long branch sniper ?

[Roger Payne]

Rob,
I must admit I find it hard to know what to think about the scopeless Savage T's in the respect of were they set up early on or later. The later theory as I mentioned above seems fair enough, but there are minor variations in the contour of the front pad on H&H converted rifles that are subtly different between early, mid, & late conversions, & the appearance of the front pads on the scopeless rifles keeps niggling me over what otherwise seems a perfectly plausible explanation, as all the examples I can recall seeing are 'early' type. But unless any more documentation turns up we'll never know for sure.........& I guess the above explanation would 'fit'. I certainly can't suggest anything that fits better.

Don't wish to sound pedantic but there were some BSA 41 conversions to T. In the batch we acquired years ago there were four or five, two of which I still possess. Incidentally, these early (1941/42) British conversions seem to be about the only rifles that were stocked up in Beech.

ATB.

[Brian Dick]

Can I weigh in and say that my opinion is that most of the the "less telescope" Savages were converted later. All of the ones I've seen including OC160 which I still have sport the big S 51 stamp on the underside of the buttstock. My 1941 BSA/H&H No.4Mk.1T doesn't have it. I don't think it was even used until the markings became somewhat standardized in 1943. The only markings present are the correct Enfield examiner's marks. I've yet to see a BSA/H&H 1942 dated No.4T. Has anyone else ever observed one?

[Roger Payne]

Cheers Brian. Never seen a 42 BSA either but quite a few 41's, along with 41 Maltby's & both 41 & 42 Savages. Never seen a Faz. Beg to differ on the S51 though. I've seen a number of 41 rifles with original butts bearing it. Interestingly though, one had the markings present but much smaller than all of the others I've ever seen. I think the S51 was standardised rather sooner than the rest of the marking system (the 'S', 'TR' etc on the metalwork). Having said that I can't prove anything.......just my observations over the years.

ATB

[Brian Dick]

Interesting DRP. I haven't seen many early rifles other than Trials models so my observations are limited. Mine does sport it's original buttstock but doesn't have it.

[Roger Payne]

Thanks Brian. It's quite possible that VERY early rifles didn't bear it. As we've said the marking system evolved, so I'd even say it's likely that some of the very early pieces had none of the typical markings, not even the S51. IMHO little unknowns like this make collecting all the more interesting. None of us will ever have seen it all.

ATB.

[Surpmil]

Rob,
I must admit I find it hard to know what to think about the scopeless Savage T's in the respect of were they set up early on or later. The later theory as I mentioned above seems fair enough, but there are minor variations in the contour of the front pad on H&H converted rifles that are subtly different between early, mid, & late conversions, & the appearance of the front pads on the scopeless rifles keeps niggling me over what otherwise seems a perfectly plausible explanation, as all the examples I can recall seeing are 'early' type. But unless any more documentation turns up we'll never know for sure.........& I guess the above explanation would 'fit'. I certainly can't suggest anything that fits better.

Don't wish to sound pedantic but there were some BSA 41 conversions to T. In the batch we acquired years ago there were four or five, two of which I still possess. Incidentally, these early (1941/42) British conversions seem to be about the only rifles that were stocked up in Beech.

ATB.

That's interesting Roger, and of course most of the early Maltby "T"s seem to be stocked in Beech as well; MkI forends with the magazine cutoff relief etc.

I have seen the small "S51" mark on a butt with a 5000 range scope number - and the cutout for a butt marking disc oddly enough.