Printable View
Just acquired this Savage N0 4, Mk 1*:
[IMG]https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...8&d=1713030411[/IMG]
Can anyone identify the added bracket:
[IMG]https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...7&d=1713030370[/IMG]
Possibly for a scope. This rifle has the Mk II sight as well.
From the serial number it looks to be a 1944 vintage.
A non military modification. Bases for "scope claw mounts" have been added. Is the rifle sporterized or full military configuration? Very difficult to find a set of scope rings that will fit. Ron (Canada).
The rifle is not sporterized. All military except for the added bracket. Any idea who the manufacturer may be? It would be nice to mount a scope.
Anybody's guess as to who did the work. If you know rifles history that would be a good start. Does the previous Owner have the scope and rings? There's quite an offset to get a scope over the centerline of the bore most likely the scope rings were custom made to match the bases. I would remove them and have the holes plugged and install a Mk1 micrometer ladder sight and go shooting. The 300/600ytd battle sight does not offer any adjustment so I'd improve on this feature. Ron (Canada)
Assuming that I could acquire the parts I would like to know how it all went together. The offset is a bit strange looking. But, the bore is excellent so the rifle should be a good shooter. I could replace the Mk II sight, but that is the way Savage rifles came, so I might leave that alone. Maybe add a Parker-Hale sight. Simpson has some.Quote:
Originally Posted by rgg_7
It will be an over bore claw mount type set up. The Germans used it very commonly, & many of their WW1 Gewehr 98 sniper's rifles used such a system. The rear leg (ring) had a swan neck curve in it, & that is why the rear base sits to the side of the receiver. If you look at the P'14 sniper's rifle mounts, whilst not identical by any means, they are of a similar general configuration in that the rear base is offset onto the receiver side wall whilst the front base sits on the receiver ring. It will be hard to find a scope that fits as whilst a common general system, they are nearly all just a little different from each other!
Parker Hale 5C was meant for the No4. Easy install. Performs well - no need to change front sight. The side base will need to come off to mount the 5C. Ron (Canada)
You're looking for a Mannlicher-Schoenauer scope mount. Here's a link and a few pics of what one with single claw would look like. You can make your own base for the rear... https://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net/fo...pe-mount-buildQuote:
Originally Posted by Neuraleanus
Mannlicher, Austrian, on an English rifle, Hmm. I'm going to do something simpler and mount a Parker Hale sight. It has been ordered.
I'd suggest you leave well enough alone for now. The rifle would need to be welded and completely refinished to remove all traces of those mounts, (assuming the receiver ring wasn't machined to fit the front base), and you gain nothing by doing so.
If the bases are properly set up a lot of work went into getting them there and after you remove them all you have is a well-worn Savage No.4 with extra holes in it. Not worth much.
If the scope was an ex-Gew98 unit, or just believed to be one, it might have been found to have more value than the rifle when the Internet opened many eyes and made a world-wide market for such things.
The first step would be to try to trace back the ownership and locate the scope. If the trail is cold, make up a drawing of the base distances and dimensions and look around the Net for a scope and rings or just rings.
As Roger has said that arrangement of rings and bases is typical for the 1910-1939 era, plus or minus some years.
As I'm still figuring out the use of iron sights, the acquisition of a scope is deferred. For now at least, I replaced the MkII sight with a Parker Hale:
[IMG]https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...0&d=1713394160[/IMG]
All that is left of the scope mount is the front bracket and I'll just leave that as it is.
You'll find the Parker Hale sights are great to use.
Make sure you keep the knob on the elevation quick release tightened down.
You might be interested to learn that this rifle originates from the Bob Faris collection. Ian has had it listed in the Faris collection with tag number 198. His notes say "not considered to be ex-service", his description says "Factory Savage No.4 with German style tip-off mounts". As others have already indicated these are also very common for Mannlicher-Schönauer rifles.
That is interesting. I purchased this rifle at the Central Wisconsin Collector's Gun Show. I was looking for a No 4, Mk 1* and this was the only one there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Promo
By the way, proper screws for the Parker Hale arrived today:
https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...1&d=1714002057
https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...2&d=1714002096
https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...3&d=1714002127
The original scope bracket may be easily put back if I ever decide to find the required parts and rings. I have downloaded the PH5C manual from this site though the resolution isn't all that great.
