-
Tripping Over (T)'s - Savage Less Telescope
-
A beauty. So nice to see the Savage blued finish instead of the usual British suncorite...
-
What a find. Well done. BTW, it's odd that with those post1954 Birmingham Proof marks that this one doesn't even have an "England" mark.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RobD
A beauty. So nice to see the Savage blued finish instead of the usual British suncorite...
Rob, Its a mix of Blued and Parkerized finish, the body has that green grey tint of Parkerizing....
-
Geoff, The bodies of Savage rifles were sandblasted giving the original Dulite blue finish the appearance of Parkerizing in contrast to the lightly polished barrel.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beerhunter
What a find. Well done. BTW, it's odd that with those post1954 Birmingham Proof marks that this one doesn't even have an "England" mark.
I was surprised to see that it had escaped this stamp, as well. Two, three, four looks around, and it still isn't there!
-
A veritable time capsule. S51, but nothing else, so that marking arrived before the "T" and "TR"
Someone had a go at taking the front pad screws out and then thought better of it!
One little ding on the front pad to take off a needle file?
No ENGLAND stamp so brought in from another country for re-export? No pad staking a sign of early departure from UK service?
-
Pad screws unstaked was that typical of Savage?
-
Check the MKL and read this article by Advisory Panel member Lance:
1942 No.4 Mk1*(T) Savage Sniper Rifle (less scope)
Regards,
Doug
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brian Dick
Geoff, The bodies of Savage rifles were sandblasted giving the original Dulite blue finish the appearance of Parkerizing in contrast to the lightly polished barrel.
Thanks Brian, always assumed they were parked....... understand the difference regarding the polished and sandblasted finish, ( perfect example in martin08's rifle) been experimenting recently with a cold black oxide kit I,ve had for some time and tweaked it a bit, when time permits will post results regarding the finish compared to parkerizing, two bits have been out in all weather's and are holding up.... just had a look on on the net regarding Du-lite, like the old saying "you learn something new every day".......
Nice rifle martin08, a " T " a month is good going......
-
Regarding the staking, and if I am researching correctly, it is probable that this gun never returned to the armory after the Holland and Holland alterations to receive the staking per the 1946 order? Or, perhaps did return but missed the application?
My '33 Enfield Trials Rifle also has no staking.
Now, some questions and seeking the brutally honest feedback. To preface, I am a collector of artifacts. I assume that the parts (bruises, scratches, grime) which accompany a specimen are present for the reason that they left service in that condition. I rarely even clean a gun beyond a cursory wipe down, light oil if needed, and only affect repairs if I plan on shooting. I have a climate controlled vault, so even light corrosion can be preserved without disturbing history....
... but if I look at my Savage sniper and see that the only glaring deficits are the non-Savage rear band and handguard, would the gun have left Holland and Holland with those parts attached? Could it have had alternate repair at another armory to replace those parts? Would it be sacrilege to swap them out?
A new rear handguard would not have the original penciled serial, and I would not introduce one.
I don't need to look very far for the needed furniture items. They are resting on the rack, right beside my Savage, and on my '33 Trials rifle.
https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=53917&
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
martin08
... snip... Still with the six-groove Savage barrel (is 7C a little late for six-groove?).
...snip...
You scored, my 5Cxxxx is a 1945 dated British 5 groove replacement barrel.
-
Martin,
Absolutely right there. It could be that this rifle too did not need staking which means it was simply worked on later in its life. It is by the very nature of the beast that the front pads saw more activity by armourers than the rear, so in short this rifle looks prestine and a good find.
-
If it doesn't have a scope serial number stamped on the top of the wrist, I'd guess it's exactly as it left H&H as a "less telescope" rifle. I've seen them with the Savage barrel replaced with a British five groove barrel like LE's and also with the forends replaced with British walnut. All were numbered and matching as they left H&H. I don't think I've ever seen the screws staked on a "less telescope" Savage Mk.1/1*T. I have seen them staked on Savage No.4T rifles that were finished and had seen service.
-
Correct. There are no scope numbers in the wood.
