Printable View
good day, I have inherited a No4 mk1*, I have done a little research and I beleive it was made by Savage Arms, the stock appears to be sporterized but the rest of the rifle I don't know, it has what appears to be a military styled flash suppressor, but I have not seen another rifle like it. It has been in the family for a long time, I remember my father calling it a jungle carbine, but it is not a No5. here are the pictures.
any thought as to what this actually is?
Evan
Quote:
Originally Posted by evmoor
It would be a good idea if you could post a photo of the butt socket, as this should have the full number and possibly other stamps that will enable a clear identification.
But it has nothing to do with a jungle carbine. A jungle carbine flash hider looks like a short cone. It seems to be a normal Enfield No. 4 MK1 barrelled system. The muzzle end with the bayonet lugs has been cut off, and the muzzle brake (I do not think that is a flash suppressor) has been fitted. Looks like a home-brew to me.
:wave:
Patrick
thank you for your response patrick, I have not seen a muzzle brake in that design on anything non military, it very well could be a personalized creation.
the 2nd image 0176b is the butt socket with the serial no. and date of manufacture, as well as the savage marking.
Evan
Quote:
Originally Posted by evmoor
Good heavens! How did I manage to miss that? Of course, it is a Savage from early 1943, maybe January (1943 production started with 40C...., finished with 84C....)
That is definately a muzzle brake as opposed to a flash eliminator. The benefits of putting a muzzle brake onto small arms is dubious because the recoiling weapon has already imparted energy in the form of recoil that you will already be feeling the force of as the bullet is travelling up the bore. It is only when the bullet has actually LEFT the bore that the gas can start to do something about the rearward energy and try to..... Some call it fuzzy logic - certainly some of the whacky designs were based on fuzzy/dodgy logic that wouldn't stand even the mildest bench testing! anyway. There's more to it than that of course. We had some great trials and test setups at Shrivenham that made great student research especially with L1A1's
I'd like to see a couple of pic's of both sides of the knox, with the stamped info there, that should tell if it's riggydigge or not.
Unless I've lost it altogether, that's a modified SVT 40 (Tokarev) muzzle brake.
I am new to the enfield and new to milsurps in general but it is my understanding that all jungle carbines were made in england. all enfields marked US property were made by savage/stevens(I have an original MK1* and it's a blast). that muzzle brake does not look correct at all to me. jungle carbines were essentially a sporterized no4. they made lightening cuts on the barrels, cut the stocks and handguards down, anything to get rid of excess weight and make them a light little carbine(essentially the idea behind sporterization). a lot of people cut down their no4s to mimic the jungle carbine but there were also a number of companies that faked the jungle carbine by chopping down no4s, generally they were a little sneakier about it and only did the english models though, I've never heard of anyone doing it to a savage, that sticks out like a sore thumb.
Jmoore's got it right. It's Tokarev muzzle break. The rest has been cobbled up by John Q Public for a special whatever. Hope it at least shoots well...
I reckoned if we saw the knox we'd find it had been rebarreled.
Evmoor and obscure rifle has started what could be an interesting thread. Sorry to sound grumpy early on a rainy Saturday, but I hope that he isn't going to be one of those who takes on board the good answers, good info and worthy comments and then just leaves the thread, leaving the questions unanswered and us all just pondering........ and the thread goes flat! Seen it quite a few times lately!
Can we see the breech end under the wood and a close up of the muzzle? Thanks
I have looked at the knox, the only mark I can find is on the right side of the barrel.
I am guessing that it has been rebarelled.
and here are some of the pics, Peter.
I have no intention of abandoning the thread. I work on some of these weapons still for cadets, and this forum has provided me with some useful insight.
Canadian Arsenal marked...so it was rebarreled, but the whole muzzle break is there. They pulled off the original front sight and slid the Tokarev front on. That must have made grouping interesting at first. Lots of pitting so it was blued after the re-hash.
Amazing - and interesting too. A couple for you BAR. Obvious really but can I assume that the muzzle brake is screwed on and am I seeing things or do those flutes start square to the bore at the muzzle and gradually sweep back or is that camera angle? Anyone?
Do you shoot it? It'd be interesting to take some results. Anyone know of this modification.
I have shot it a few times, seems to be resonably accurate, but I haven't taken it out and dialed it in to see what kind of groupings it gives. I tried to take a few more pics of the muzzle brake rear sight to clarify the cuts. sorry if they seem a bit fuzzy, not using a good camera.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
In actual fact the brake has been modified by removing the rear portion which has the gas block and bayonet lug. The slots are indeed angled. But the brake walls are pretty thin, so there's a screw on reducer at the front. I must say that for it's weight, the SVT40 is a VERY light recoiling rifle even when the action doesn't cycle. But it wasn't as soldier proof as the Mosin.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
I would guess that this cobbleness could have possibly utilized the brake's existing threads which are located about midsection (before it was cut off at the back). But it may not be the case. In the US, I would guess not, as metric threading on most older gunsmith's lathes is very difficult to do well.
("Brake" -as in decellerating device, not "break"- as in "broken" )
I am planning on taking it to the range in the next coupe days for a good grouping and zeroing parctice, I will post the results after.
