Printable View
I have tried doing a search on this and couldn't find an answer, not saying it's not there but me and puter's don't mix.
Question, were the bolt heads drilled out on some manufactures of No4's I have just acquired another sportized Savage No4 this has a drilled bolt handle, even though miss-matched Serial No's it appears Savage. I see in tlvaughn post below his Savage which has a drilled bolt head serial No's match.
Myles
Interesting, I thought it was No 5s that got the drilled handle.
There were a few different sorts of bolt knobs/ handles at different times for different reasons. Mr Skennerton 's SAIS (Small Arms Identification Series) book No4 on the .303 Rifle No5 MkI explains that in comparing the No4 bolt with the No5, the No4's bolt knob was usually solid, although some have a 5/16th inch hole. The solid knob could either have a flat spot (where the hole is on others) or be totally round.
The No5 bolt knob was drilled for lightening purposes with a 3/8th inch hole, but after the bolt bodies were declared interchangeable, the small hole bolts could be found on the No5.
Just as an addition, some No5 MkI rifles that saw service and repair in India seemed to have had the bolt knob drilled out further to 7/16th inch. I don't recall ever seeing anything official about this...
As far as the production of the Savage rifles go, I'll leave that specifically to some of the other guys... not my bag.
I understand Ian's got a book out at the moment that compares the differences in components through production. Is this right?
The rifle in the photo is a Parker Hale sporter, so it has a very high chance of having had a replacement bolt fitted and numbered to the receiver.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearclaw
If you are in doubt about the originality of the bolt, post a photo of the number. Its usually easy to discern whether its factory original or a later replacement.
I am sure your comment on the larger hole is based on owning or observation of a No.5 having seen Indian service (probably it has the transverse screw through the forestock). I have an example as well, along with some of the FE trials run and early Fazackerley production. They all left the factory with the large ( I call it thumb hole) size hole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Son
The only odd ball bolt ball item I have encountered is a few No.5s along the way where the bolt hole was filled with a hardened material. If I get time I will dig around in the vault and look for it.
Thunderbox, My bolt serial doesn't match, my bolts serial is E7068. How can you tell it is a Parker Hale sporter.
Myles
O.k., its a 90% guess... The wood, magazine & sling swivels are all common PH items, and the rifle has the general configuration and appearance of Parker Hale's "Deluxe" (?) grade rifle. (PH had three models: a base model without any chequering, a middle version such as yours, then a "Supreme" model with rosewood endcaps on the forend and pistol grip.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearclaw
As a resulkt of the Pilkington Committee for the simplification of Small Arms meeting, it gave manufacturers to utilise their existing machinery in the best way they felt fit while engaged in the production of small arms and parts. So long as these parts were submitted to inspection and prior approval and were accepted, then that was sufficient. The minor differences were just that, minor manufacturing differences that had no effect on the fit, function or even the codification of the part (they carriedthe same part number).
The desigh spec might have stated that the hole was used as a datum or fixing jig location for some specific machining operation. But if a manufacturer didn't use that or ustilised some other method '.....in order to make the best and most economic useof his existing facilities.....' as I seem to remember how the wording went, then he did just that. I think that hollow and solid bolt handle knobs fall into this simple category,
Paul, yes I have a No5 that has seen service in India. It has a couple of peculiarities, for starters it has been blued to a fairly high quality finish. Besides the transverse screw, the only other hint to India is the tiny, almost microscopic RFI stamped on the top of the elevation dial- other than that it is unmarked. The receiver had been buffed/ polished but not quite enough to remove the original " No5Mk1 ROF (F) 11/44". The serial # is on the r/side of the butt socket, but that's about all the markings on the rifle. The bolt knob is drilled 7/16".Quote:
Originally Posted by breakeyp
I've had this discussion somewhere before and remember being told the reason behind the bolt knob variations being for both a machining datum and set up differences in the different manufacturers processes. (it may have been Peter telling me then).
I'[ve mentioned this before but at our HUGE Base workshops in Malaya, we made no difference between the bolts. No hole, a hole and a large hole, they all went on whatever needy rifle came up next. There were two variants of 'the hole' too. A deepish hole that was well chamfered and a shallowish hole. We also had a Chinese foreman called Mr Saw who was just an *** hole! - or was that Staff Sgt Beady............. He wouldn't let me have a Friday off to see my girlfriend Christine. Just because I hadn't ordered the 81mm Mortar spares for the Battalion in Vietnam!