-
You can get a little bottle of Chestnut Ridge military stock stain which will blend the rear handguard in but that's all it needs if you're concerned with cosmetics. Other than that, I wouldn't change a thing.
-
A no telescope No4T is a bog standard rifle so far as we were concerned. The same as a taxi without a sign is a standard car! We would never see a no-telescope rifle in service so there'd be no need for it to pass through an Armourers shop. Hence no staked pads.
In the real world of the Army, and Armourers in working Armourers shops, the rifle is repaired with what is available - just as your has been repaired in its life with off-the-shelf-parts. Who did it and when will never be known.
-
Very photogenic rifle!
Is the wrist on this Savage more slender than a British No.4?
The usual No. 4 seems to me to look and feel a bit thicker at the wrist, compared to the No 1 and especially compared to the long Lee; this Savage looks as nice as a long Lee.
-
-
I don't often shoot my collectibles, but this one was too tempting.
I picked up a repro bracket from Numrich, and mounted a Weaver K2.5-1 scope which was sitting on my shelf. Sighting through the bore and scope looked very promising. So, I set targets at 25, 50 and 75 yards and worked my way out. All shots made paper. The last group of three shots had two shots touching in the bullseye, and one at ten o'clock in the 8-ring. As soon as the beaver bog freezes, I'll set up at 200 yards, really take my time, and see what this gun can do. So far, it is awesome.
For collimation, I will give the machining of the Numrich mounting bracket a big thumbs-up. My shooting? Need some practice, but O.K.
Below is the Savage on the bench, with '64 dated surplus .303, and followed by a pic of the adjustments for the final three groups at 75 yards.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...fAbMKH1l-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...b7bbVXhl-1.jpg
-
1 Attachment(s)
Resting the T
I sorta played with my T with the bag up the front like yours pictured and the groups were not what I considered very good so I ditched the bag and went prone with it and shot a clover leaf 3 shotter at 100m you may want to invest in a repro WWII adjustable sling as a standard one is rubbish on a T (Of the type as pictured on my S51 '44). This one was made by one of the club members but has since been swapped out with one I purchased from the USA you could buy a WWII one but all the ones I have seen are badly crazed and would probably tear apart unless they have been exceedingly well looked after. Hand-loads may get you better groupings as well Mk VII ammo now is getting collectible and may be a bit erratic in ignition. Nice looking rifle.
-
-
Nice Savage! Thanks for posting detailed pictures.
-
Can you move the scope so both cradles are behind the turret? Seems like the eye relief might be a bit dicey.
-
I was going to say something about that but as I did not know Martin08's shooting style he may have set this up to his eye relief me I would be a bit hesitant to shoot that set up prone and not end up with the Weatherby ring of confidence.
But in looking at it the scopes location it would have your head pushed back and having a consistent cheek weld could be an issue which is why there may have been verticals in the grouping as you may be looking up into or down into the scope and not through it if you follow my reasoning.
-
With the Weaver K2.5-1, there is no way to place the scope rings between the turret base and rear bell - lacking by nearly 3/4". To acquire full scope view on the bench, it is necessary to position cheek weld at the rear mounting screw position of the cheek piece. Any further rearward and the optics position would not allow for practical application. Prone position is not impossible, but uncomfortable for the need to crane rearward with the neck.
Eye relief was a topic of concern, which I raised a couple of weeks ago on a Gunboards thread.
http://forums.gunboards.com/showthre...ye-Relief-Talk
But since I already possessed the K2.5 scope, nothing was risked monetarily. I am, however, considering alternatives. The No.32 Mk I reproduction is assuredly a possibility, though still not cheap. A Weaver K4 would also be a choice, as it has enough clearance between the turrets and rear bell to mount properly forward.
No real need to spend $2,000 or more on an authentic No.32, as my gun will always be a (T) Less Telescope. No optic package will ever be truly 'correct'.
-
Really don't understand that last sentence........... A No4T without a telescope is in effect a bog standard No4. Just like a Ford Taxi without a taxi sign is just a Ford car. You need to look at the bigger picture and see your glass as half empty and needs filling as opposed to half full so why worry. Just my opinion of course. I know that telescopes ain't not cheap but they're out there waiting for you to find one
-
I may be leaning too hard on the technical term, 'less telescope', Peter. And I can most certainly appreciate your view of the matter. One day, an original No.32 may come along, and I may snag it.
