1941 Savage No. 4 Mk 1 Sniper rifle?

[bigduke6]

I can provide a rear hand guard to suit if wanted but I'm afraid will have will have to charge for it plus post, I gave a set away not long back to complete a rifle but it was sold not long after............for a profit.

[Surpmil]

A little background on the rifle Bigwagon that you may not yet have come across: this is I believe the 1064th rifle built by Steven-Savage on the initial British contract and these pre-Lend Lease rifles were paid for in cash by the British government which is why they do not have the "U.S. Property" marking seen on later Savage No.4s. It's a significant rifle just for being that early, even without the (T) conversion. We've seen a few such early Savage rifles converted to (T) spec here, including 0C0001 and 0C0006 if I remember correctly. The MkI* modification was soon introduced at Savage as well as Long Branch; an ill-advised step, but that's another story.

You might try it at the range with the forend removed entirely. At that range with decent ammo they should all be in the X ring, if not the next one, if the barrel is in very good condition? The missing handguard is probably evidence of someone's abortive attempt to resolve the likely problem with the forend bedding which is causing that inaccuracy.

It's a bit odd that you have a No.3 bolthead fitted, but it may have been fitted by some civilian owner. We are told that a rifle that would only headspace with a No.3 bolthead would have been scrapped during overhaul or Factory Thorough Repair and judging by the finish your rifle has not had enough use post-FTR to need a bolt head replacement. If a civilian has replaced the bolt head it may well not have been done properly and that might also be a cause of the inaccuracy I believe.

You could check the squareness of the bolthead face by getting a good guality .303 "no-go" headspace gauge, coat the face with layout blue and close the bolt against it. The squareness of the contact will be visible in the marks left in the blue.

I assume the bolt number matches the rifle and appears original?

[Bigwagon]

Surpmil, The bolt number does match. I don't know what to make of the comment about the US Property marking, as the rifle does appear to have this mark. Although it is mostly obscured by the front pad, the T and Y are still clearly visible on the top of the rail. The accuracy was disappointing, so I will have to dig into that as I put this rifle back together. Hopefully it is something simple, or just the shooter!

BigDuke, I'll send you a PM.

[Giove]

The rifle 0C001 has the "US Property" marking, as was already said on this forum (if I remember correctly)

[Surpmil]

Well, I stand corrected on the matter of the US Property markings - will have to now find out where I got that idea! I have a 0C MkI action downstairs, but can't put my hands on it at the moment.

Checked Skennerton and he mentions an agreed price of $75 each for the first Stevens-Savage contract of 300,000 rifles. The Lend Lease Agreement wasn't signed until February 1942, but such things are often signed retroactively.

[Giove]

The thread:

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=24683&page=2

[Brian Dick]

They are all marked U.S. Property. Starting at 0C1 as stated above.

[Surpmil]

The thread:

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=24683&page=2

I see I was "in good company" so I don't feel quite so bad about it.

[Bigwagon]

Thanks to Roger Payne, I was able to replace the butchered rear sight cursor with a matching SM marked piece. Thanks Roger! Still looking for a nice walnut fore end and hand guards. If anyone has any leads on those, please PM me.

[Roger Payne]

That sight cursor looks like it grew there!