Savage Lee Enfield not lend lease

[Peter Laidler]

My only interest in this saga is the lend-lease area. As I understand it, it wasn't a simple matter of lend-lease but............. Suffice it to say, many of the lend lease papers are still not open for public perusal by the Public Records Archives. I should imagine they are fully open in the US but not here. Clearly there was a lot of behind the scenes skulduggery and back scratching that showed that the US were backing us but being diplomatic about it. That's just my thoughts

I remember when the Army were disposing of their last Diamond T tank transporters and Half Tracks in the 70's. Those that were still in service in Germany had to be brought back to the UK for disposal at great expense and a sort of compromise was worked out where they would be disposed of via the US Military disposal system in Baden Baden - still at great expense for what was virtually now scrap! There were strict conditions, believe me. Those disposed of in England had equally strict conditions of disposal and this, combined with the low value meant that they just didn't sell. The half tracks were bought up and went as spares (?) to the Israelis (against the conditions of sale I should add.....) and there was a bit of a stink but the diamont T's were just disposed of as scrap steel.

Logistically we couldn't do the same with S rifles so we just paid a pro-rata price

[Thunderbox]

I'm fairly sure that No4 rifles were never actually part of Lend-Lease, as they were a UK sovereign design in licensed & funded production. Hence UK was free to redistribute Savage No4s all over the world later on. By contrast, M1903s and M17s probably were part of L-L, and hence got returned to the US or scrapped. With all the political smoke-screening going on at the time, its often quite hard to distinguish Lend-Lease items from UK's direct arms orders.

(off-topic, but in Russia Lend Lease is almost completely air-brushed out of the historical record. I've even seen a Ford Wilys jeep in a museum that had most of the ID plates replaced with those of a well-known Russian auto manufacturer, in an effort to claim it as a Russian design....)

[tlvaughn]

I will take the gun to bearhunter this weekend and have him take pictures...

I look forward to the pics. When I first starting collecting/shooting No4's (not that long ago, so I am still learning), I had the Savage unmarked rifle on my list of rifles I wanted. I was told that I would never find one because they did not exist -- any unmarked rifles were scrubbed. Thanks to this thread, I can now add this rifle back to my list.

[Peter Laidler]

If that was the case Thunderbox, I'm min ded to ask whay ANY of them were marked US Property. There is an answer but it doesn't really apply to this in the same way. It's the Boys anti tank rifle. Made in Canada but marked US Property because the whole (?) project was funded by the US with Bethlehem Steel providing the material. It's a lot more complicated than that of course but...............

Looks like this interesting poser could open up a long and interesting thread, especially if we discover that the unmarked rifle hasn't been skimmed off. I have to say that I was (wrongly) under the impression that pre Dec'41 or thereabouts, Cash and carry. After that, lend lease on the basis that we were skint anyway. A bit like we are today actually. In fact like I am EVERY day!

[bearhunter]

Well gentlemen, I will be the first to admit it. The "US PROPERTY" markings were ground off. An incredible job though. Only detectable, under very bright sunlight and only when held at the proper angle.
I must apologise for misleading statements. I honestly felt the rifle was legitimate. We noticed the barely legible marks this morning, when we were about to photograph it. It is a very early serial number though and even though I hadn't seen the rifle, for a few years, I don't recall noticing the marks.

My apologies to all, especially you 303T.

[enfield303t]

Well I drove quickly wanting to get to post before bearhunter as I was wrong and am eating crow right now. The details as described by bearhunter are right. You know if the person that did it had used a little "jewellers polish" and a little elbow grease I don't think you could tell. I was wrong and admit it. I will now use it as a shooter or possibly sell it. SORRY TO ALL.

ps... it has never been FTR'd and it is very clean so have no idea when or why it was ground off??

pps... bearhunter you are a great friend and no need whatsoever to apologize.

[Peter Laidler]

Hey, nobody needs to apologise at all. That's what discussion forums are all about. It got the old brain matter ticking over and asked some good questioins about lend lease. In fact I wish it'd gone on a bit longer just to LEARN a bit more about Lend Lease.

[enfield303t]

Hey, nobody needs to apologise at all. That's what discussion forums are all about. It got the old brain matter ticking over and asked some good questioins about lend lease. In fact I wish it'd gone on a bit longer just to LEARN a bit more about Lend Lease.

Thanks Peter, as I mentioned IF the person who did this had spent some time with jewellers rouge I don't think you could have told it was scrubbed. Have NO idea why it was done or why he was so meticulous in doing it. The gun is in great shape and I will make it my shooter as I really don't like to shoot my Lee Enfields at all. One thing it needs a ejector screw so if anyone that reads this has a spare would you sell it to me?

[Mk VII]

Many British contracts ran on beyond the start of Lend-Lease (which wasn't an 'open up the warehouses and help yourself to what ever you feel like having' as many people seem to think) and took a long time to wind up.
Lend-Lease was rather a double-edged sword, as Britain went from having a customer-supplier relationship with the manufacturers of its munitions to waiting on whatever the US defence establishment deigned to let them have. The Americans naturally looked to fulfil their own needs as a priority, and having US facilities making weapons which they themselves could not or would not use was now out of favour. Some types, like the 57mm a/t gun, were eventually modified for US use but this was the exception not the rule. The .303 rifle project was also a glaring exception, and shows how much importance was attached to it.

[Brian Dick]

The receivers were sand blasted and finished with Dulite blue. They are very distinctive and many think the finish is Parkerizing. I was going to chime in about this as it's all been covered before. I think Paul's rifle, sn. 0C1 with the U.S. Property mark pretty much tells the tale. I've got 0C160, (also a conversion to No.4Mk.1T), and the mark is present. I've also had a couple hundred Savage No.4Mk.1 and Mk.1* rifles through here over the years and the ones without the marking were linished.