But sometimes I am a too much of a stickler on the purist end. Even if I find a correct bracket and scope, they will never transform my No. 4 into a full-fledged (T) in my mind. If H&H would have finished the optics fitting, I would be in hot pursuit of the right stuff.
For now, and as long as I don't have to alter it in any way, I will be having fun stretching it out to my personal limits. It's a joy to shoot!
-
A correct bracket and scope WILL transform your rifle into a full fledged (T), in my opinion anyhow. Sure; it'll never have the finish "T", examiner's stamps and serial numbers stamped on but if the bracket is fitted correctly, it'll be the same thing from the performance perspective. In time, I'd guess the valuation will be nearly as much as a numbers matched unit. My 2 cents.
-
It started down the "T" trail just did not quite make the end as I am sure work would have been done on the stocking up of it as is attested by the penciled No.'s underneath the top wood. Then fitting up of the pads as per MoD instructions so its probably 90% there and allot better proposition that just a bog standard 4 pretending to be a T. Guess its a bit like half a hot rod waiting for that last bit to complete it.
-
[QUOTE=martin08;351042]
But sometimes I am a too much of a stickler on the purist end. Even if I find a correct bracket and scope, they will never transform my No. 4 into a full-fledged (T) in my mind. If H&H would have finished the optics fitting, I would be in hot pursuit of the right stuff.
I'm afraid I think the same as Martin does. As a collector, I look for a gun that is still in as much of it's original off the line assembled state as possible, Almost all of my guns in my collection are as such. A purist's sickness I guess.
I had a mint unfired," Less telescope" Rifle like Martin's but with a MkIII scope on it that of course wasn't right but it came in a Less telescope marked chest with the scope and mount's numbers on it and the case.
A nice set, nothing wrong with it and would have been fully acceptable for most anyone else, but not me.
I now have a fully matching "T" with a matching scope and mount in a matching case and in a matching numbered chest that satisfies my quest fully.
There are many variables to collecting, from the purist, to the shooter, and to just an all around collector. In the end, we all enjoy which one we are. Ray
-
I should be so lucky as to "Stumble" across a few of these...
-
Have to agree with Brian (post #29), to me sticking a cheap end reproduction on is a stop gap, until an original one arrives with a scope, they are still out there and would complete the rifle in question and I doubt you would complain about the price in 10 years :D, if no bracket could be found I,d go for a Roger Payne one, I can vouch for them as I,ve got two.....
Understand the purist thing and take my hat of to them, but bits and pieces dry up but using a cheap bracket to me is like driving around in a Rolls Royce with a metal coat hanger as an Ariel, does the job but takes the shine off the whole car.....
Don't get me wrong, I,m building up a Mauser Sniper with a ZF4 scope so need a repro swept back bracket, to find an original would be finding a needle in a very large hay stack, as the rifle is only being built to show the operation of the conversion kit I have, but if one ever come my way I,d snap it up, would it be worth it on a built up rifle NO..... but you never know whats round the corner, maybe an old Mauser that was a swept back sniper ?? who knows, at least I'd have the original kit to go on it, all part of the collecting process for some of us, buying bits to complete the jigsaw.
-
Post #33 ~ I guess this strengthens my point on the parts drying up as it has to be a finite thing, no one has been producing bits and bobs for the lee service rifle line for eons so what is out there has to dry up and the prices balloon upwards just look at the cost of say just a bog standard magazine for a 303 bet they did not cost the asking price they are getting today for them from that site? Everything remotely connected with milsurp gear has gone to the stratosphere in price look at the prices for say a full set of front sights for either lee service rifle and if a M47C stamp should be on them then triple the price
Me I have given up trying to assemble a full CES for my T as logistically my location just about puts me at the nether regions of the market and the costs to get stuff here would be intrusive to say the least guess I will be happy with what I have even though it took me nearly 20 years to attain one I finally have one, the world surely is a big place.