Rather than going for the 'short bolt' mounting (at the rear of the PH5C that goes thru the original rear sight mounting holes) you have gone for the full length bolt.
This can cause problems, unless you have put a lock nut 'inside' the original mounting.
It is VERY easy to overtighten that rear bolt and with very little effort you can get it tight enough to distort the rifle body and trap / pinch the bolt. (Don't ask me how I know !)
So I changed it over to the short-bolt.
I found that going for the 'short bolt' option had no effect on the rifle, no apparent 'spreading under load' of the body, and allowed me to clamp the sight up nice and tight so there was no movement.
Alan, is there an acknowledged inch/lb. setting for a torque screw driver to prevent the clamping effect but also prevent loosening of the long screw? I am about to mount a picatinny rail on my Long Branch that uses a long screw to help secure the mount.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield
The bolt seems to be working fine with the long bolt, but I'll keep this idea in mind. I have more screws that I could cut.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapper740
None that I ever found, it was just a case of trial and error - tighten a bit, does the bolt run freely, tighten a bit, does the bolt run freely ............................. tighten a bit, bolt is binding so back off a fraction, does the blt now run freely ?
If you put the long bolt thru the RH side hole, then put another nut on it, push the bolt thru the left hand hole, and tighten the nut up until it touches the inside edge of the LH side hole. Back it out, fit the sight, thread and tighten the bolt up until it is tight and the LH side of the body is trapped betwen the 'lock nut' and the sight bracket.
No compression on the body and the sight is tightly clamped.
Easier to do than to describe.
Then I just decided to use he 'short bolt' method.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield
The collection was sold off through various auction companies, aside of James D. Julia also Poulin's, especially in 04/2017 and 10/2017. I made a list of some of the items with estimates and what they were sold for, but I have not recorded a lot number for this rifle. You though may be successful if you browse the three auctions I have mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuraleanus
I would say that it's a total disaster.......... The scope recoils with the rifle and as it does so, attempts to rotate rearwards. Pulling the life out of the large screw holding the front pad down. This screw is obly threaded through the relatively thin barrel socket material.
That is, unless the person has decided to go a bit further......., and into the barrel.
If you don't believe me, let me tell you that these rotatig forces by the telescope are great. So great that they have been known to shear the front pad off or, even better - or worse - rip oiff the rounded segment of the pad that locates the telescope bracket.
I know that some of you are going to refer me to the Enforcers........... And I'll give the same reply.
Some results, not quite what I wanted, but I'm learning:
1. Using the Parker Hale sight I was unable to zero the rifle. It shot several inches to the right. Upon reflection, I think this is my fault as I thought I was moving the rear sight to the left, but was actually moving it to the right. Front sight adjustments did not seem to help.
2. You do not want to mount the Parker Hale using a long screw going through the entire receiver. At the extremes of windage adjustment the sight tends to squeeze the receiver restricting bolt travel. A short screw attaching the sight to just the left side of the receiver is likely best. Perhaps this is why the rear sight is attached with a pin rather than a screw.
3. Something that I should of done from the beginning, I need to retest the rifle using the original Mk II rear sight. I also want to try replacing the flip sight with a ladder sight. I have a Long Branch style Mk III on order.
One another note; it is good to stay hydrated. I think the sun was getting to me a bit contributing to me making mistakes.
Front sight adjustment is unnecessary with the PH sights. They do it all.
That's right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuraleanus
Make sure you use original recipe ammo then. It'll shoot differently than you might think, was set up for factory ball of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuraleanus
I replaced the Parker Hale rear sight with a Mk III ladder sight:
https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...4&d=1715554535
Went to the range today and the rifle performed flawlessly. I may use the Parker Hale in the future, but for now, I'm sticking with the ladder.
If you would like to keep the concept of the Mk3 sight but would like a finer adjustment and more control, go get a Mk1.
The Mk2 & Mk3 were basically cheap and quick to produce, still gave MoM (Minute of Man) and could be called war time expedients'
You won't regret it.
Attachment 136150
Are those rear sights numbered correctly in the picture Alan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
I believe so - are you looking at the numbers stamped on them compared to the numbers 'below' ?
Remember (this is the British military we are dealing with) & that it is the 'ladder' that is the marked part (MkII etc) but the complete sight is a Mk3 as there is already a MK2 (complete sight)
OK, that explains it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield