Savage No. 4 (T) Scopeless stamps?

[Brian Dick]

Back to the fact that almost anything is possible and nothing is set in stone!

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.

[Surpmil]

Here's the photo of the butt socket. I'll take another of the examiner's marks shortly.

[Roger Payne]

Agree entirely Brian. There are two words I consider it most inadvisable to use when talking about Lee Enfields; one is 'never' & the other is 'always'!!

ATB

[Warren]

Now to toss the cat among the pigeons...once again
Cleaning the boars nest and had forgotten about this one.......
enjoy.
The picture of the S 51 is a bit out of focus, but the marking has been cancelled by a flat punch.
Attachment 48683Attachment 48684Attachment 48685Attachment 48686Attachment 48687Attachment 48688Attachment 48689Attachment 48690

[Peter Laidler]

Er....... What's up with it Warren? Or am I missing something? It looks like a No4T without the T (or covered by the paint) and something barred out on the fore-end - unless it's the S51 barred out. But if it is that, it LOOKS like it reads ???1.

[Warren]

Er....... What's up with it Warren? Or am I missing something? It looks like a No4T without the T (or covered by the paint) and something barred out on the fore-end - unless it's the S51 barred out. But if it is that, it LOOKS like it reads ???1.

Scopeless No.4(T)
No T on the receiver....that we can see. (or cannot see as the case may be)
TR on butt socket....
S-51 barred out..obvious
Retake of the first picture.....A little better focus
D6 on the top of the butt socket.
Attachment 48799

[Peter Laidler]

We could also read something else about this particularly worrying thread. It effectively ensures that NO definitive book could ever be written about the markings - or lack/absence of markings - of a No4T. And it necessarily follows on that even the L42's ain't safe either!

[Roger Payne]

Don't you think these conundrums make life MORE interesting Peter? In fact it gives more subject matter for the author to write about. It's only a journal article rather than a book but I'm working on something for an association that some forummers in the UK belong to. It's concerning British & Empire Great War sniping kit. However, the almost total lack of uniformity & standardisation makes it fascinating to me. One of the problems I'm encountering is trying to keep it to a manageable length as there are so many variations - many of which 'shouldn't exist'; like a Watts scope in Purdey rings, & a Fuess/Periscopic Prism Co transitional scope in H&H rings. But you can only tell it as it is, question marks & all.

Warren, I presume your rifle has never been fitted with pads either? Otherwise, as Peter says, it wouldn't really be that remarkable (would it?). Did it really come in that transit chest though???

Sorry, I'm starting to ramble.....!

ATB

[tlvaughn]

For the past week I have been watching a 1942 Savage No4 MkI T Less Telescope (0C5073) on one of the on-line auction sites. The bidding started off slow and I planned on bidding on the rifle, but on the last day, jumped higher than I wanted to pay. After 23 bids (11 bidders), it ended up selling for $1,370.00 shipped.

[wotter]

The Savage I was interested in (which prompted this thread) has scope pads and is stamped with a 'T' on the side of the body.
That is all.
There is no 'S51' 'TR' or 'S' ( on cutoff side).
It does have a scope and bracket, but that is known to have been added later.
This rifle was originally purchased in the UK in the late 60's early 70's.
So; Savage No4 Scopeless or wot?