Savage No. 4 Mk1*T (????)

[Ridolpho]

Alan de Enfield: Yes, the US marks are clear- it's the smear to the left that I'm wondering about. The Enfield inspectors mark (as shown in Mr. Laidlers book) has a crown at the top and various letters beneath. In any case there appeared to me to be non-random marks there, then I saw the very small mark on the referenced library of knowledge rifle and it caused a couple of random brain cell-firings. I realize I'm grasping at straws and promise to stop!

Ridolpho

[bigduke6]

I think those litle 'figure 8' type marks could be the US proof marks - the 'flaming bomb'

Alan I,m sure the flaming bomb was a Military Ordnance mark, I know on the M1903 the proof mark was the same as a centre punch mark, it was found in the centre of the flaming bomb on barrels and just a punch mark around the serial number.

[MJ1]

That back pad looks strange to me.

[Ridolpho]

MJ1: Is that yours and is it an H&H conversion? In addition to the much neater pad installation, what distinguishing marks does it have? The pads on my probable fake are set back a good quarter inch, apparently to be entirely within the shallow "scallop" on the body. Does it retain an original Savage barrel? Looks very nice. Do you use a scope on it?

[MJ1]

It has a five groove barrel. These are not target rifles. A helmet at 500M is a grand day.Reports say some T's made record breaking shot by today's standards. My first five shots with this unissued rifle at 100 yards made a five shot nightmare..

[Peter Laidler]

Ridolpho, in the nicest possible way, you are clutching at straws. Stop worrying about the smeared mark (that's all is it, a smeared mark.....) and accept that the rifle is real but the remainder is a fake - or as we say in technical language - as straight as a corkscrew

The front pad was permitted to be slightly to the rear of the breech ring of the body but only by approx the width of a hacksaw blade. And even then, it was for a special reason and not a general rule.

[Ridolpho]

Peter: Thanks for your decisive comments. Hopefully this thread will prove useful to other (particularly greenhorns) like me faced with a decision about a potential Savage "T". I went to this particular show looking for a Snider Enfield (none present) and got sucked in by this #4 amongst piles of sporterized #1 MkIII's. Should have known better but wanted to go home with a rifle! Given the guns general good condition I believe I'll proceed with my plans to put a Weaver K3 on it and (using the general approach in your "creating a sniper" articles) attempt to get it to shoot. I plan to leave all my old guns to a nephew so it'll never get re-sold as a "T".

Ridolpho (henceforth, the Rube).

[Roger Payne]

A bit late in the day I know (been away for a long weekend!), but I would concur exactly with Badger's comments. I know permission was granted for the front pad to be set back a little from the receiver ring, but I've seen a few 4T's & L42's over the years & I've NEVER seen a genuine one where this situation actually happened. I suspect the serial number range being around 11 to 15C (& indeed the fact that not that many Mk1* Savage's were converted) is simply because H&H after initially taking rifles from BSA, Maltby, & Savage, soon reverted to BSA only for obvious logistical & quality control (tolerance consistency) reasons. Peter will correct me if I'm out but I suspect this would probably have been in the second half of 1942. A rifle serialled well into the 20's C would be right out there on its own. I suspect the T TR etc were added by the same person who fitted the pads.

But as the others have already said......it looks a tidy enough rifle. Let us know how it shoots.