw one...if I ever did so I wouldn't be holding my breath. I didn't have to wait long..., just after the book was published, and I saw an L42 made from one! Like you say, you ain't never seen 'em all with Lee Enfields!

Fascinating subject though..........

I took a closer look at my Savage 4(T) and as it looks in the photo, it is well worn. The S51 is very thin from years of use and also the forend is British. The scope number is on the top of the wrist (none matching) and I this week I will pull the wood and check for other numbers on the butt and markings on the barrel. The old girl has been sitting on the wall for 40 years here and was "on the wall" elsewhere for another 20 plus, so I can only "assume (*** of u *** of me) that is not "humped". Scope is 41 dated and mount is un-numbered but wear and patina match and again is "as is" as I got it. The Savage T that was in western Canada was a matching unit and I believe it was re-numbered on the wrist for the scope but the mount number did match the rifle. I have a couple other T units myself where the mount matches but the scope does not but the scope number has been changed on the wrist (not Savage's, just your bog standard British no.4(T)'s
It appears that a short treatise on the Savage T's is in order so something for a cold snowy winter project.

Thanks to all for the information provided. Very interesting. One more question...and I apologize if it is a FAQ. Approximately how many No4Mk1 snipers were built up (scoped and unscoped)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mudhut

Thanks to all for the information provided. Very interesting. One more question...and I apologize if it is a FAQ. Approximately how many No4Mk1 snipers were built up (scoped and unscoped)?

---

Check the MKL entry for the 1944 Enfield No.4 Mk1(T) Sniper Rifle (Mfg by BSA Shirley - M47c) displayed in the England - Milsurp Knowledge Library.

Specs and quantities (and data sources) are all covered ... :thup:

Regards,
Badger

Thanks, Badger! Do you work all the time?

Is it common for the scopeless Savage conversions to be w/o the mid-swivel like Mudhut's? If it was done later on, it would seem that feature would be included.

If you buy a little book about the No4T and the Holland and Holland connection Mud hut, you'll find the answer in there............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mudhut

Thanks, Badger! Do you work all the time?

---

Not as much as I used to, particularly with the great Advisory Panel here who have picked up a lot of my slack .... :thup:

Really great group surrounding these Lee Enfield forums. I've learned more about Enfields from reading posts in the last year from Peter, Roger, Brian, Lance, breakeyp, Son, Simon, Wheaty, Stencollector, tiriaq, Claven2, Lee Enfield, Nigel and a raft of others, then I have in the last 5 years. :clap:

Thanks to everyone who supports the forum and makes it a really friendly and enjoyable to place to sit down with a pint, read quality posts and share knowledge. :beerchug:

Regards,
Badger (Doug)

Just as a matter of interest Mud Hut, the picture of the muzzle of your rifle shows the foresoght blade way, way off to the left. The spec standard states that the permissable allowance for foresight deflection is when the bed of the blade reaches the edge of the foresight block band. Inboard of that means that there's something wrong.

Indeed it is, Sir. I had to drift the sight way over to get it anywhere close to center. I have a '42 Long Branch that has the same afflicition but not nearly to that extent. On the Savage, the rear sight ladder spindle is bent and appears to be missing a detent at the top sprocket. I wonder if that would be enough to cause the misalignment or if there is something else going on. I have considered trying to find another S marked rear sight or letting my gunsmith have a go at fixing the one on it. Any suggestions on how to fix the misalignment and a possible replacement for the rear sight would be greatly appreciated.

I took some of the furniture off. There is a folded piece of paper between the barrel and the front hand guard that I assume was placed there at some point for some barrel pressure or a loose hand guard. Inside the rear hand guard is the same JC N22 stamp with the arrow that is on the underside of the stock (not JC 1122 as previously reported). On one side of the barrel appears the number 44. On the other appears a pressure test rating. The front hand guard has the serial number of the rifle penciled in it. The stock is cracked--do I need to fix that or is that common with this model? Any information about these items would be appreciated.

There's several new threads here. The "Reader's Digest" version-

1.Shimming is not the proper way to bed the fore end - there should be articles existing on this subject. Definitely ought not be a shim on top!
2. The N22 marks are the manufacturer's ID code- British wood, I believe.
3.The '44 on the barrel appears to be the manufacture date of the barrel- it also appears to be of British origins, but my monitor is not very good.
4.The elaborate proof marks were done when it was surplused from service.
5. Penciled serial numbers are common on converted rifles- made it easier to put the bits back on the rifle from which they came.
6. Cracked fore ends aren't uncommon and should be properly repaired for best shooting results. Maybe you can combine this task w/ the bedding procedure. Probably an article on this repair is in the library, also.

