Savage No 4 Mk1 T

[Micheal Doyne]

It would be nice to have a couple of views of the bolt guide way to see the ends of the front pad screws, but from what I can see it looks like it's probably a genuine T, although it has been 'enhanced' somewhat, at least IMHO.

Self evidently, the scope is most severely pitted & has been refinished over this.
The scope bracket is a reproduction, though not one of mine.
The butt rifle & scope serial number markings have been applied after the event. I suspect the rifle serial on the forend was done at the same time - note the number stamps used on the woodwork are 'not a full deck' - the 0 is larger than the other stamps. And whilst it is dangerous to say never or always with Enfields, the Savage rifles that I have seen or owned & whose butts I've had a good look at, showed a practice of just marking the final four digits of the serial number on the tenon. In other words 13C2096 would just be marked 2096. (I've just checked my two remaining Savage rifles, a 0C & a 14C & they accord). All the same the wood does appear to be Savage birch.

I'm guessing it doesn't have the S51 on the underside of the butt?

Yes, a few pix of the bolt guide way with pad screw holes, & perhaps another shot of the front pad with the grease wiped away would be nice....

my two savages also only have the 4 digits marked on the but on the tenon.

---------- Post added at 11:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 PM ----------

Hi Roger additional pictures as requested, the "grease" around the front pad is in fact paint so it cant be wiped off.

very pretty staking…

[Seaforth72]

I am also uneasy about this one and suspect it is a No. 4 Mk. I (T. LESS TELESCOPE) rifle that has had a corroded early scope "matched" to it recently. There are a couple of unusual things about the rifle serial number on the fore-end and also on the butt on the hidden ledge that have not been mentioned above. The black paint on the forward scope pad looks like a wire wheel might have been used to age it. The condition of the badly pitted scope looks like it might have been one of those acquired from India. My feeling is that whoever put it together is skilled and has done their homework, likely on this web site/forum, but the inconsistencies pointed out do add up.

[Surpmil]

From Peter Laidlers book on the subject, the Savage rifles were shipped to England for H&H conversion - however the rifles did not meet the specifications and extra work had to be done (including changing the barrels to 'in-spec ones') This meant that the time spent was not 'worth it' so, as BSA had increased productoon and were supplying sufficient numbers of 'in spec' rifles the Savage ones were put into stock (just in case BSA got bombed) which is why there are so many 'Savage No4T unfinished and without scopes' floating about. (Some of which have been civilian fitted with scopes and sold as pukka 4Ts)

I don't believe there is any evidence or even published suggestion that barrels were changed on the Savage rifles, or any others that arrived at H&H for conversion. To do so would quite possibly upset the accuracy found during the test-firing which determined the rifle's TR status and with an ongoing flow of TR grade rifles coming off production lines, why bother?

We know from the inventory of sniper rifles on issue to all forces in the UK taken in late 1943 that comparatively few No.4(T)s beyond the 1403 converted at Enfield had been issued by that date. Possibly they were simply piling up in stores somewhere, but since the Canadian Army for example was still not fully equipped with any kind of scoped rifles earlier in 1943, it seems much more likely that production was proceeding much slower than previously believed.

From Peter's discussions in the 1980s with a surviving H&H employee, we are given to understand that pads and then brackets were fitted, scopes zeroed, rifles test-fired and then the whole kit sent to stores somewhere. Personally I can't see any reason for rifles fitted with pads to accumulate and then remain uncompleted further except: 1. uncompleted rifles from RSAF(E) which were somehow never sent on to H&H for completion. 2. rifles partially completed at H&H and then set aside when the supply of brackets or the whole conversion program was temporarily interrupted. 3. rifles partially completed at H&H and then withdrawn before completion due to their "US PROPERTY" markings. That explanation is purely hypothetical and would not explain why non-Savage uncompleted rifles are also seen.

I've suggested what I think is the most likely scenario: an interruption in the supply of brackets causing the program to be suspended, possibly after some delay during which the fitting of pads may have continued in the expectation that bracket supplies would resume promptly. If they did not so resume, a backlog of rifles with pads fitted would be likely to accumulate and might then have been put into store pending resumption of the conversion program. If they were in store at some ordnance depot rather than the H&H factory, when the supply of brackets resumed, and the supply of TR rifles for conversion logically also resumed, it is quite possible I suggest that the backlog rifles were simply "forgotten" accidentally or deliberately. H&H was IMHO not converting more than five rifles a day; a few hundred rifles with pads fitted to suit the brackets made by a foundry now out of production might well have been unwanted, if only due to the possibility that brackets from a new and different supplier might not collimate accurately due to some variation in manufacture. It's even possible that tests found that to in fact be the case.

I rest my case.

[Brian Dick]

If there's no evidence that barrels and forends weren't changed on Savage rifles, how does one explain the handful of Savage No.4T conversions, (all of which were never completed "less telescope" rifles), that sport '45 date British barrels and British walnut forends, numbered and with the correct Enfield examiner's stamps present. I tend to lean more towards the explanation in Peter's book because I've had them here in my hands. BSA service rifle production was at it's peak in 1944 and as I said in a similar post, I'm not convinced all of these Savage rifles were converted early on but late in the war. In fact, the only Savage No.4T conversions I've seen that haven't had the barrels changed still had their original, early, six groove barrels. I've seen a few Mk.1 rifles that were original with matching telescopes fitted. They are uncommon. Guessing the Mk.1* Savage rifles of which the majority were delivered for conversion to No.4T with two groove barrels were changed. If they've been through FTR and are marked as such, I can understand but I'm talking about rifles in near new condition that have likely seen more use in the hands of civilians than they did in service. Has anyone seen a legit Savage No.4T as converted at H&H with a two groove barrel?

[Roger Payne]

I have, in fact two or three (two groovers). They were all Mk1* T's & were from the batch of about 140 that Dave & I bought back in 1997. I have never thought that they were anything more than a very few that simply 'slipped through the net'. They were also rifles that had been scoped up - in other words they had had the conversion job fully completed by H&H, & bore lowish scope serials consistent with them being fitted at the time of conversion rather than after the event. The barrels on these rifles I inspected closely, & they all appeared to be the factory original barrels. I am not suggesting these are common, just a few that got through before the regs were more judiciously enforced!

I would concur absolutely that some Savage rifles were rebarrelled with 1945 dated UK production barrels, & all of the few that I can remember passing through my hands had had replacement UK forends fitted as well, as Brian says. I honestly do not know who carried out this rectification work, but it was clearly professionally done & so is likely to be H&H or the UK military.

[Brian Dick]

I added my two to Michael's list. I saw yours there Rog right after I posted on this thread. Thanks for sharing. I've never seen a Savage No.4T, either LT or completed with a two-groove barrel. I reckon I've had ten or twelve over the years. In fact, I never felt the Savage H&H LT conversions were that uncommon.

[Surpmil]

If there's no evidence that barrels and forends weren't changed on Savage rifles, how does one explain the handful of Savage No.4T conversions, (all of which were never completed "less telescope" rifles), that sport '45 date British barrels and British walnut forends, numbered and with the correct Enfield examiner's stamps present. I tend to lean more towards the explanation in Peter's book because I've had them here in my hands. BSA service rifle production was at it's peak in 1944 and as I said in a similar post, I'm not convinced all of these Savage rifles were converted early on but late in the war. In fact, the only Savage No.4T conversions I've seen that haven't had the barrels changed still had their original, early, six groove barrels. I've seen a few Mk.1 rifles that were original with matching telescopes fitted. They are uncommon. Guessing the Mk.1* Savage rifles of which the majority were delivered for conversion to No.4T with two groove barrels were changed. If they've been through FTR and are marked as such, I can understand but I'm talking about rifles in near new condition that have likely seen more use in the hands of civilians than they did in service. Has anyone seen a legit Savage No.4T as converted at H&H with a two groove barrel?