Ok , I suppose Indian rifles have a black hole ! I bet the mortar section were none too happy aswell . Didn't know we had a battalion in Vietnam . You say you had a Chinese foreman . . . . . uhhmmm ??? What side were you on ?
It's getting difficult Boulet.............. and it's too difficult to explain but in short, when I saw 'we' I mean the Australian Army where we had TWO battalions there and the Chinese forman was a forman at the Base Workshops in Malaya where we worked with Malay Army (who had Chinese amongst them) and anyone else's Army who was there such as the UK, Aust, NZ and some Fijians
Son, I have a couple of the Indian reworks with socket markings RFI and new serial numbers e.g. 00247. As some of the early large bolt hole FE rifles went to India, I can see them being broken up or rebuilt in the Indian rebuild programs. Anything goes with a rebuild program.
Could these markings tell a bit more. serial No ......... (F) FTR this is located above the Savage No4 Mk1*.
Thanks for all your input guys
I conversed with Ian on the topic a few years ago... he'd come to the conclusion that there didn't seem to be any hard and fast rules where markings on Indian re-worked rifles were concerned... your own excellent collection probably contributed volumes to what is known... At the time IIRC, he was making one last effort to get access to India's records and visit the factories before the deadline he had on the last Lee Enfield edition. It really is the last "black hole" in the history of these rifles.Quote:
Originally Posted by breakeyp
Bearclaw, I think the (F) FTR denotes a rebuild at Fazakerley... once again, waiting for one of the No4 gurus to come along...
There's no reason of course why a Fazakerley FTR'd rifle wasn't later sold to India and then went through the Indian FTR programme in the 60's and be marked twice or even 3 times unless it was linished clean
Pete,Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
So if you had to replace a receiver say on a No5 would you put a No5 on, or a No4 as they are the same receiver. Or is this a thing that an armourer wouldn't do.
Myles
In the Briitish, Australian and NZ Army, we neither would nor could replace a receiver, or body as we called it. This part was what we identified as 'the master component' and although it carriued a part number, was never available through the Ordnance system. If the body failed, then the rifle was scrapped, as simply as that. In effect, the body WAS the rifle. A No5 body isn't the same as a No4 body but they'll both interchange easily enough. But further to that..................
However, what might happen is this. In the huge Base Workshops in the Far East, we used to undergo big 'crown agents' FTR programmes for the different Armies of the nations around the Pacific Rim plus the Malay and Singapore, Brunei Police etc etc....., you understand what I mean. This was because the UK were pulling out in 1969/70 and this would be the last chance of having their stockpiles rebuilt, on the house so to speak, before the Poms left! If 100 rifles came in to be repaired, then regardless of whether they were good, bad or just plain absoultely worn out, 100 totally rebuilt, 100% perfect FTR'd rifles would go out. Even if it meant using up our own Ordnance Stockpiles. With No5's, that most Police Forces and many Armies were still using, the same happened. If 200 came in from XY, then 200 went OUT, made up, if necessary from stockpiles we possessed or if bodies were worn out or stretched, they'd get No4 bodies if necessary. We had no shortage of spares for them. We also did many hundred NZ L2A3 Sterling SMG's and L4A4 LMG's too. Though for some strange reason, these were on a costed basis although I shouldn't think for one minute any money changed hands. And like the rifles, if, say, 180 LMG's came in, 180 brand new went out even if we'd scrapped 40 of them - made up from existing pooled Ordnance stockpiles. There was hundreds of millions of ££'s of Ordnance stockpiles there
Has that over-answered the question?
When you mention worn out or stretched bodies, just out of interest, what would you say a rough figure was for a stretched body out a 500 rifles?
To be honest Big Duke, I couldn't even hazzard a guess. The 'in-inspector' would test and gauge them (we'd work with him for the experience occasionally) and we'd jusy get the work to do. We did everything plus what he said on the job sheet.
Thanks Pete,
No, the over answer is what I was looking for, it answered the unanswered questions that I couldn't work out.
Myles
P.S. Enogerra came to life the other day with the return of 80 odd Sapper's. Blackhawks everywhere.
When you were doing the rebuilds in Malaysia . Did the rifles get upgraded with mark 1 sights and mark 1 safeties or if parts were serviceable they stayed on the rifles.