Savage No4 (T) Register

[Surpmil]

We were discussing in another thread whether the Savage and perhaps Maltby rifles were converted as they had Mk.I backsights already fitted and other No4s did not at that time.

Could it also be the case that the incomplete "Less Telescope" Savage rifles we see were put aside unfinished when either a supply of Mk.I sights was secured from Savage or UK production caught up, allowing BSA rifles to be used exclusively?

The fact that a quantity of them could possibly have built up at H&H does suggest that the conversion process was in two parts: the fitting of the pads, and the later fitting of the brackets. Perhaps the latter process was slower as otherwise it's hard to see how a quantity of any rifles could accumulate without brackets being fitted. Fitting the brackets did involve range zeroing, transportation etc. so wouldn't be so surprising if a backlog developed?

Michael Doyne, are you compiling an Excel spreadsheet with all these details?

[Roger Payne]

IIRC PL told me that when he was researching the book he discovered that the pads/bracket fitting & machining was indeed carried out in two parts. The pads were made & fitted, but the precise machining of the spigot was left until the time came for the actual fitting of the bracket, when mating surfaces on both parts were done as an ensemble. It makes sense. I have never bought this line that the 'Less Telescope' rifles were all set up late on to ensure H&H got the maximum remuneration before the contracts were cancelled in April 1946. I know I've banged on about this before, but there are minor but very real differences in the contour of the radius running along the top front face of the front pad. The radius of the edge of the 90 degree turn becomes progressively 'sharper' as production history goes on. It is very easy to distinguish a set of pads off a 1941 to 1943 rifle compared to a 1945 rifle if you know what you're looking for. The pads on ALL Savage rifles conform to the 'early style'. However, if the initial machining was done early on, but the rifles were not finished off until near the death, that might just explain the apparent dichotomy.

I don't know any better than anyone else on the early conversions but I suspect that in the early days, when H&H were just getting started on the conversions, any rifle that satisfied the accuracy standards & generally fitted the spec requirements was set aside for conversion, regardless of manufacturer. And perhaps the fact that a lot of (all??) early Savage & Maltby rifles came with the appropriate Mk1 rear sights clearly didn't hurt. Equally evidently, over time relaxations in the spec were allowed, such as the solid foresight block & the acceptance of rifles with the wrong pattern of rear sights, so long as correct replacement sights were available.

[Surpmil]

I have never seen an sign of hand fitting on pads or bracket mating surfaces, but have others?

The 6(?) MOA tolerance for alignment is surprisingly generous, so much so that it suggests to me that brackets and pads were machined in standard jigs, assembled and then perhaps checked for collimation with a zeroed scope of some kind, before the No32 scope was fitted to the bracket and the lot sent out for range testing.

Is it your understanding Roger that the mating surfaces on the brackets were machined at H&H or at the factory making the brackets?

To machine the pads the barrelled action was held in a jig with a hardened rod running down the bore as the control surface, that much I remember of Peter's comments.

There is no way to change the lateral alignment once the front pad is machined, except to remove material from the shoulder around the spigot, (or the corresponding surface on the bracket), but that only moves the MPI to the left - there is no way to move it to the right except to remove metal from the mating surfaces on the rear leg/pad, and of course unless that is done perfectly evenly, the vertical alignment is changed!

Another option would be to move the rear pad up or down before securing it, but we know the mating surfaces were cut after it was fitted, so that is out, and we never see any variation in the placement of the rear pad ?

Seems the relationships of the mating surfaces to each other just don't permit adjustment without throwing other surfaces out of alignment, meaning I think that it must all have been done on jigs and selective fitting of different brackets was only option for adjustment.

And the relevance of all that to the Savage rifles would be that IF that was the process, then the pad surfaces were cut on a jig, and if there was any adjustment it was done later, and probably on the brackets, meaning a backlog of rifles with finished pads would be a possibility from that perspective.

[Roger Payne]

Very valid points. I don't know how relevant this observation is, but one thing I have definitely noticed over the years, from re-fitting many sets or part sets of pads to original 4T's, is that the vertical variation noticed was quite small, & the amount that a rifle was 'out' in lateral adjustment was small, in MOST cases, but could be considerable in rifles encountered from time to time. I mention this because when David I bought the batch of around 140 partially stripped 4T's back in 1997 we spent the next ten years (we weren't in any hurry!) slowly rebuilding them all in my garage workshop. The vast majority had had one or both pads removed. Fortunately, we also bough several bags full of removed parts, which included the pads for most of the rifles (plus a lot of the woodwork, less checkpieces). The late Graham Smith made us some truly magnificent reproduction pads to make up the shortfall. You can imagine the fun & games we had retro-fitting the pads, & it was very much a learning experience as one went along. A lot of what little I know of the subject came from this experience. PL received periodic phone calls for advice, & was always helpful. I remember on one occasion I had to use a reproduction rear pad & the lateral setting was way out. I had to sweat & unsweat that rear pad several times, surface grinding a couple of thou off its rear surface each time, until we could achieve collimation. PL laughed & said he was glad.......simply because that was the correct way to do it, & having to go through such a bXXl-ache procedure was the best way of learning! He was right......
Having done all that I came to the conclusion that the large lateral errors we occasionally experienced were when I was trying to fit an 'early' front pad, say from a B1941 or ROFM1941 rifle to a BSA 1945 (or vice versa), & was probably down to the minor dimensional differences in the rifle bodies resulting in rather different amounts of meat being removed from the pads at the time of the 'mating machining'. As might follow, I also found that so long as a front pad off a 1944/45 rifle was re-fitted to a 1944/45 rifle, they almost invariably fitted sweetly, with relatively few problems in collimation. I am not disagreeing with what PL & others have always emphasised about the importance of keeping the appropriate scopes, brackets & rifles mated together, indeed my observations, such that they are, tend to confirm such, but, if correct, may give a little more insight into why it is important.......

Just my ramblings.........forgive me!

[Surpmil]

Very interesting Roger, I suppose it was accepted in service refits of brackets that changing the lateral alignment inevitably meant only partial contact on the front pad mating surfaces, as removing metal from those surfaces would misalign the spigot and the corresponding hole in the bracket, which have to be a tight fit to maintain any zero?

(Sorry about the slight hijack Michael!)

[Micheal Doyne]

Michael Doyne, are you compiling an Excel spreadsheet with all these details?

Yes all going into an excel, is love to understand the savage conversions better. Hoping post covid to visit a few more, as I've only seen a couple in person.

[Cottage Hill Bill]

0C769 Less telescope and apparently never issued judging by condition.

[Micheal Doyne]

Thanks I will add it to the list. I am interested does it have any stamps top right rear of the receive, above wrist to the right of the bolt track?

[MJ1]

12C top and 15C btm

[Micheal Doyne]

Those two are very nice looking rifles. Are you happy to share there markings and location. Am particularly interested in any T stamps, S51 and scope numbers. Thanks