1941 No.4 Mk1(T) Savage (S) production part 3/3

[breakeyp]

Twenty years ago this showed up at the Old Columbus Ohio OGCA show. The owner knew what it was but it was reasonable given the shape it was in. A prior owner must have been given a new bench grinder for Christmas because he ground off the Clip guides and rear sight mounting lugs, shortened the barrel and ground off the bayonet lugs. Handguards were lost along with most of the forestock and the buttstock butchered along with drastic thinning the cheekpiece. He also thinned the scope mount, brining the mounting screw threads into view.

It took five years to bring it back. One gunsmith sleeved a free bore barrel stub under the front sight. A later smith, fitted a matching rifled sleeve and lined it up with the original rifling, leaving only a ring in the bore. He later grafted the back end of a receiver in to add the clip guides and rear sight lugs. Refinished and set in new Savage wood it looks pretty good. I mention so there is a record of the changes with intent to fraud. We used a later versionof the clip bridge which should really drive later collectors nuts.

On the socket there is a US Ordnance bomb under the serial number, OC1 and on the barrel is the serial number and the bomb.

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]

Thanks for the history lesson of your rifle. It is a rare and interesting piece.
I have a Trials No.4 rifle (1931) that has had similar butchery done to it, and I was thinking that a resoration was possible, but wondering if worth it. I'll post pictures. Interesting fix on the barrel. Had no clue that could be done.
Great rifle and pictures. Happy Thanksgiving!

[Roger Payne]

Thanks Paul, I've longed to see 0C1 for a long long time....!
ATB

[Peter Laidler]

I don't quite understand Paul...... Are you saying that a dealer grafted on the rear end of a reciever in order to add the missing part of the charger guide and missing rearsight ears? PLUS added a bit to the barrel? In simple engineering terms, I'm lost. Surely you couldn't fire it like this or am I off at a tangent somewhere. Nothing odd about that of course..............

[breakeyp]

Peter, the gentleman who did the most work was the chief armourer for the Ohio Air National Guard and is a Class 3 machine gun manufacturer. He made my legal semi automatic FALs using welded together receiver bits and also made my legal semi automatic BREN.

None of the work done to the receiver affected strength and temperatures were controlled. The top rear section was replaced. Not the end of the receiver. I too wondered about the rifling matching sleeve in the barrel. He maintains that it is save to shoot. I know he has done this on other arms with complete success. He has since retired but for a time I was able to present him with some unique challenges that he enjoyed solving. The BREN went to Washingon (BATF headquarters) twice before we could get approval for it. It took over three years before they finally approved it. He said after that, that he would not do another one.

Have I shot the Savage? No. I have other things I can shoot. I have shot the FALs and the BREN with no problem. I must say the BREN does draw a bit of crowd.

[Peter Laidler]

Ah, I understand now............. But, and I know that I'm not an expert in these matters, but.... if it was just the top of the receiver that was attached, then unless it was attached by a heat of brazing temperature or less, then the induction hardness of the left hand bodyside, totally surrounding the hardened left side locking recess (look at the structure of the steel after phosphating) will have been affected. I put it no stronger than that and you are wise not to shoot it.

Brens and L1A1's are a different kettle of fish. The only hard part of the Bren body is the barrel seating face and the L1A1 if I remember, is the body locking lug and the front, where the cocking handle locks down and forward

That's why we didn't braze the body pads on when were were converting them. The question of brazing (or hard soldering) did arise but was rejected

[breakeyp]

He put a number of rounds through it before it was given to me. I think it is of more interest for its history/serial number than for its shooting characteristics.

This is why I don't sell things. I sell something and the guy wants his money back because he shot it and it didn't group one inch at 100 yds. like some magazine hack said it would. The stuff is almost a 100 years old already. I have returned money for sold .303 Martinis and enlarged chamber Rosses because the chambers deformed the brass and reduced reloading life. They are war guns not target rifles. To torture Burger King's saying, "You get it our way or you don't get the SOB." This is why Brian Dick is such a good dealer--he has stock and patience.

[Peter Laidler]

Whatever he did, he did a SUPERB job because try as I might, I can't see a mark or witness line of any sort. And as they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating!

[breakeyp]

The work he did on the BREN is just as ingenious using M1 carbine hammer, FAL hammer spring in the innards to get it firing from a closed bolt. His weld up of the receiver was purposely made more visible to assure BATF that it was made from a destroyed receiver. Externally it is an exact copy of a Mk1 BREN.

Over the course of several years pending my finding destroyed receivers, he built semi auto FALs, Indian, Canadian, Australian and several British. Of course we can't do that stuff now as the current rules for receiver destruction cut swarths so big that simple welding can't bring them back. When we were doing this all that had to be done was to cut the receiver into three parts. He also did a wonder TRW M14 with dummy full auto parts for me. We were playing with a semi Lewis gun when my parts sources in Canada dried up. Oh well.

[PrinzEugen]

The work he did on the BREN is just as ingenious using M1 carbine hammer, FAL hammer spring in the innards to get it firing from a closed bolt. His weld up of the receiver was purposely made more visible to assure BATF that it was made from a destroyed receiver. Externally it is an exact copy of a Mk1 BREN.

In the uk a bren would have to be a straight pull to be legal. But as I understand our (somewhat ludicrous) law, if would still be illegal if you converted one to this - it would have be be a new-build replica which had ALWAYS been a straight pull (like the AR15 etc types we now get), so unless someone has a bright idea, we're not going to be able to do it.