Savage No 1 Mk3 style -

[Badger]

Looks like this one has come around on Gunborker again ...

Savage Experimental Rifle (British SMLE style)

Regards,
Doug

[Peter Laidler]

Like a previous forumer said earlier, there wouldn't be just ONE of these............, contracts just don't work like that. And of the 50 or so, one would be in the PR. If it was actually TESTED, then one would (?) be at Warminster or at least the records would be............ But never say never

[xa-coupe]

He's not giving up on the price either ....

[TonyE]

Like Paul, I have been following these rifles for a number of years and based on information I found whilst researching my British WWI secondary weapons books I believe the most likely answer is as follows.

In February 1915 the War Office was approached by a Mr.Boon who claimed to represent a group of American industrialists interested in manufacturing rifles for the British army. After some discussions he was given a contract for as many rifles as could be delivered by December 1915 up to a maximum of 400,000. They were to be of SMLE Mark III configuration and complete with Pattern 1907 bayonet and scabbard, packed in regulation crates and to cost $30.00 each f.o.b. New York.

In April 1915 the War Office shipped ten new Mark III rifles to act as patterns to the consortium, now known as the Imperial Contracting Company. In the meantime British representatives in New York had been asked to look into the background of the company and its principals and it was soon discovered that they had no manufacturing facilities of their own. They intended having components made by a number of New England manufacturers and then rifles assembled at Hopkins and Allen. Captain Smyth-Piggot, the senior British inspector in the U.S. raised serious doubts about both the members of imperial and their ability to complete the contract. He wrote some scathing reports about both the company and the people and recommended cancellation.

Imperial had been hawking the contract around the New England arms manufacturers and had supplied pattern SMLEs to Savage, Stevens and Westinghouse. In May 1915 Remington formally complained to the War Office that Imperial’s efforts to find contractors was having a negative effect on their own Pattern ’14 contract and demanded that the Imperial contract be cancelled.

When Imperial requested an extension to their delivery contract to May 1916 this was all the War Office needed and cancelled the contract.
The foregoing is only a very brief outline of the events concerning Imperial but is enough to give an idea of the story. I have copies of most of the correspondence between the War Office and the solicitors acting for Imperial.

Now to the rifle in question. I have seen other close-up pictures and apart from the action and stock all other parts, sights, nosecap etc., are Enfield made and marked. I do not know whether the barrel is Enfield or Savage though. I have always thought this rifle was made by Savage as a prototype and used the major sub assemblies from the pattern SMLE supplied to them for ease and speed. However, the comments about the date of the Savage action have now cast a spanner into those ideas!

There is no similar rifle in the Pattern Room collection (Now the Nation Firearms Centre).

Is it possible that the action could have been prototyped in 1915/16?

Regards
TonyE

[Surpmil]

I would have thought this was a WWI effort, but I suppose it could have been WWII, as the rifle situation was even more dire in 1940/41 than it was in 1914-16.

A non-starter from the get-go IMO, as the WD would never allow a Mauser action to be fitted up like an SMLE lest the troops make unfavourable comparisons! My instincts tell me this is why the P14 was shuffled around, usually in second line service, and sneered at by such as Maj. Reynolds as "the rather rough American P14".

I supose he never saw a Maltby or Fazackerly No4 from before 1944!

The long range sights and wood inletted for a magazine cutoff also suggest 1914/15 to me. But then they did put a cutoff on the first No4s too....

The No4 mag is probably just stuck in for looks by the seller. In either case, an SMLE mag would have been fitted.

[poilu]

I agree with TonyE - in fact Imperial entered into an arrangement with Hopkins & Allen to produce the Enfield Rifles. Factory expansions were begun and pretty far along when the British gov't cancelled the contract for the Enfields leaving H&A in a bad spot, until the Belgians came along. The new book "Allied Rifle Contracts in America" has full story- which BTW TonyE had no small part.

[tiriaq]

There was a Savage rifle made on a similar action that resembled an '03 Springfield. It is my understanding that the action used in this prototype rifle eventually evolved into the 1920 sporting rifle.

[tiriaq]

This photo is from Otteson's book "The Bolt Action", vol.2. It shows the Springfieldish prototype, along with a 1920 sporting rifle. The sporter was derived from the military; military action was 1 1/2" longer. Note that the initial patent dates are during WWI.



I suspect that the SMLEish version was developed about the same time. Probably these were company projects, not ones solicited by any government agency.

The Pedersen device for the Springfield is well known. There were also protoytpes for the Mosin Nagant and the SMLE; don't know about the P'14 and M1917.

[poilu]

don't know about the Pederson Device for the SMLE. I did see a Mosin-Nagant and US M1917 Pederson years ago at Peter Cardonnes (spelling?). Don't know if they were legit-they looked good.

[tiriaq]

Forty or so years ago a friend was in the Canadian War Museum, doing some research. He saw the Pedersen SMLE prototype. They had no idea what it was. I have no idea about where it is now.
Wm. B. Edwards owned the MN Pedersen at one time. There were photos published of it at a range.