Do I have a Savage sniper?

[jmoore]

Wheaty, is that bracket really as devoid of file marks as it appears on my crappy work computer? Most of my brackets (except maybe the N92) look like they were deburred/cleaned up w/ a chunk of concrete!

[Warren]

Where they on a 1941 dated rifle and scope ??? I also have a Canadian bracket that is also the same and again....very early. I have no explanation, so hopefully someone will.... I seem to recall the other Savage unit also having a rather smooth bracket, but then again...the mind is the second thing to go.

[Mudhut]

I emailed Badger pics and he put them in this thread for me ...

[jmoore]

Needs more expert advice than I can give!

[Warren]

Interesting that the bolt serial number is a 0C....I know that 0C01 is a T config and mine is OC1XX....Most others were 15C so wonder if the 0C and the 15C were used/stored together at some point...someplace. Mine is WELL WORN and was like that when I got it over 40-50 years ago.....long before the days of the humpers (I think)

[RJW NZ]

hey Mudhut, that is one really nice rifle! I can just imagine it with a no 32 scope on it, lol.
Here's a pic of my 55 with one of those no42mk1 scopes. You can think of these as a no 32 but without the adjusters. I set mine up in standard rings and shimmed it to a 100 yard zero, then for longer ranges I use the range scale inside or aim over.
btw,I made a longer reply to your/this post on Jouster yesterday about what folks do for a scope without spending like a king to do it.

[Badger]

Mudhut ...

If you want to mount a modern scope on it, so you can shoot it without damaging its collector value, here's an option.

I have heard (and read) on other boards that some people have had zeroing and alignment issues with these mounts, but I have to say our own personal experience was positive and we had no problems. Perhaps we were just fortunate with the particular No.4(T)'s she's mounted them on.

~Angel~ uses them her No.4(T)'s that didn't come with their own matched No.32 scope, or at other times, simply to put a more powerful scope on any of her No.4(T)'s to see how well they shoot with better glass.

They install easily and work well, plus zeroed without any problems at all. She shot as accurately with it and the Weaver 4x, as she does with any of the actual period No.32 Mk1 or Mk3 scopes. I understand that there's also one that looks similar and its manufactured in India, as is the one from Sarco, plus if you contact Advisory Panel member Roger Payne, I believe he may be having manufactured some "reproduction" No.4(T) scope brackets as well.

Reproduction Scope Mount (Sarco Brand) for Enfield No.4(T) Sniper Rifle with Weaver 4x

(Click PIC to Enlarge)


Enfield No.4(T) Repro Scope Mount (lots more detailed pics ... click here)

Regards,
Badger

[jmoore]

Been thinking about this rifle off and on since yesterday, so some obsevations and questions-

Obs:
1. Having no "T" mark is not unusual for Savages, it just means it was never fitted w/ a scope whilst in military service. That means, technically, it is NOT a sniper rifle.
2.No "TR" mark means it was not selected for accuracy in the normal method before conversion. Also, not unusual for Savage rifles.
3.Savage No4 MK1 rifles were converted at Enfield into snipers and would not have the "S51" on the buttstock. According to Mr. Laidler, Holland and Holland received their rifles direct from the factories in England, so the question remains as to how a Mk1* ended up at the converion falilities.
4. The body pads were finish machined AFTER installation on the rifle. The whole works were then "blued" - so, the pads and body (receiver) should match in colouration, yes? This has been true of all the "T's" I've seen, although some of the later rifles have an odd almost "sandy" black finish.

5. This is pure speculation on my part, but as a machinist and mechanical engineer (designer) I have a theory as to the origins the "non-sniper" Savage conversions. That is, when creating new tooling (jigs, fixtures, and such) its best to make test runs, if possible, using either substitute materials (i.e. hard foam or wax) for the more expensive or hard to machine production materials, or using "less desirable" units that can be easily replaced if something doesn't work out right the first time. (This is even true w/ the newer CNC equipment- ya just never know!!!!)
Thus, as Savage rifles came on stream early and in considerable numbers, they would have made convienent test mules for the conversion process, w/o the time and expense of selecting those few rifles that shot rather better than most! Hollands (and Enfield?) could have worked out set-up and machining dramas as well as smoothing out the production flows by figuring out bottlenecks on the rather limited floorspace available with these Savage rifles. But I could be completely wrong!

Questions-
A. Does this rifle have 2 or 5 groove rifling?
B. Is the foresight block split (w/ the wierd screw in front) or solid. (Ya, its a split sight blade, but it wouldn't be the first time things got mixed.)
C. Have you had the buttstock off the rifle?
D. Could you post a pic of the front pad's screw ends (the part protuding into the bolt raceway)?
E. Also a pic of the rear of the receiver (w/o the bolt installed) near the safety for the little stamps on either side of the raceway would be nice.
F. If I'm full of hot air, could someone let me know?!

[Mudhut]

Here are the results from my range visit. So it's only 50 yards...but I'm happy! Given my aging eyes and bifocal glasses, I'm sure it is much more accurate than this.

(Click PIC to Enlarge)

[Badger]

Congratulations Mudhut ...

Even at 50 yards, that is a mighty fine grouping ....

Regards,
Badger