Can someone tell me just what the heck is going on here?!!

I recently purchased a package deal of 2 No4 sporterised rifles with full length barrels.
One is a savage no4mk1* with 2 groove barrel that had the bayonet lugs removed, barrel polished and blued and weaver TO-1 mount installed. It’s a shame because everything on the rifle is correct, all savage parts and magazine.

The other is the head scratcher. It is a British made No4mk1 (not mk1*) with intact full length 5 groove barrel. It has certainly seen an FTR at some point. There is a faint British serial number on the wrist and a pronounced Savage serial stamped over top of it.
There is a broad arrow and 1942 stamped just below the safety.
Oh and there is a bizarre star stamped on the top of the Knox.

What’s with the savage serial number??

Any info on what I’m looking at is greatly appreciated!

https://imgur.com/a/jJqUqmV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonh172

Oh and there is a bizarre star stamped on the top of the Knox.

---

That is generally stamped by an Armourer to show rust in the barrel.

Rifle still usable but is to let the Sergeant know that the soldier will not be able to get a nice clean, shiney barrel.

Your link doesn't work, at least for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapper740

Your link doesn't work, at least for me.

---

Its OK for me.

Here's the second pic of the knoxform marking.

Usually put on the Nock's Form wasn't it, rather than the receiver ring? Would make more sense as a barrel could always be replaced. Looks like the armourer(?) had no asterisk stamp and just used a straight edged chisel(?) He probably chose that spot realizing that the curve of that part of the receiver would limit the length of the lines creating the right effect. Except of course a strike in parallel with the bolt/barrel.;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Usually put on the Nock's Form wasn't it, rather than the receiver ring?

---

I have examples of two different instructions, one says "on top of the breech and indicated rust found in bore" whilst the other says (item 18) ..................

I'm sure I've seen the asterisk marked both on the top of the receiver ring & on the Knock's form, over the years.

The rifle appears to be a BSA 1942 example, retaining its original barrel (in all likelihood). The butt socket also bears the letters 'AA', which I think may be indicative of ownership by an Indian or another Southern Asian state. The overstamped Savage serial number has clearly been there a long time & I wonder if, for whatever reason, it was transposed during this period of the rifle's military service???

And the additional "serial number (s)" faintly visible it photo #1?

I can only see two serials: the original BSA 1941/42 era serial (faintly engraved) & the 53C Savage replacement marks, (deeply stamped). I can't quite make out the letter prefix to the original serial; maybe an 'L', 'H', or 'N'?? The four digit number is rather clearer & looks like 6053 to me.

Why the number was altered I've no idea, but I've come across it periodically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

That is generally stamped by an Armourer to show rust in the barrel.

Rifle still usable but is to let the Sergeant know that the soldier will not be able to get a nice clean, shiney barrel.

---

Thanks Alan!
I wonder if this is the case because the bore on this thing is brilliant!!

---------- Post added at 12:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 AM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

I can only see two serials: the original BSA 1941/42 era serial (faintly engraved) & the 53C Savage replacement marks, (deeply stamped). I can't quite make out the letter prefix to the original serial; maybe an 'L', 'H', or 'N'?? The four digit number is rather clearer & looks like 6053 to me.

Why the number was altered I've no idea, but I've come across it periodically.

---

Thanks Roger!

I too can only see 2 serials and the faint one in the right light appears to be preceded by an N.

The top of the barrel has SURREY stamped on it, were they known for changing barrels at all? This one is like new.

There were plenty of what were known as 'LOST OR INDISTINCT SERIAL NUMBERS' and the worst offenders were No4's, 5's No8's and Stens ......., all made at the dreaded Fazakerley. If 80 rifles went into the main Field or Base workshop for overhaul, all numbered and recorded on the AFG 1045, then 80 would be returned. If a number was lost or indistinct then those would be numbered to suit the numbers on the AFG 1045 and returtned to the unit.

There was another more troublesome method but where there's a will, there is always a simple way. It looks to me like this was the case here. Indistinct number match to another on the working documentation. Everyone is happy.

As a matter of interest, there were many hundreds of Fazakerley No8 rifles that came in, serial numbered CRxxxx from the VAOS number that was marked more clearly than the serial number

If my memory os right, the AA marking is an area code relating to the Indian reserve forces... Alambarahad was the suggestion by our ever helpful Indian Army Liaison Officer. A bit like the old butt marking discs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

There were plenty of what were known as 'LOST OR INDISTINCT SERIAL NUMBERS' and the worst offenders were No4's, 5's No8's and Stens ......., all made at the dreaded Fazakerley. If 80 rifles went into the main Field or Base workshop for overhaul, all numbered and recorded on the AFG 1045, then 80 would be returned. If a number was lost or indistinct then those would be numbered to suit the numbers on the AFG 1045 and returtned to the unit.

There was another more troublesome method but where there's a will, there is always a simple way. It looks to me like this was the case here. Indistinct number match to another on the working documentation. Everyone is happy.