Look through these! Lee Enfield On-line Knowledge Libraries (Index of Articles) - Military Surplus Collectors Forums
Yup, there's a bunch to wade through...

Can anyone comment on the date that the .303" 2.222" tons per etc proof marks were introduced for commercial proofing?

I would say that with a bit of paper stuck on the barrel like that, that it was in private hands before it was exported as opposed to coming from the UK Military because a paper patch thinggy looks, well, sort of, er ..., not an Armourers touch!

Rear stock splits were easily repaired and the best option if the rifle is shooting well. Just drill right through from left to right at the place where the wood is at its meatiest then make a slightly tapered oak dowel, glue it and the hole, then tap it in place. Cramp up then make good 24 hrs later and it'll last another lifetime

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Can anyone comment on the date that the .303" 2.222" tons per etc proof marks were introduced for commercial proofing?

---

Not exactly sure, but here's an interesting page from the Birmingham Proof site ... :thup:

The Proof and Testing of Firearms (click here)

Regards,
Badger

Both my Savage H&H rifles shoot center with iron sights and the front sights are centered the way they came wonderful rifles.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif

The proof stamp is 19.5 tons per square inch.

Have been away for awhile. My gunsmith has returned the rifle after recrowing the barrel (which he described as suspect) and screwing in the barrel a bit...perhaps explaining the severe wind drift adjustment of the front sight. I want to put a scope on it. Any suggestions regarding a current production scope that would fit would be appreciaed. I tried a Swift 1.5x4.5 but the turrets did not allow the scope to move forward enough. I also tried a scope with a 40 mm front lens but the bell is too large. I wonder if Weaver's 1x3 V Classic would fit far enough forward to work.

A good old thread!

Burris 4x compact:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff019-3.jpg

Since you've put the bracket on the rifle, no sense not using it!

So let me get this right............... Your gun dealer screwed the barrel in 'a bit' to correct the excessive or over adjustment of the foresight? The obvious question is was it screwed OUT too much before hand? If I'm reading this correctly, then............................. Oh never mind.

Maybe you ought to get your gun dealer to read this thread and another thread about barrel alignment. I wonder if it ever occurred to him that it MIGHT have been a simple matter of fitting the fore-end correctly.

An alternative to a new scope is an old Weaver K4 from El Paso Texas with a blued steel(not aluminum) tube. Blueing is deep and almost black. Length nearly identical to No 32 scope. Optics equal to or superior to No 32. Esthetically pleasing on rifle when teamed with a good reproduction mount. Price;$150 USD or less. Good luck.

Thanks for the suggestions regarding a scope.

I took the rifle out and tested it. The adjustment my gunsmith did helped with the windage. The front post is now centered and the group is only a few inches off center. It's not perfect but better than it was. Looking forward to using a scope so I can a overcome my aging eyes.

Mudhut.............., you really do need to have a word with your gunsmith....... Regardless of your ageing eyes, the majority of sniper rifles in the world are capable of better shooting than '.....just a few inches off centre' believe me! I don't know if I'm alone in this belief, but 'a few inches off centre is abysmal......... I'm serious and a telescope ain't going to improve its accuracy. Only a close iunspection of that under or overturned barrel and a properly fitted fore-end is going to fix it properly

If you are sitting astride a genuine No4T, which it seems likely, then get the rifle down to a reputable dealer (if you need a name in the US, just ask me.....) and get him to set the damned thing up as it should be. That'll turn a rare but 200 dollar inaccurate old dog into an extremely rare but valuable classic No4T sniper.

If it is indeed a true, rare Savage sniper, then forget all this old cobblers about some look-a-like telescope and get yourself a good UK made EXCACT repro bracket (need a name, just ask me.........) and search the internet for a genuine telescope.

What you are doing is letting some back street garage play with your 1967 Mustang engine. It's not running right so you're going to put a flat 4 ford into it. Do yourself a favour and fix it properly

I'll argue the opposite viewpoint. As noted early on in this thread, I was against mounting ANY scope, because the rifle likely never had one whilst in service. So, why remove a scope from the pool for use on a rifle that didn't have one in the first place.

Since Mudhut DID mount a bracket on the possibly unmarred pads, it's all downhill from there.

The barrel situation IS extremely curious, though. It couldn't have been in service in such a state, so that throws the whole package into a "suspect" category. Hmmm.

Well, it wasn't THIS thread, Probably Mudhut's similar thread on Jouster, which gravitated here. It HAS been a while...

