1940 Savage no. 4 mk1?

[conec]

Here's what I found: "By the late 1930s the need for new rifles grew, and the Rifle, No. 4 Mk I was first issued in 1939 but not officially adopted until 1941." The citation for this is:
Skennerton (1994, 2), p.5
I got it from wikipedia...I know a lot of people say that it is not reliable, but if that info really comes from Skennerton's book I would assume it is accurate. Does anyone have that book to reference it?
Lee-Enfield - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
under Rifle no. 4, first sentence.

Keep in mind that the Wiki article is discussing No.4 production in general terms. North American production (as discussed above) started later than that in the UK...

[clarkmilitaria]

OK, thanks for clarifying. It was just something to keep in mind and I wanted to know if it was valid. I hope to take photos tomorrow.

[tlvaughn]

Here's what I found: "By the late 1930s the need for new rifles grew, and the Rifle, No. 4 Mk I was first issued in 1939 but not officially adopted until 1941." The citation for this is:
Skennerton (1994, 2), p.5
I got it from wikipedia...I know a lot of people say that it is not reliable, but if that info really comes from Skennerton's book I would assume it is accurate. Does anyone have that book to reference it?
Lee-Enfield - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
under Rifle no. 4, first sentence.

I'm going to assume that they are referring to the No4 Trials rifles. To quote Skennerton referring to ROF-Faz, ROF-Maltby, and BSA-Shirley, "These three factories commenced manufacture of the new rifle in 1941". As far as North American production, he states the following about Long Branch, "By 30th June 1941, the Long Branch factory had a staff of 735 and the first five rifles had been completed and submitted for tests and trials". And as stated above, the first Savage rifle was test fired on July 25, 1941.

Instead of quoting from the internet and the books, lets see how fast we can get some pictures posted. The problem you will run into without the pictures is that to date, not one 1940 No4 MkI has ever surfaced from any of the above - Faz, Maltby, BSA, Long Branch, or Savage.

We are a visual bunch here, so get us some pictures.

[Peter Laidler]

I say don't bother with the pictures and settle down all of you forumers out there. While I'm no historian by any means, I can tell you that it's definately not a Savage 1940.......................

[tlvaughn]

I say don't bother with the pictures and settle down all of you forumers out there. While I'm no historian by any means, I can tell you that it's definately not a Savage 1940.......................

I agree PL, you are just more direct than I am.

With that said, I have also learned to never say never with Enfields!

[muffett.2008]

Yep, now you've thrown down the gauntlet for some bugger to stamp one on and try to pass it of as the almost unobtainium.

[clarkmilitaria]

I called the owner today and got voicemail twice, so he was not in, and got no calls back. After all, it is Sunday. Based on your advice I'll just ask him over the phone to look at the gun to see if it truly does say 1940. If it does, I'll get photos, if not, then I won't bother. And if someone really wanted to stamp on 1940 they would...and most likely not as a result of this thread. This thread was intended only as a question of if a 1940 no. 4 is possible, because when the owner handed me the gun he said "its 1940" and I'm pretty sure I saw 1940 as well. No harm meant.

[Lance]

For your enjoyment. Here is OC68 (68th rifle built at Savage) that was just sold on gunbroker (converted to a sniper). Sadly sporterized. Plus her sister OC64, FTR'd in 1949, also an ex-gunbroker that was sanded and urethaned. Both dated 1941.

[Roger Payne]

I would concur with PL, Lance & TLV etc. However, I don't doubt the poster's sincerity. I just wonder if '1940' might feature in the serial number & have been mistaken as the date? Also, many users of Enfield Rifles, particularly post-WW2 stamped rack/inventory numbers into their rifles (there have been a number of posts on this very forum). Some decent photo's will no doubt solve the mystery....

ATB

[clarkmilitaria]

You could be correct, like I said, it was a brief look. But, I'm not going to let it go until I know for certain if I was mistaken about the date, although I hope I'm not. I know it seems extremely unlikely, but that is why I posed the question here in the first place.