New Look at Mark 4 #1* [T] After Reading "An Armourer's Perspective"

[PrinzEugen]

I think mine and Entry Level's 4ts with savage backsights and the S on the action make it two roger
Mine has a new set of woodwork too so I don't doubt that the rear sight could well have been changed at some point - who knows what state it arrived back in the uk from the subcontinent! I do however know that the barrel is original.

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.

[Roger Payne]

Maths never was my strong point.........

[PrinzEugen]

Should I change it to an SM one though? Would that make it 'original' or 'correct' or whatever??? On the other hand there's even a slight chance it might be the original sight.

[Roger Payne]

We'll never know for sure......but I genuinely think that SOME 43 BSA's were fitted with S rearsights intentionally, & the most plausible explanation that I can think of would be that they were otherwise satisfactory rifles for conversion but would have failed spec due to having a battle or fabricated rear sight....It would also explain why these rifles are encountered without the S; though clearly some of them do have it too!! I'm all ears if anyone else has a different take on it......I suppose S sights could have been delivered to BSA for run of production fitting if there had been a shortage of Mk1 sights here in the UK., but I doubt it, as there isn't a plethora of standard spec 43 BSA No4's reported as having Savage sights on them; I've never heard of a shortage of such sights reported by BSA; & logistically it would seem unlikely. Just dunno for sure!!

To go back to your original question; if it were mine, I'd leave it as it is. If it had had an obvious replacement fitted post-War such as a Faz made sight then I might consider changing it, but yours could well be the 'original'.

ATB

[Brian Dick]

I think a lot of Savage spare parts were shipped along with complete rifles in '42-'43. I've seen several ROF Maltby rifles with Savage parts installed during new production. I've tried to talk some guys out of changing them because they think they're incorrect on a British production rifle. The same holds true for Long branch rifles produced after the end of Savage production in 1944. They shipped all of the remaining spares to Long Branch where they were used in new rifle production. Would it simply be a case of using spares as requisitioned? If they got a box of Savage Mk.1 rear sights, then modify and use them. I wouldn't change them. They're probably right as rain.

[Entry Level]

Since the scope is off for overhaul I shot the Enfield without. The S rear sight worked well, looks within requirements for group size. I tinkered with front sight also to bring strike to the right with some success. I include a pic of target. Disregard the Gibbs target it's just part of picture. One of the shooters was using a diopter on his glasses and said it helped with the focus on front sight and target. Has anyone used this device or have a comment? thanks for all the info.

Attachment 34435

[Brian Dick]

Nice group. Nothing wrong with that rifle.