I have a No 4 made by Savage that is not marked US Property. It does have the "flaming bomb" mark meaning it was US Arsenaled ? How common were these guns compared to the Lend Lease guns?
Thanks
Printable View
I have a No 4 made by Savage that is not marked US Property. It does have the "flaming bomb" mark meaning it was US Arsenaled ? How common were these guns compared to the Lend Lease guns?
Thanks
All of the Savage made No4 MkI's and MkI*'s were stamped "U.S. PROPERTY". I have a '41 and '42 MkI and a '42, '43 dated, '43 not dated, and '44 MkI* and they are all marked "U.S. PROPERTY". The rumor is that an officer of the British army did not like the property mark and ordered it scrubbed off. As far as how many, I'm not sure if anyone will be able to answer that.
Thanks tlvaughn but it doesn't appear it was ever scrubbed and having the flaming bomb makes it interesting. I have been told that at some times the US used Lee Enfields as it was easier in that theatre to get .303 ammo. If that happened I know it would be very uncommon. I also have a US Property No 4 and when comparing them it is evident both are original.
Just talked to a good friend who has countless Lee Enfields and has seen the gun. He told me my No 4 was not the first one he has seen lacking the US Property mark and having the US "flaming bomb' marking.
I know that rifle personally, and it isn't the first No4 Savage to be seen, without lend lease markings. The serial number, is in the proper range and all of the rest of the stamps, are authentic. The receiver is untouched and original. It certainly isn't a one off, although I do admit they aren't frequently encountered. It's a very clean rifle.
I've heard a similar rumor, but was informed by a deceased friend, that was a WWII REME, that just wan't true. The rifle, came from "Tiny" Tim Ryan's estate and Wheaty can vouch for the validity of his credentials.
Is there a known serial number range of rifles without the "U.S. Property" mark?Quote:
Originally Posted by bearhunter
I'd love to see some quality close up pics of this piece ... :)
It could make for a nice addition to the Savage Enfield rifle articles in the MKL .... :thup:
Regards,
Badger
Considering how one would process the tooling operations for the receiver, I can see the markings would have required three stations along the assembly process.
1. Markings on the receiver flat
2. US Property mark on the receiver angled flat. This could not have been done at the same time as the receiver flat due to the angled receiver surface.
3. Serial number on socket
Given that the markings were a three part operation, i can see where the US marking might have been overlooked and later ignored if discovered. Like any volume series production line--manure happens. You don't want to know how sausage or automobiles are made.
I've seen a couple of Savage rifles over the years missing the US PROPERTY marks that clearly had no signs of being scrubbed. I don't think there is any serial number range for it, just a random mishap. All Savage manufactured No.4's were produced under the lend lease act so with or without a US marking on it, it's still a lend lease rifle. If there is any truth to some of our soldiers being issued No.4's, I would think they were issued them in Europe, not having left the US with them but, that's just my opinion.
Spike, being a bit pedantic, I think that the first Savage rifles were manufactured on a cash and carry basis so actually belonged to the UK. Only later did they become Lend Lease. It doesn't change the thread in any way of course. Or am I wrong here? Pre-Dec 41, cash and carry, paid for, up front, in gold. Post then, lend lease and they remained US property.
As I said, I could be wrong but I recall the true story of the Catalina flying boats and the Diamond-T tank transporters (and half tracks) that we were using up until the early 70's
Thanks Peter, that certainly is a much more accurate account to the story of them I have heard and read about in the past. I remember now a discussion about them in years past with examples having been brought forth with mid production serial numbers, sort of clouding the early only suggestion. I would wager a guess to the early "cash and carry" examples being legitimate non US PROPERTY marked examples where as the later ones could certainly be as Mr. Breakey suggests... a random example of s**t happens.
Additionally......... Does anyone recall that China would and regularly did remove all markings that referred to the US. Not all of course because I saw many - well, quite a few - captured ex VC Brens and Enfields where the markings were crudely ground out. The ammunition as I recall was usually Canadian too but second biggest lot, Indian Kirkee stuff. I regularly had to go to the Intelligence Cell at XXXXX to identify some of this kit and it was there that I first saw in real life, Inglis 7.92mm Brens. In fact I sent an Inglis 7.92mm Bren back to S/Sgt Jock Annandale at the Base Ordnance Depot at Ngaruawahia
Asking the obvious, but has anyone measured the side wall depth of an unmarked body. I realse that it'd be pretty obvious, even to a blind man because the roll-marked US property mark is fairly deep
And what happened to all those 7.92mm Brens I wonder!