Makes one wonder why they would cut the Muzzle brake off a now $1500.00 Tok and put it on a (now) $50.00 Enfield.
I just shake my head at the bubbas.
I have to admit it does look kind of cool.
took it out to the range last night, found it fired a five round group just over 1.5 inches out of a tripod mounted shooting rest at 100 meters(109 yards for us old school types). but kick like a mule, I dont know if it is because of the shorter barrel and minimal wood, but she bucks hard.
In theory, if the 'brake' was acting like a muzzle brake, then it should have had a forwards drag that should overcome a portion of the recoiling forces. But this can only really be measured on calibration table.
We did some very interesting tests/trials and experiments with L1A1 muzzle brakes and gas settings. Alas, the recoil remained constant!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Mil Coll
I learned in an earlier thread on the Milsurps Soviet rifle forum that there was a commercial concern in Canada (where evmoor is located) by the name Of "Globe", IIRC, which converted quite a few SVTs to .303 SAA, I don't remember if they kept the brakes intact or no; I'll see if I can hunt the old thread down later. (It was concerning the fluted chambers of the SVT and possibly a thread I started...)
Oh, BTW, not likely the brake above retains it's threads- they were further back than I remembered. Did get some photos done of the area on a SVT- will try and post reasonably soon. The SVT40 I weighed comes in at 8 1/2 pounds empty with magazine- pretty dang light. Will try and sample some more.
JMOORE is right on the issue of the Tokarev muzzle device.
That gizmo LOOKS like the type fitted to the Russian SVT-38 and early versions of the SVT-40. (Later SVT 40s had a simplified brake with two large ports either side.)
However:
It would have been seriously "abbreviated" to fit on a No4. The original SVT brake is part of a long sleeve that extends back to and incorporates the gas regulator / base for the captive piston. It is threaded onto the barrel and locked with a key that looks a bit like a "rounded" version of the barrel wedges on Colt percussion revolvers.. The catch is that this retaining thread is way back near the gas-port end.
Furthermore, the front sight post looks odd. The original sight on the SVT series was a threaded post, reminiscent of those fitted to SKS and AK types.
Yah, but the post is contained in a round hood (also vaguely of SKS appearance) which is dovetailed onto the brake assemby. The sight shown above is probably just driven onto the existing dovetail, unless the post was shortened some.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz
So, here's some Soviet bits on the L-E forum. Odd but it ties in...:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff015-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff021-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff047-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff051-1.jpg
Sorry about the semi-ugly parts, but this rifle was closest to hand.
thank you for those pictures that is very interesting I will post some close ups of the front sight post and muzzle brake later, I just got back from three days coaching on the ranges.
Yes...Brake...How foolish of me. I forgot about that. These used to be around. That is to say there were more than a few done. The front was just abreiviated and slipped on as we have now determined here. The old front sight screws down like the SKS and the rest dovetails in so easy change. The same time frame found Schmidt-ruebin rifles chambered to 30-30 available because they were available cheap and could be converted. I've seen more than a few of these too.
Thank you to everyone for your your imput and help with thisI really apreciate it.
Can any of you tell me if you have run into any specific bore gauges for the Lee Enfield?
I have a tapered plug gauge that measures from .300 to .3260 in, manufactured by C. G. & T. Co LtdAttachment 35698Attachment 35697Attachment 35696Attachment 35699Attachment 35700
There's a blast from the past............. Coventry Gauge and Tool Co! That is the - and I'm going from memory now - it is the GAUGE, inspectors bullet, lead No2 for measuring wear between the locking shoulders and the leed. There will be a B2/SM XXX number on it somewhere. It was also used with a .5" slip gauge that wasn't allowed to pass between the No2 gauge and the locking shoulder but you could usually judge by eye wear in the leed from the 1/2" marker on the rear of the taper. You'll have to look hard to see/find it.
Only Command or Base workshops would have these gauges
thank you for the info.
the only markings on the gauge are, as I rotate the gauge. LEAD S.A.
No 2
215
C.G.&T. Co Ltd
there is a line engraved around the gauge as seen in the 1st and 4th pics,
just to the right of the lin is 1/2, which you can see on the right side of the 4th and 5th pics,
and then what i would call a proof mark. looks lik a crown over a E which is over 5B. as seen in th 1st pic.
Dat am de one!
Probably inspired by the Globe Co. Tokarev .303 conversions that were done here in the 60s. There may well have been spare parts available at that time and this was the result of someone's dissatisfaction with the recoil of a No.4. An old catalogue from the time would probably tell, if someone has one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Mil Coll
Pity they whacked the charger bridge off, as it makes the MkI sight rather pointless as it has nothing to rest on in the down position. Maybe you should get one of those 300/600 two position sights for it.
I don't think it's been reblued myself. I see that dirty brown colour of light rust, old oil and grease and congealed dirt. Spray it down with oven cleaner and let sit for 20 minutes then wash off in very hot water and dry with an oven or torch and then spray it down with your lubricant of choice. You'll need to strip it down first of course. The oven cleaner should get most of the crap out of the muzzle brake and the carbon you get by unscrewing the end and getting in there with a bronze brush. You'll need a metric wrench of course; I wouldn't use a Crescent.