Savage No.4 Mk1 (T) - Authentification Request

[Hesalite]

Hey guys,

I've got another authentification request for you. Brian and Badger have already given it the green light, but just interested in what others might think.

You may remember my last authentification request of the near mint No.5 Mk1, where I had a guy trying to tell me the King George proof on the 800 yard Faz rear sight stood for Long Branch, and THUS it must be a fake!

Well he's back again, claiming the following "among other things" are red flags for my rifle...

1) Lack of sling swivel at trigger guard...even though these were fitted starting in 1944...
2) Lack of scope serial on buttstock wrist...even though most Savage Snipers were never fitted with scopes...
3) ALL 0C Savages were fitted with scopes, so it MUST be wrong...look st Brian's 0C as reference...no scope or serial on buttstock wrist
4) The rifle "has been reblued during a rebuild program"...oh man, too funny.

The guy states he's a member of the board of directors and small arms curator at the National WWII Museum in New Orleans, so he must be an "exspurt" lol.

Anyways, here are photos of the rifle which should ship to my FFL this Thursday:

Imgur: Pics of less-scope Savage sniper

Thanks guys!

FYI, does anyone have one of the Numrich Reproduction scopes/mounts they'd like to sell?

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Badger]

With thanks to Advisory Panel member Lance, there's also a rare "all correct" 1942 No.4 Mk1*(T) Savage Sniper Rifle (less scope) (click here) .....

Lance's article, accompanied by a detailed 165 pic photo montage, speaks to this example as being one of approximately 3,400 Savage rifles converted by Holland and Holland and re-barreled with an Enfield 5 groove barrel, however, it was never fitted with a matching No.32 scope.

With the MKL article comments, there's also a pictorial example of a very early "0C" serial numbered Savage Sniper Rifle (less scope) owned by Brian Dick, which appears similar in many ways to the one being discussed here.

Regards,
Doug

[Hesalite]

With thanks to Advisory Panel member Lance, there's also a rare "all correct" 1942 No.4 Mk1*(T) Savage Sniper Rifle (less scope) (click here) .....

Lance's article, accompanied by a detailed 165 pic photo montage, speaks to this example as being one of approximately 3,400 Savage rifles converted by Holland and Holland and re-barreled with an Enfield 5 groove barrel, however, it was never fitted with a matching No.32 scope.

With the MKL article comments, there's also a pictorial example of a very early "0C" serial numbered Savage Sniper Rifle (less scope) owned by Brian Dick, which appears similar in many ways to the one being discussed here.

Regards,
Doug

Perhaps once I receive mine and dust it, I can take some photos and add it to the article.

[Ridolpho]

Hesalite: I'm far from an expert but I'll play along! One thing I've noticed on photos of all real H&H conversions (including my own two) is near seamless fit of the front pad to the top of the receiver. Your photos seem to show a bit of a gap there but a good clear closeup of the interior at the front pad would be helpful. It might just be a poor photo.

Ridolpho

[Hesalite]

Hesalite: I'm far from an expert but I'll play along! One thing I've noticed on photos of all real H&H conversions (including my own two) is near seamless fit of the front pad to the top of the receiver. Your photos seem to show a bit of a gap there but a good clear closeup of the interior at the front pad would be helpful. It might just be a poor photo.

Ridolpho

I think it may just be the poor quality photos. Here is a photo taken from the Article Doug posted, very similar:

Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet

[Roger Payne]

I'd agree with Ridolpho's comment about the mating surface between the top of the front pad & the receiver wall, but it may just be an effect of the light. The rifle looks fine to me. I have two Mk1* Savage T's (one scoped & one not), & one Mk1 T (0C3XX). I used to own 0C45XX, your rifle's slightly younger sister!

[browningautorifle]

There are no stake marks at the screws? The cheek piece is Birch? That would be the first one I've seen if so.

[Ridolpho]

Hesalite: Yes, it's probably just the lighting and shadows. Here are a few photos side by side (Savage and BSA T's from the Knowledge Library articles). A while back as I shopped for a "T" I collected photos of key characteristics and was always impressed by the front pad installation at H&H.

Ridolpho

[Lee Enfield]

There are no stake marks at the screws? The cheek piece is Birch? That would be the first one I've seen if so.

Very few Savage or Long Branch No4 snipers exhibit staked pad screws.

Most Brit cheek pieces appear to have been elm, or even oak.

Attachment 77686

You can see that the cheek piece is stained here.

[Hesalite]

There are no stake marks at the screws? The cheek piece is Birch? That would be the first one I've seen if so.

I didn't see any stake marks on the one Badger linked either. I'd think those were done once a scope was fitted and the pads "shaved" accordingly.