Here is what Skennerton wrote in The L-E, "The Lend-Lease rifles are marked 'US PROPERTY' while those produced earlier under the direct purchase system were not so marked as they were for a direct British contract".
I have a 1941 Savage No4 MkI with the "US PROPERTY" mark and it is serial number 0C6X. I also have a 1942 No4 MkI with the mark and it is 0C325X. I guess a more accurate explanation in the future would be to say that all Savage No4's were to have the "US PROPERTY" mark; however, due to human error during manufacturing and orders to have it scrubbed off, some rifles can be found without the mark.
Lend lease started in late February of 1941, well before the US entered the war. I do not recall when the first shipments of No 4 rifles was made, but it was likley after Feb of 1941, I seem to recall that 1941 dated North Amercian No 4 rifles are relatively unknown.
I believe the first rifle came out in June/July 1941 with 25,000 +/- to be completed by the end of 1941; however, only 1,300 +/- were completed. I'll have to pull the book back out to confirm this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederick303
There was a long-running attempt at surveying these rifles at Survey of Savage #4 serial number ranges No range could be identified which was not US PROPERTY marked.
For what it is worth, I own Savage number 0C1 that was made into a No.4 Mk1(T). Even though the former owner (butcher) went happy with a hand grinder, there are traces of the PROPERTY "Y" still visible next to the front mount base. I have a few more Mk1s in the 0C2000 range and all have the property mark. I have a feeling Ian believed what he was told at the time, that is why books are always subject to revision.
The serial number range I was referring to, was early 41. Nothing else. There aren't any visible markings or grind marks. When 303t gets home, he can measure the side wall for you and take pics. He's a decent fellow and isn't about to scam anyone.
The original owner of that rifle, had it since before he left the army. I don't have any idea where it came from.
Is there a possibility, that the receiver, was sent to Long Branch for approval or to speed up production? What happened back then, is anyones guess.
By the way, if you want to see more Bren Guns, in 7,92x57, go to Angola or the Congo. They used to be all over the place there. I'm willing to bet, their governments still have lots, rusting in some warehouses.
I have 0C864 and like P. Breakey's rifle, 0C1 it was converted to a "T" It also has the "Y" of the US Property mark sticking out beside the front pad.
Peter, it has not been scrubbed as yes the markings are quite deep and would be quite obvious. I will take the gun to bearhunter this weekend and have him take pictures as he is good at that and being computer illiterate think I have a better chance of winning a lottery than posting a picture on this site. Beside illiterate I have a new anti-virus and holy crap it is a chore just to find the pictures after I TRY to load them on my computer.
My only interest in this saga is the lend-lease area. As I understand it, it wasn't a simple matter of lend-lease but............. Suffice it to say, many of the lend lease papers are still not open for public perusal by the Public Records Archives. I should imagine they are fully open in the US but not here. Clearly there was a lot of behind the scenes skulduggery and back scratching that showed that the US were backing us but being diplomatic about it. That's just my thoughts
I remember when the Army were disposing of their last Diamond T tank transporters and Half Tracks in the 70's. Those that were still in service in Germany had to be brought back to the UK for disposal at great expense and a sort of compromise was worked out where they would be disposed of via the US Military disposal system in Baden Baden - still at great expense for what was virtually now scrap! There were strict conditions, believe me. Those disposed of in England had equally strict conditions of disposal and this, combined with the low value meant that they just didn't sell. The half tracks were bought up and went as spares (?) to the Israelis (against the conditions of sale I should add.....) and there was a bit of a stink but the diamont T's were just disposed of as scrap steel.
Logistically we couldn't do the same with S rifles so we just paid a pro-rata price
I'm fairly sure that No4 rifles were never actually part of Lend-Lease, as they were a UK sovereign design in licensed & funded production. Hence UK was free to redistribute Savage No4s all over the world later on. By contrast, M1903s and M17s probably were part of L-L, and hence got returned to the US or scrapped. With all the political smoke-screening going on at the time, its often quite hard to distinguish Lend-Lease items from UK's direct arms orders.
(off-topic, but in Russia Lend Lease is almost completely air-brushed out of the historical record. I've even seen a Ford Wilys jeep in a museum that had most of the ID plates replaced with those of a well-known Russian auto manufacturer, in an effort to claim it as a Russian design....)
I look forward to the pics. When I first starting collecting/shooting No4's (not that long ago, so I am still learning), I had the Savage unmarked rifle on my list of rifles I wanted. I was told that I would never find one because they did not exist -- any unmarked rifles were scrubbed. Thanks to this thread, I can now add this rifle back to my list.:thup:Quote:
Originally Posted by enfield303t
If that was the case Thunderbox, I'm min ded to ask whay ANY of them were marked US Property. There is an answer but it doesn't really apply to this in the same way. It's the Boys anti tank rifle. Made in Canada but marked US Property because the whole (?) project was funded by the US with Bethlehem Steel providing the material. It's a lot more complicated than that of course but...............
Looks like this interesting poser could open up a long and interesting thread, especially if we discover that the unmarked rifle hasn't been skimmed off. I have to say that I was (wrongly) under the impression that pre Dec'41 or thereabouts, Cash and carry. After that, lend lease on the basis that we were skint anyway. A bit like we are today actually. In fact like I am EVERY day!
Well gentlemen, I will be the first to admit it. The "US PROPERTY" markings were ground off. An incredible job though. Only detectable, under very bright sunlight and only when held at the proper angle.
I must apologise for misleading statements. I honestly felt the rifle was legitimate. We noticed the barely legible marks this morning, when we were about to photograph it. It is a very early serial number though and even though I hadn't seen the rifle, for a few years, I don't recall noticing the marks.
My apologies to all, especially you 303T.
Well I drove quickly wanting to get to post before bearhunter as I was wrong and am eating crow right now. The details as described by bearhunter are right. You know if the person that did it had used a little "jewellers polish" and a little elbow grease I don't think you could tell. I was wrong and admit it. I will now use it as a shooter or possibly sell it. SORRY TO ALL.:banghead:
ps... it has never been FTR'd and it is very clean so have no idea when or why it was ground off??
pps... bearhunter you are a great friend and no need whatsoever to apologize.
Hey, nobody needs to apologise at all. That's what discussion forums are all about. It got the old brain matter ticking over and asked some good questioins about lend lease. In fact I wish it'd gone on a bit longer just to LEARN a bit more about Lend Lease.
Thanks Peter, as I mentioned IF the person who did this had spent some time with jewellers rouge I don't think you could have told it was scrubbed. Have NO idea why it was done or why he was so meticulous in doing it. The gun is in great shape and I will make it my shooter as I really don't like to shoot my Lee Enfields at all. One thing it needs a ejector screw so if anyone that reads this has a spare would you sell it to me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Many British contracts ran on beyond the start of Lend-Lease (which wasn't an 'open up the warehouses and help yourself to what ever you feel like having' as many people seem to think) and took a long time to wind up.
Lend-Lease was rather a double-edged sword, as Britain went from having a customer-supplier relationship with the manufacturers of its munitions to waiting on whatever the US defence establishment deigned to let them have. The Americans naturally looked to fulfil their own needs as a priority, and having US facilities making weapons which they themselves could not or would not use was now out of favour. Some types, like the 57mm a/t gun, were eventually modified for US use but this was the exception not the rule. The .303 rifle project was also a glaring exception, and shows how much importance was attached to it.
The receivers were sand blasted and finished with Dulite blue. They are very distinctive and many think the finish is Parkerizing. I was going to chime in about this as it's all been covered before. I think Paul's rifle, sn. 0C1 with the U.S. Property mark pretty much tells the tale. I've got 0C160, (also a conversion to No.4Mk.1T), and the mark is present. I've also had a couple hundred Savage No.4Mk.1 and Mk.1* rifles through here over the years and the ones without the marking were linished.
Any idea who/which nation linished the US PROPERTY markings Brian? I ask because some of the Chinese stuff supplied to the VC was also cleaned of US and Canadian markings. Not very well I should add and by no means all of it. The strange thing is that there were many Inglis No1 pistols and these were pretty well intact.
Back to the dispsosal of US Lend Lease vehicles. I know a person locally, very old now, but he used to buy up some of the US lend lease stuff in the 50's and was able to sell it to the newly emerging Western Armies, specially Italy and Greece who were big buyers and good payers. A lot was only fit for spares but they needed spares too. But strangely, he never bought those DUKW thinggies or any other US amphibians because they were barred from export sale to virtually anyone. Maybe Uncle Sam was fearful of an invasion!
Hi, Just to throw one in there I have a Savage that is not marked "US PROPERTY" and does not have the flaming bomb but "P" proof marks, the sieral number is 51C range, the rifle is NZD marked and I have converted it to a sniper, I will try to post some pictures.
