1944 Savage No4 Mk1*

Tikirocker · Post by **Tikirocker** » Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:08 pm

I bought this rifle about 2 years ago now and never cleaned it up any since I had it ... so stripped it last week and gave it some BLO - this is an Ex Aussie 1960's Range Rifle which still retains it's Central side plate and target swivel. It's all matching and came with original bayonet and I added a No5 Mk1 sight to it but retain the original Savage marked flip battle sight. S/N range is 91C range.

Butt stock has R over REME on the left side.

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h271/ ... geNo42.jpg[/pic]

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h271/ ... geNo48.jpg[/pic]

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h271/ ... geNo45.jpg[/pic]

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h271/ ... geNo44.jpg[/pic]

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h271/ ... geNo47.jpg[/pic]

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h271/ ... geNo41.jpg[/pic]

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h271/ ... eNo410.jpg[/pic]

Don't mind if I stick my butt in your face?

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h271/ ... eNo412.jpg[/pic]

Woftam · Post by **Woftam** » Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:08 pm

That's a good looking rifle.

But how on earth did you keep it for two years before cleaning it up ?

Part of the acquisition process around here is a thorough clean. The stripping and cleaning allows a thorough scrutiny and any nasty surprises are avoided.

Tikirocker · Post by **Tikirocker** » Thu Apr 10, 2008 11:18 pm

Woftam wrote:That's a good looking rifle.
But how on earth did you keep it for two years before cleaning it up ?
Part of the acquisition process around here is a thorough clean. The stripping and cleaning allows a thorough scrutiny and any nasty surprises are avoided.

Any cleaning that was required was cosmetic, I made sure to check the rifle over and I had stripped it when I first bought it but it only got a cursory clean and check over and not the full deluxe treatment as with the most recent stripping and conservation. The rifle was never neglected, it was the furniture that I never bothered to tidy up. I baby my rifles if anything ...

Post by **Niner** » Thu Apr 10, 2008 11:48 pm

Every time I see one of these with the upper wood stock piece with the grooves carved in it I wonder why mine doesn't have it. But....the one I have looks to be all matching as far as the wood goes. Could Savage have made some without the grooves in the upper grip? Or was the stock replaced at some time on the one I have?

Tikirocker · Post by **Tikirocker** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 12:15 am

Niner wrote:Every time I see one of these with the upper wood stock piece with the grooves carved in it I wonder why mine doesn't have it. But....the one I have looks to be all matching as far as the wood goes. Could Savage have made some without the grooves in the upper grip? Or was the stock replaced at some time on the one I have?

This was always a little bit arbitrary with regards to fitting the grooved hand guard but the basic premise is that is came and went during the war with more of the early war No4's having the grooved guard than the latter. As with most things Enfield though this was not an absolute and became a wartime expediency so that as the war dragged on some rifles had it and some didn't and it was largely to do with production and what was available in factory at the time.

You find the same ocurred with the fitting of the Mk1 singer type sights vs the flip battle sights - whatever was fitted was whatever was in the parts rack at the time but again as the war dragged on these were fewer and far between and the flip battle sight took over due to easier production. To support this, I have a Longbranch 1942 Mk1* that has the grooved upper hand guard and my 1944 Savage has the grooved guard as well - both rifles furniture is all original and matching.

Woftam · Post by **Woftam** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:37 am

Tikirocker,

I didn't mean to imply the rifle had been neglected

. I just give mine the thorough treatment first up. Having the rifle looking as good as it can, as soon as it can gives me a certain satisfaction. I'd say we all baby them, compared to the life they would have had in service. Part of being the current custodian I suppose.

As you stated, whether the grooved or non-grooved handguard appears on a rifle is down to production and what was in the parts bin, however that wasn't exactly the situation with the rear sights. The MkII was developed and adopted to solve a bottleneck in production. Slow production of the MkI early in the war, due to its complexity and need for precision, meant completion of rifles was being held up.

Tikirocker · Post by **Tikirocker** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:48 am

Woftam wrote:Tikirocker,

The MkII was developed and adopted to solve a bottleneck in production. Slow production of the MkI early in the war, due to its complexity and need for precision, meant completion of rifles was being held up.

Agreed, my point was that production of the Mk1 sights was expedited by the creation of the other Mk's which followed but you still saw some rifles fitted with the Mk1 as the war dragged on though less frequently than the other Mk's which were easier to produce.

dromia · Post by **dromia** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:31 am

I'd say we all baby them, compared to the life they would have had in service.

I'm more an "as is" rust, pitting and dings man, I do like to see honest wear and tear.

Tikirocker · Post by **Tikirocker** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:55 am

dromia wrote:
I'd say we all baby them, compared to the life they would have had in service.
I'm more an "as is" rust, pitting and dings man, I do like to see honest wear and tear.

It's a fine line, I don't steam dings or sand stocks, to me that is sacralidge. On the other hand I don't know any shooter/collector that would encourage rust, pitting and further damage to a rifle stock or working parts either, unless you stick to wall hangers.

I don't see anything wrong with pursuing a similar line to the Base Workshops and Unit Inspection teams with regards to the care and maintenance of these rifles if we are to seriously preserve their history and have them still functioning as working rifles into the bargain. I have no problem with Patina or evidence of history but I have no interest in promoting wear and tear where it can avoided.

Conservation and preservation are the watch words for me. It would be like having a Spitfire in your hangar and leaving it to rot based on the principle that it would ruin the history of the aircraft to perform any maintenance. Rifles were properly maintained and given regular annual inspections during their service life and this routine should be maintained by collectors also - this to me shows true respect for history and the rifle as a historical article.

Post by **DuncaninFrance** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:51 am

Rifles were properly maintained and given regular annual inspections during their service life and this routine should be maintained by collectors also - this to me shows true respect for history and the rifle as a historical article.

I agree. My Baker has quite a few repairs to the wood which are part of it's history. That is normal for a weapon and I think thats how it should be. Just makes my blood boil when I see the state of some of the Milsurps at the club.