As a matter of interest, there were many hundreds of Fazakerley No8 rifles that came in, serial numbered CRxxxx from the VAOS number that was marked more clearly than the serial number

If my memory os right, the AA marking is an area code relating to the Indian reserve forces... Alambarahad was the suggestion by our ever helpful Indian Army Liaison Officer. A bit like the old butt marking discs

---

Well Peter you don’t just once again prove you are a wealth of knowledge but a treasure! Thank you for this!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonh172

I recently purchased a package deal of 2 No4 sporterised rifles with full length barrels.
One is a savage no4mk1* with 2 groove barrel that had the bayonet lugs removed, barrel polished and blued and weaver TO-1 mount installed. It’s a shame because everything on the rifle is correct, all savage parts and magazine.

The other is the head scratcher. It is a British made No4mk1 (not mk1*) with intact full length 5 groove barrel. It has certainly seen an FTR at some point. There is a faint British serial number on the wrist and a pronounced Savage serial stamped over top of it.
There is a broad arrow and 1942 stamped just below the safety.
Oh and there is a bizarre star stamped on the top of the Knox.

What’s with the savage serial number??

Any info on what I’m looking at is greatly appreciated!

Imgur: The magic of the Internet

---

My guess would be that the armourer was fitting a new bolt for whatever reason and the bolt was a salvaged part with that serial number on it and so it was easier to make the rifle match the bolt than to make the bolt match the rifle.
The crappy electro-pencil job on the original serial number allowing such a short-cut(?)

A deeply stamped serial number on a bolt handle requires a good deal of careful peening and filing to prepare the surface for a new number as there is not enough "meat" on the average bolt handle to just grind the old number away or line it out and stamp another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

My guess would be that the armourer was fitting a new bolt for whatever reason and the bolt was a salvaged part with that serial number on it and so it was easier to make the rifle match the bolt than to make the bolt match the rifle.

---

I think it very unlikely that such a thing would happen in the British Army (maybe the Colonials, who didn't always obey the rules, might have done it).

From 1925 the body (action) is the 'master component' and IS the firearm, everything else attached to the body is just an accessory & were numbered to the body.

If your conjecture is correct then you'd find that the magazine, forend etc would all have the original numbers bared out and the new (bolt) number applied to each of them

Maybe your 'Armourer' was resting under the Shade-tree and had just had a new set of stamps bought for him to play with, so he gave them a try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

I think it very unlikely that such a thing would happen in the British Army (maybe the Colonials, who didn't always obey the rules, might have done it).

From 1925 the body (action) is the 'master component' and IS the firearm, everything else attached to the body is just an accessory & were numbered to the body.

If your conjecture is correct then you'd find that the magazine, forend etc would all have the original numbers bared out and the new (bolt) number applied to each of them

Maybe your 'Armourer' was resting under the Shade-tree and had just had a new set of stamps bought for him to play with, so he gave them a try.

---

Thanks for the grin! :D Don't we see enough rubbish and rubbishy work on UK made Enfields, to say nothing of every other kind of former industrial product of the former "workshop of the world"? I had a No.4 trigger guard in my hands the other day that was truly a sight to behold.

Do we need to review industrial history here? "The Trouble-shooter" with Sir John Harvey Jones for example?

Of course the case could be made that it was largely the craftsmen and women who were betrayed by a useless managerial and political class, more intent on the airs and graces of social presumption than pursuing mere "trade".

On the other hand, people who can't be bothered file a rough edge off a receiver or stamp on a serial number properly even in wartime, are the kind of careless slobs who will always end up working for someone else.

Who owns the surviving "names" of former glories now?

Who allows firms like Wikinson Sword or the Whitechapel Bell Foundry to go under? Or Parker-Hale or a thousand others?

The kind of people who might as well let their toffee-nosed mentality of former days go with them, that's who.

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Thanks for the grin! Don't we see enough rubbish and rubbishy work on UK made Enfields, to say nothing of every other kind of former industrial product of the former "workshop of the world"? I had a No.4 trigger guard in my hands the other day that was truly a sight to behold.

---

The Fazkerley quality was bad enough when they employed Monkeys, but it went considerably futher downhill when the Monkeys were replaced by the local 'scouse' humans. One of the problems was that the locals had little comprehension of the Alphabet, but were happy to start at the beginning - hence, virtually every Faz rifle being stamped with the Letter A.
Had production continued long enough they may have moved onto the letter "B"

The Monkeys were sent over to Maltby where they just couldn't understand the local Yorkshire accent which resulted in some interesting features including 20,000 No4s being marked as Mk1*, however the Monkeys eventually learned to understand the locals and by the end, the markings and quality of Maltby production was quite good.

"There are no bad regiments, only bad officers".

The most stupid can be trained to do a simple job and do it well, but they must be made to feel they are part of a team, that they are treated with a proper degree of respect, and that their work however "humble" is valued by their so-called leaders, who should also demonstrate an awareness that they share the same proportion of their DNA with the large primates.

And if that is not sufficient to produce best efforts, then there is always discipline.