Probable Service information about a Savage No 4 MK 1*

[22SqnRAE]

Excellent, we're getting somewhere!

Thanks for the comparison Roger, that's very helpful. I do feel that this rifle was reconfigured in the UK post War at some stage, certainly for civilian purposes. Might be an individual, might be a club, might be a school, no idea.

I'll accept the flaming bomb, was not contentious, and AdE's comment is bang on the mark, thanks Alan.

The confusing things still is the absence of the US Property stamp. Was this ground off, was it such a good and careful job, was the stamping so light or crude in the first place that it made it easy for the smith to do some touch up work to make the rifle gleam? Who knows?

Great input, thanks folks, appreciate the effort. Let's hope some one will wander by and recognise the receiver ring stamp mark.

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.

[browningautorifle]

Was this ground off, was it such a good and careful job, was the stamping so light or crude in the first place that it made it easy for the smith to do some touch up work to make the rifle gleam? Who knows?

Well, you can see the file marks at the front of the receiver on that top flat...so it's just a job not a "Good and careful" job... It was just filed off.

[22SqnRAE]

Well, you can see the file marks at the front of the receiver on that top flat...so it's just a job not a "Good and careful" job... It was just filed off.

Jim,

Not being the owner of the rifle, I currently don't have better photos of the portion of the receiver. Of my 3 Savages, each has pretty rough striations perpendicular to the side face of the receiver, whereas this one doesn't.

I'm not following your pointed response to my choice of words. What was your intention that I missed? I don't get my message absolutely spot on 100% of the time, does anyone? I'll agree there's file marks, so it's not a perfect finish. We're in agreement.

I'd concede, after several views of this photo against one of my Savages, that the stamp has been ground off. (With, or without care, so as not to offend anyone's expectation of workmanship. )

Attachment 105401

In the photo above, the angled top surface intersecting the radiused vertical face clearly has a distinct misalignment at the intended tangent. So, on that basis, all those who have suggested the mark has been ground off, I reckon you have evidence right there.

Brian's information about the lighter grey colouration of the grit blasted surface seems to be supported by the finish we see now. That's really good insightful stuff, thank Brian.

Funny how with some reflection and some better information, the very strongly held opinions of some folks can be realistically challenged. I'll not delve into that back story, suffice to say I believe the view that people have presented in this discussion are quite well evidenced and reach a very similar conclusion as to the actions leading to the rifle in its current form.

The missing bit is: 'by whom?'