Interesting questions Brian. I have a 1944 M47C body here with the TR and both Enfield examiner's marks, but no pads or even machined flat. Looks like one examiner wasn't following the SOP or we don't have correct information on what the examiner was actually inspecting and marking for?

1945 M47C barrels on Savage "T Less Telescope" rifles fitted in 1945 or perhaps just manufactured in 1945 and fitted later?

Forends fitted during conversion or later? If during conversion Savage originals replaced due to warpage or manufacturing defects preventing proper bedding, or simply as an SOP at some point that all forends be replaced on Savage rifles?

Seems an unlikely SOP though given that the rifles grouped well enough to be selected for conversion, but not impossible of course.

Or forends found to have warped in storage and replaced during a post-war refurbishment?

I'd be surprised if unused Savage "T Less Telescope" rifles were overhauled in 1945 when brand new No4(T)s were in greater supply and there were probably many other tasks in hand? Or were they brought out of store for a post-war refurbishment along with the rifles that had actually seen wartime service, and these changes were made then?

I have no dog in the fight; just a slightly interesting historical mystery.

I see you gave some relevant details on those rifles here Brian: https://www.milsurps.com/showthread....l=1#post533962

[Roger Payne]

Brian, I suspect that most of the LT rifles ended up disposed of in the US. They seem to be less scarce your side of the pond than they are over here. I kept a scoped up (or rather a Mk1* T that had been scoped up) from the batch for myself. I suspect it may be one of the two groovers. I'll check in a bit. I think Dave T kept one as well.

Yes, surpmil, it is a mystery with several possible explanations........I just have no idea which is correct! There are so many factors that are difficult to reconcile. The possible explanation for the LT rifles being set up at the death so that H&H could maximise their revenue before the wartime contracts were cancelled leaves me uneasy; it sounds entirely feasible, but a study of the contours of ALL (at least all that I have seen) front body pads shows them to be of an early profile, not typical of 44/45/46 set ups. Unless the conversion work was started early on but the final machining of the spigot was left as no brackets were available to mate the two together???? Could fit in with your thinking re bracket scarcity/bottlenecks in supply???

Just kicking an idea about.....

[Brian Dick]

Many good points to be made by all and still a mystery. I've noticed the pads on the LT Savage rifles are unstaked too. I thought it became SOP in '44 but could be wrong. I have to refresh my memory from Peter's book. Cinders and I both have pad staking trials rifles that are listed there. Another thing I've noticed is bound barrels in Savage stocked rifles, both service and T so I can see where they would fail an inspection.

[Surpmil]

Brian, I suspect that most of the LT rifles ended up disposed of in the US. They seem to be less scarce your side of the pond than they are over here. I kept a scoped up (or rather a Mk1* T that had been scoped up) from the batch for myself. I suspect it may be one of the two groovers. I'll check in a bit. I think Dave T kept one as well.

Yes, surpmil, it is a mystery with several possible explanations........I just have no idea which is correct! There are so many factors that are difficult to reconcile. The possible explanation for the LT rifles being set up at the death so that H&H could maximise their revenue before the wartime contracts were cancelled leaves me uneasy; it sounds entirely feasible, but a study of the contours of ALL (at least all that I have seen) front body pads shows them to be of an early profile, not typical of 44/45/46 set ups. Unless the conversion work was started early on but the final machining of the spigot was left as no brackets were available to mate the two together???? Could fit in with your thinking re bracket scarcity/bottlenecks in supply???

Just kicking an idea about.....

Wasn't it Elmbank Foundry that was bombed out interrupting the bracket supply? But not sure if that was their operation in London or Glasgow? Can't find any reference in a few minutes googling as to when that occurred either.

Considering Rose Bros. was so busy working on turrets etc. for Bomber Command, perhaps they gave it up at some point, or was it the case that both they and Dalgleish continued making brackets to the end? If so, perhaps a wise division of effort to avoid another such interruption?

Have never heard any suggestion that H&H dragged out the early rifles at the end of the war to keep the contract going - not sure where that idea originated!