Thoughts on this Savage 4T - See No 4C1698

[Roy W]

For sale in the UK, is it genuine?

Attachment 121776Attachment 121777Attachment 121778Attachment 121779Attachment 121780


Listed here: https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/a...2-ade2011445dc

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.

[limpetmine]

When did (T)'s get reworked by Fulton? Details say it says "Regulated by Fulton". Unaware that any (T)'s wore that designation or that Fulton did sniper work in WWII. Sounds fishy to me.
Also it says "fitted period scope" which is an odd way to describe what ostensibly you're trying to sell as an original without saying it's original.
I'd have to have an expert show me how it's right before I dropped thousands on it.

And further, a Savage would have mounted a 1941/1942/1943 scope, but certainly by 1944 enough T's were being pushed out they didn't need to go to the Savage shelf.

[Roy W]

When did (T)'s get reworked by Fulton? Details say it says "Regulated by Fulton". Unaware that any (T)'s wore that designation or that Fulton did sniper work in WWII. Sounds fishy to me.

That was my concern. I suppose a previous owner could have got it regulated by Fultons privately.

However, why undermine the integrity of a classic.

[Lee Enfield]

My opinion based on the crappy pictures is:

The rifle is a real sniper, with all the "correct" markings added by an (ignorant) owner (or retailer) trying to "correct" the markings.

1. The cut off marking on the right side has been added
2. the "TR" has been added to the left side of the wrist
3. the "T" has been added to the receiver
4. the rifle serial number has been added to the scope rings.


It's difficult to tell with early guns if the later scope has been added in service, or fitted later. originally the rings were not numbered to the rifle until post-war? So the later scope could have been legitimately fitted, and the original rings numbered at that time.

[desperatedan]

Roy,

Like you, I spotted this one earlier. I agree with LE and had concluded that the rifle started out as a genuine Savage 4T (less telescope). A few signs for me from the little detail in the photos is that the front pad looks good & original (apart from the stake marks) and the stock cheek piece appears undisturbed and matches other Savage originals. However somebody has added that scope/mount and probably the "expected" 4T markings at some later stage. They may well have been responsible for that odd mix of finishes (rust excepted!) to that scope and mount as well.

If it goes for somewhere in that price range, which is ordinary No.4 money, one could sell the scope and end up with a genuine 4T (less telescope) and mount for free or even a few quid in profit!

[Brian Dick]

It's got the typical "Fulton Regulated" target rifle varnish too.

[Lee Enfield]

On 1941 thru 1943 actions, the facination with the "T" marking on the receiver is generally by people who don't have much exposure to the earlier guns.

I have seen a number of the earlier guns which have been "corrected"...

[Roger Payne]

I've been sent some additional views of this rifle by another forummer. Unfortunately there was still no nice clear view of the pad areas on the receiver, with the scope & bracket removed. However, in addition to the points already made the front pad has clearly not been on constantly since WW2. One of the views shows the bolt way with the front pad screw ends visible. They do not look right in that they have been roughly shortened to suit, & the inner face of the receiver (bolt way area) has been filed, by the looks of it, by hand. The front pad also does not look to be of quite the right profile to be correct on a Savage. The pads on every Savage that I have ever seen have had the 'round shoulders' typical of earlier set up rifles (1941 to 43 dates on rifles), whereas this front pad is either a repro or at least was originally fitted to a later rifle.

Without further views, or even better, without handling it, I wouldn't want to come out too strong one way or the other, but it is either an extensively got at original, or totally made up. (IMHO).

[Nigel]

I viewed the rifle today. It has been got at with spurious marks added later. The T is a bit too big and elongated. The TR is a serif font when it should be a sans serif and is nowhere near deep enough and of the wrong size. I stopped looking closely at it after that. I've not come across a 4C prefix sniper before. The early genuine ones are 0C and don't originally have T or TR markings. I'd already attempted to educate the cataloguer about a Swedish Mauser sniper that he described as genuine military when the scope is obviously wrong - it is not even a 4x90. He was very rude and didn't believe me. I gave him the milsurps website address and suggested he check what I was saying but he made it plain that he wasn't going to bother and would let the market decide. I opened the conversation with "Would you like a top tip on how to identify genuine Swedish Mauser snipers?". He gave me a surly look and said "No - not really". It rapidly went down hill after that. He is obviously quite happy to mislead potential buyers.

[desperatedan]

Well I see it hammered for £2500. IMO if the scope was genuine that's probably almost the value of the sum of its parts but with commission included it's £3175, not a great deal.