Savage Lee Enfield not lend lease

[enfield303t]

I have a No 4 made by Savage that is not marked US Property. It does have the "flaming bomb" mark meaning it was US Arsenaled ? How common were these guns compared to the Lend Lease guns?

Thanks

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.

[tlvaughn]

All of the Savage made No4 MkI's and MkI*'s were stamped "U.S. PROPERTY". I have a '41 and '42 MkI and a '42, '43 dated, '43 not dated, and '44 MkI* and they are all marked "U.S. PROPERTY". The rumor is that an officer of the British army did not like the property mark and ordered it scrubbed off. As far as how many, I'm not sure if anyone will be able to answer that.

[enfield303t]

Thanks tlvaughn but it doesn't appear it was ever scrubbed and having the flaming bomb makes it interesting. I have been told that at some times the US used Lee Enfields as it was easier in that theatre to get .303 ammo. If that happened I know it would be very uncommon. I also have a US Property No 4 and when comparing them it is evident both are original.

Just talked to a good friend who has countless Lee Enfields and has seen the gun. He told me my No 4 was not the first one he has seen lacking the US Property mark and having the US "flaming bomb' marking.

[bearhunter]

I know that rifle personally, and it isn't the first No4 Savage to be seen, without lend lease markings. The serial number, is in the proper range and all of the rest of the stamps, are authentic. The receiver is untouched and original. It certainly isn't a one off, although I do admit they aren't frequently encountered. It's a very clean rifle.
I've heard a similar rumor, but was informed by a deceased friend, that was a WWII REME, that just wan't true. The rifle, came from "Tiny" Tim Ryan's estate and Wheaty can vouch for the validity of his credentials.

[tlvaughn]

The serial number, is in the proper range and all of the rest of the stamps, are authentic.

Is there a known serial number range of rifles without the "U.S. Property" mark?

[Badger]

I'd love to see some quality close up pics of this piece ...

It could make for a nice addition to the Savage Enfield Rifle articles in the MKL ....

Regards,
Badger

[breakeyp]

Considering how one would process the tooling operations for the receiver, I can see the markings would have required three stations along the assembly process.

1. Markings on the receiver flat
2. US Property mark on the receiver angled flat. This could not have been done at the same time as the receiver flat due to the angled receiver surface.
3. Serial number on socket

Given that the markings were a three part operation, i can see where the US marking might have been overlooked and later ignored if discovered. Like any volume series production line--manure happens. You don't want to know how sausage or automobiles are made.

[SpikeDD]

I've seen a couple of Savage rifles over the years missing the US PROPERTY marks that clearly had no signs of being scrubbed. I don't think there is any serial number range for it, just a random mishap. All Savage manufactured No.4's were produced under the lend lease act so with or without a US marking on it, it's still a lend lease rifle. If there is any truth to some of our soldiers being issued No.4's, I would think they were issued them in Europe, not having left the US with them but, that's just my opinion.

[Peter Laidler]

Spike, being a bit pedantic, I think that the first Savage rifles were manufactured on a cash and carry basis so actually belonged to the UK. Only later did they become Lend Lease. It doesn't change the thread in any way of course. Or am I wrong here? Pre-Dec 41, cash and carry, paid for, up front, in gold. Post then, lend lease and they remained US property.

As I said, I could be wrong but I recall the true story of the Catalina flying boats and the Diamond-T tank transporters (and half tracks) that we were using up until the early 70's

[SpikeDD]

Thanks Peter, that certainly is a much more accurate account to the story of them I have heard and read about in the past. I remember now a discussion about them in years past with examples having been brought forth with mid production serial numbers, sort of clouding the early only suggestion. I would wager a guess to the early "cash and carry" examples being legitimate non US PROPERTY marked examples where as the later ones could certainly be as Mr. Breakey suggests... a random example of s**t happens.