Originality. A few home truths

[jmoore]

Anybody else out there willing to have their rifle photo scutinized?

All we need is one good example.

It makes for good discussion.

I still think that there's examples that were sold off or sent to foreign nations outside of UK MOD cantrol during the early post war era that may have never left their crates.
Current external finsh isn't a consideration, here. Just whether it's "as built".

Plenty of "losing side" weapons that remain original. Extremely few Garands and carbines, but they are out there. Maybe a few 91/30s, but most folk don't pay attention. Wartime M44s exist in original condition. Why is ONLY the No.4 exempt? ANd only British No.4s at that? Not Savages, or Long Branches, or even No.1 dispersal rifles. Hmmm?

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.

[Brian Dick]

I'll do some photos for you JM. I'm trying to update my newly formatted website and deleting/adding a bunch of rifles so a few more No.4 photos are no problem.

[Brian Dick]

With the help of Badger, (thanks Doug), here are a couple of NOS No.4 rifles as promised. One a British Maltby made in 1942.

Attachment 26691Attachment 26689Attachment 26690

The other a Canadian Long Branch made in 1942 with New Zealand ownership marks.

Attachment 26687Attachment 26692Attachment 26688

[jmoore]

Hal O'Peridol, the first concern is the serial number punched onto the bottom of the magazine. Not a Savage marking, or is it? Otherwise, that's pretty fresh!

---------- Post added at 12:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 AM ----------

Peter Laidler also left out Savages from his list. He only mentions Maltby (which probably never made an all Maltby rifle), Fazackerly, and BSA. So for the purposes of Peter's discussion, only Fazackerlys and BSA need apply. (Unless Brian Dick's Malbty is a highly surprising exception!)

(I had to read the fine print at the bottom of Post #1 again, lest we veer of track too much.)

---------- Post added at 12:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 AM ----------

I still think Maltbys could be included if we can agree on what sub contractor parts would be proper for a particular vintage. A certain date or earlier for inclusion in "original", but that's probably going to take MUCH more research! May never be provable either, as they were "original mixmasters".

[Hal O'Peridol]

Yep, the serial number was added later. There is a scratch on the follower where some pointy headed fool used a point headed tool to remove it, so that the number could be stamped into the mag. You can see the scratch just to the right of the rivet on the follower.


You`re right about only BSAs, Maltbys and Fazackerlys in Peter`s original post, forgot that part by the time I read through all 4 pages!

Savages really are mixmasters too, IIRC I read somewhere that Savage had well over 60 subcontractors working on the No4 contract. I have a feeling that may be the reason why we see different Savage`S` stamps.

[jmoore]

Yah, but the collector's question is can a particular rifle be ascertained to have been built up at Savage (or whatever maker) with the parts that are now on it?

The Garand folk have spent years ciphering over parts production variants and time windows. Likewise M1 Carbines. (Which is a closer match to No.4 production.) Skinnerton does good work on the odd and obscure stuff, but the nitty gritty of wartime production remains murky. With reason!

However, I'm pretty sure that there ought to be some surviving original Fazackerlys out there with most or all Fazackerly parts. Buttplates will be an exception part. Possibly magazines. Sights? Not sure.

Peter Laidler's original post is pretty specific, if you get right down to it. The BRITISH built rifle must not only be original, but composed of ALL parts from the same source. Fazackerly and maybe BSA. A mixmaster MAY be original and correct, but it won't fit within the boundaries of the good Captain's premise.

[Son]

Hey, come to think of it, there were some Lithgows made with Savage parts! Fitted at the factory!

anyone care to guess?

[Hal O'Peridol]

Only thing I can think of would be sear, sear spring, mag catch, or trigger?

[Brian Dick]

I'm in agreement with Peter and others that no NOS British No.4 rifles will be comprised of parts only manufactured at the ROF. The exception might be BSA which was the only commercial No.4 producer other than Savage in the USA but they too sport contracted parts like rear sights by Singer and Lyman on Savage No.4's. My uneducated guess just from examining hundreds over the years is that wartime and 1950 Long Branch rifles probably had the least amount of contractor parts installed. It would be an interesting and endless study to find out just how many component parts were manufactured directly at the Royal Ordnance Factories and SAL LB. Were parts contracted outside of Long Branch in Canada as they were from the gun trade in the USA by Savage? Did commercial outfits like BSA draw parts from regional depots in the UK too when in need? Interesting stuff.

[Peter Laidler]

I'll spill the beans this weekend. Very busy at the moment