Ok, ok, JM, leave the telescope off - but I notice that you're not disagreeing with the notion that he ought to stop faffing around with his back street bodger and get the rifle sorted out properly JM. whatever you do mudhut, maybe you could leave all this talk of bubba bodgery and butchery away from this sensible site. I mean, really............... who in their right mind ever heard of a sniper rifle that has been 'corrected' but is still shooting a few inches off centre. Cutting to the quick, I've never read so much pure rubbish in my whole life.

Is there anyone else out there who agrees with this crazy notion

Or is this another wind-up but worse, like threading the L42 barrel for a moderator

Peter, I would certainly follow the path you have suggested. Because of my nature, I wouldn't be comfortable unless it was as it should be. The trouble is, we all handle things differently, to a less than adequate result in some cases, sadly. That is the price for varying degrees of interest or priority.

There are only a few people I would trust to do the job correctly.

Whether or not the rifle had a scope while in service or not may never be known, it was fully converted to sniper spec while it was so I see nothing wrong with putting an original no.32 scope to it. However, I'm afraid theres gonna be another no.4T removed from the pool if things keep going in the direction they are now, scoped or not. In my opinion, it's already been removed from the un-messed with pool.

Wow. I appeciate the passion. In the hope that it might cool what appear to be some vitriolic sentiments, please know that I did not turn the rifle over to an amateur and he would certainly not deserve derisive labels. BTW, I said adjusted, not corrected, so if you have a recommendation for someone who specializes in "properly fitted fore-ends" on No4 rifles in the USA, I'd appreciate that contact. Thanks to all for shairng their knowledge with me and helping to determine the provenance of this rifle.

Brian Dick of BDL Ltd. Is a.com)

Let me try this again. Brian Dick from BDL Ltd should be able to help. bdlltd.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gsimmons

Let me try this again. Brian Dick from BDL Ltd should be able to help. bdlltd.com

---

+1

Brian has been working on one of my Enfields, give him a call.

+1 more for Brian. You will not be disappointed.

In the US, Brian Dick would be an excellent first choice. At least get his recommendation!

Gee, thanks guys. I'm humbled by your confidence. I had a very good teacher. I'd have to see it to evaluate it.

With the front sight centered, my group was on the left edge of the target. This morning, I drifted the front sight to the left and shot the rifle at 50 yards off of sandbags . The results are shown in the attached pictures. There are two groups. The second three shot group is on the front of the target after I lowered the aperature as far down as possible. The first group and the second group are shown on the flip side. I used South African ball ammo. I am confident the rifle's accuracy exceeds my ability...with glasses on, the front post fades out and without glasses the target gets fuzzy. If I understand Mr. Laidler's description at post 51 on this thread, the front sight might pass muster even if I drifted it a little bit more. However, I think I'll clean the rifle and put it in the safe as is. The rifle runs well. The pads are in good shape except the slots on two screws on the front pad are damaged, as is one screw on the rear pad. If I travel through Mr. Dick's area, I'll try to bring it to him for his evaluation.

It would make a good road trip! Hit the various little pawn shops and gunstores along the way if you want to make a real "gun tour".

As a little aside, the foresight is permitted to be over to the left or right but the full details of exactly how much have previously been related in a thread about foresights and I don't want to look it all up again. However, if it was much more than a tad left or right on a sniper rifle, then I'd suspect something greater amiss.

I appreciate that you considered some of the comments rather barbed but quite clearly, many others on the forum agreed - after a fashion - because they're all suggesting that you get it fixed - and fixed properly by the US Maestro of these rifles. As soon as it's done, you'll have a grand old lady that wouldn't look out of place in ANY collection of the worlds finest, most reliabvle, accurate and simple firearms ever designed. Anmd given those three attributes, no soldier could ever ask for anything more.

You are also in the most fortunate position that even if you don't put a telescope and bracket on your rifle, it's still original. I mean, just how good is that? And what's more, it's still a rare beast too............, with or without

The rivets in your front handguard ( shown in post #77) are a bit different than the usual British version, Mudhut. Could you remove it from the rifle and do some more detail photos inside and out of the entire handguard?

There was a thread started about handguard rivets, but it seems to have been TOO anorak-ish for most folk!

Rivet Tail Variations on No4 Front Handguard Nosecaps

limpetmine noted that Savage rivets aren't hollow tailed like most others, and your photo reminded me of that old thread. Maybe you could contribute some photos of your example.:thup:

It would also be interesting to see any penciled in markings on the underside of the handguard.


ETA:
The most pertinent points of Captain Laidler's article as it refers to your situation and the drifted sight are on pages 3 and 4 of the following ".pdf" thing:

http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...ching%20Up.pdf

He has another article or two on proper fittment of fore ends, which may be the real cause of the off axis groups- That or a bad crown.