Chris I really look forward to the pictures, my serial number is in the mid 30'sQuote:
Originally Posted by Chris7171
I think they were linished clean by many different nations that had them. Some are done so nicely you'd think it was never there and others a bit on the rough side with a big bastard file. I've got a lunchbox Savage here with a four digit serial number stamped on individually as imported from Canada several years ago and the U.S. Property is present on it too. Unless one was pilfered from the factory in pieces prior to stamping, I'd still put my money on the fact that they were all marked. Of course, never say never and I'm no exspurt. I've just seen a s--t load of 'em!
With 1.2million rifles made , add the human factor , there's going to be some that were passed by.
This is a dated '43 with no stamp.
...not scrubbed
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../09/NoUS-1.jpg
12C 1942 #4 MkI is stamped "US PROPERTY"
Looking at the S #4 MkI* receiver above it looks way to smooth compared to other Savage receivers I have seen ?
From the rest of this thread Tymber and my limited experience, I'd like to get a hold of yours with a micrometer. You can bet that it has been 'cleaned'
I was actually going to start a new thread before this pic was posted, but this is now the 2nd 1943 dated Savage I have seen were the date is stamped on the left side of the receiver. Every 1943 dated rifle I have seen up until now was stamped on the butt socket.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tymber
A friend of mine is a retired armourer from the Royal Engineers. According to him, their Colonel ordered the armourers to get rid of "that damned US PROPERTY mark"(he felt they are not lent, but well and truly PAID for) on the No. 4s. So they were set up in a mill and "thousands" of the Savages were cleaned up and made "presentable."Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Thats a bit of an apocryphal story, with the Colonel's unit varying with the telling (I've heard Guards, Light Infantry, Royal Artillery, and a few others!). However its unlikely that any unit CO would have the authority or the facilities to start making structural alterations to issue service rifles - that would be a depot job arising from a War Office instruction of some sort. I imagine quite a lot were linished in the civilian trade, as they were often keen to emphasise that rifles were legitimately sold out of service.Quote:
Originally Posted by jona
You can nip that story in the bud now Jona. There were no Armourers in the Royal Engineers either. And if REAL Armourers weren't even allowed to stamp the bodyside, (that part of the rifle could only be marked with an engraving cutter) you can be rest assured that nobody would tell us to grind a part of it away. We have very probably the most comprehensive archive of permissable modifications to Service rifles here at the Small Arms School, and grinding out he US Property mark isn't included in it.
Thunderbox has hit the nail on the head - albeit a bit more diplomatically than me!
This seemed like the right place: was going through some old actions today running them through the ultrasonic cleaner and found this one: 1943 Savage No.4 Mk.I* with Canadian Broad Arrow marks and the U.S. Property barred out. Presumably this was a rifle issued to Canadian troops overseas from British stores and presumably the striking out of the markings was done in Canadian service as well.
Until it came out of the cleaner this was a filthy, stripped barrelled receiver that hadn't been anywhere much for at least 50 years, so I think that's pretty good provenance.
And...follows what Peter always told us about nothing being removed, only linished so it can be seen after for record.
Bruce Canfield recently answered a reader's write in question about them in the April issue of American Rifleman magazine. Perpetrating the mythology again that "a few thousand" were unmarked at the beginning of production. Anyone in doubt of the facts here need only go back and read Paul's post #7 of this thread. That pretty much says it all. Rob's body in post #42 also adds a lot of information because if a marking or serial number were changed as per regulations in British and Commonwealth workshops, that is exactly how it was supposed to be done using a file or proper cancellation stamp.
Yep, I suspect the end of a chisel was at times one of the tools used...........
Interesting note.
I have a 1L series Long Branch and two 5C series Savage rifles. All three have South African property marks.
I bought 400 South African owned No.4's of various manufacture and variation as imported by Interarms in Alexandria, Virginia in 1994. There were several early Savage and a very few Long Branch rifles included in the shipment but the majority were post WWII ROF Fazakerly manufacture. I kept a 5Cxxxx Savage and an 18Cxxxx Long Branch from the load. They were thrown around a bit and sport lots of handling marks but are both very nice original rifles overall.
I have Savage 69C5580 No US Property Marks. Gun is mint
I have Savage 94C4392 with US Property Marks Gun is also mint
No one ground off the Markings on 69C
Both have the same light colour grey type finish
Here's my early Savage 1942 Mk1 SKN rifle.
List engineering clearly removed the US PROPERTY markings to place the SKN markings
I’d love to see some pics of the 69C Savage can14.
Pics...Quote:
Originally Posted by can14