No4 Mk1/3 Origination and bolt head track

[ArtioZen]

Greetings - I just rebuilt this rifle having found it as a sporter. The suncorite was nice throughout after its FTR. If this was a Savage No4Mk1* originally would the Fazakerley FTR have removed (machined off) the "US Property" mark off the receiver wall? No other clues remain per its Pre FTR identity.

It shoots very well - however after 45 rounds and during slow prone the bolt head was jumping off its rail (only while firing and being cycled, dry fire / cycling does not produce it).

There are now 2 small chips on the edges of the rail window in the receiver. I have to research the bolt head grove modifications that armorers used to help.

So how bad do you think the receiver rail chips are? Fettle the metal?
Should I relieve the bolt head grooves?
What do you think of any scrubbed "US Property" marks on this FTR?

Shot a personal best with her less 2 points overall - just needed a couple of MOA elevation..Attachment 100628Attachment 100627Attachment 100629Attachment 100630

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.

[Alan de Enfield]

Greetings - I just rebuilt this rifle having found it as a sporter. The suncorite was nice throughout after its FTR. If this was a Savage No4Mk1* originally would the Fazakerley FTR have removed (machined off) the "US Property" mark off the receiver wall? No other clues remain per its Pre FTR identity.

It shoots very well - however after 45 rounds and during slow prone the bolt head was jumping off its rail (only while firing and being cycled, dry fire / cycling does not produce it).

There are now 2 small chips on the edges of the rail window in the receiver. I have to research the bolt head grove modifications that armorers used to help.

So how bad do you think the receiver rail chips are? Fettle the metal?
Should I relieve the bolt head grooves?
What do you think of any scrubbed "US Property" marks on this FTR?

Shot a personal best with her less 2 points overall - just needed a couple of MOA elevation..Attachment 100628Attachment 100627Attachment 100629Attachment 100630

A not uncommon fault on both the Savage and Longbranch rifles (the Mk1* versions). It was for this reason that we 'gave away' these rifles to our allies (after the war) before, the UK produced ones (Mk1)


You can radius the corners on the damaged rail and the bolt head but it is only an Elastoplast. If you can get the chipped part welded up and re-cut without generating too much heat, that is the way forward.


As it stands it is potentially a dangerous rifle.

[Parashooter]

Here's my Savage with a badly-mangled rail. Works fine after peening it just enough to hold.

[Surpmil]

The use of un-chamfered bolt heads is often the cause of this damage.

I've always wondered about this ill-conceived modification. Mechanically it is asking for trouble as anyone with moderate sense could see. IDS indicates it was considered before WWII - witness the trials No.4 with the said cut-out - but obviously, and despite all the fiddling around with lightened and cheapened rifles, the idea was rejected.

As UK production had all the problems with labour, enemy attacks, workspace, tooling etc. this mod should have been introduced there if anywhere! The fact that it wasn't should have alerted at least Long Branch to the likely problems. Savage perhaps just built what was ordered?

It would be interesting to know at whose instigation or instruction it came to be introduced.

[Alan de Enfield]

[quote=Surpmil;453052]

It would be interesting to know at whose instigation or instruction it came to be introduced.

I'm sure I have read that it was from a suggestion by Savage as a way of simplifying / speeding up production.
However without official 'records' it could just be 'internet theory'.

[green]

As noted above a weakness of the I*. In service this would be cause to scrap the body.

[Parashooter]

When that sad Savage shown above arrived by US Mail in 1958, it had a Canadian military tag attached - indicating it was rejected for "worn bolt rail".

[Maxwell Smart]

Judging by the style and location of the FTR marking, and the "A" prefix serial number, I think your rifle is a BSA Shirley conversion rather than a Fazakerley one.

The BSA ones all seem to have been scrubbed of previous markings.

[Peter Laidler]

Mmmmmm....... We would weld and repair body track ribs if the rest of the rifle body and barrel was worth saving. But wear to the extend of thread 3 would be BER/ZF. BSA didn't do the Mk1/1 to 1/3 modification for the UK Military. But if you gathered in 20 or so needy Mk1/1's and 1/3's together for repair, it was a speedy repair at a Field or Base workshop. It was definately not permitted to remove the US Property markings on our or allies rifles. They weren't ours to interfere with! They were loaned or leased to us!

[ArtioZen]

Thanks for the supporting info so far!

This was resurrected from a $101 sportster but shoots like a dream so is worth some effort to save. There is a light rub mark made by the lower side of the bolt head in the suncorite below the bolt head track. This tapers to be a heavier rub as the bolt closes - this may be the cause of the pressure challenging this bolt head out of the track at the gap. Ill look to add a chamfered edge to the bolt head to remove this rub and pressure first. if needed the end of bolt head groove chamfers can be next. I'll de-bur and round the receiver body rail edges too.

So I'm still no further into knowing the original maker of the No4Mk1* - although the FTR work is very good and thorough!

Worst case is its a very nice parts gun if the receiver continues to lose control of the bolt head. Or it waits for a good welder in my area. I was hoping to continue with this one in CMP meets and the like.