Gunboards Forums banner

Savage - Missed the FTR? And, Good FR Discussion

9K views 89 replies 25 participants last post by  sakorick 
#1 · (Edited)
Had a very decent day at the gun show. Found a Long branch extractor spring, a bolt body for my RIA 1903, and 60 rounds of .303.

But the highlight was this non-import 1942 Savage No4 MKI*. Though it has the FR on the buttstock, but doesn't appear to be FTR'd (?). Looks like original fitted wood, zinc alloy buttplate, matching bolt, stamped most everywhere except mag and possibly the front sight protector. I haven't looked at the back side of the safety, but it looks consistent with the rest of the age/wear.

No serial number on the barrel, is this correct? It's a fair looking two groove bore, flaming bomb stamped. There is also a 41 stamped on the right side collar, for a reason, I'm sure. There may be a few other things you gents could tell me, too.

Rather thin on the bluing, but I like it just the same. For $250, I couldn't pass. Lots of pics, and thanks for looking.




































 
See less See more
34
#2 ·
ME LIKEE !!!!
 
#3 ·
That is FR (Field Repair), not FTR. Something minor got out-of-kilter with it, and it was handled by the regimental armorer. FTR means a visit to the Armory.

I have a virtually mint Long Branch with a big FR on the stock (different stamp font, though) and I am having a hard time figuring out exactly what the problem was (I SUSPECT the safety was replaced, as it is marked differently from the one on my all-original Long Branch. The suspected replacement part has a big, swoopy, S on the outside surface of the safety lever).

NEAT-O!!!!
 
#5 ·
This is an early 1942 made rifle. Possibly the "41" is when the receiver was made, and the 1942 when the rest of the rifle was made.

The rifle has British Commercial proof marks on the barrel, so it was Exported from England and Imported into the United States. However, the interesting thing is that it has a very desireable early cocking knob on the rear of the bolt. These were put on early rifles, but simplified to the flat sided cocking knobs on later ones.

A nice find, and you will probably find that the two groove barrel should shoot as well as a five groove one.
.
 
#17 ·
This is an early 1942 made rifle. Possibly the "41" is when the receiver was made, and the 1942 when the rest of the rifle was made.
17C would put the production of this rifle around mid-1942 (June/July would be my guess). As far as the "41", I do not believe this is the date of the receiver for several reasons.

1. As stated by Ed, Savage did not stamp the dates on the right side of the butt socket.
2. I have two Savage rifles stamped "47" and "74" in the same location. The 4's are the same size and font as this rifle.
3. The font of the "4" is different than the font used by Savage.
4. A 1941 Savage receiver would be a MkI, not a MkI*

My guess is that the stamps were added after they left the plant.

I have never seen a FR marked No.4 with a Ishy screw in it but maybe I just have missed seeing all of them.
I have a late production Savage with "FR" stamped into the right side of the butt stock and it has the "Ishy Screw" -- the wood is also Savage.
 
#6 ·
I'm also wondering what might have been Field Repaired. The mag is obviously not original (origin? no references pop up to the QF stamp), and I can't find a squared S on the front sight protector. The bolt head also appears to have a strike-through mark on top, and a 2 stamped on the side. No obvious FTR features like rebluing, replaced wood, etc.

I had assumed that this one was an Early Savage, as most serial numbers I've viewed are 20C and later and these seem to be more common. I'll go back and look at the cocking knob styles to compare.

The 41 stamp on a later assembled gun makes sense, as does the Birmingham Nitro Proof marks showing its testing overseas and subsequent return to the US. May have been pre-1968, as there are no modern import stamps. Still wondering on the barrel. Were these supposed to be serial numbered to the receiver, or was that a feature of the FTR?

Thanks.
 
#7 ·
I can't answer your questions but that is a great piece! That's how I like em. As for the "FR", I thought that was still an open question as to the meaning. Field Repair is plausable but I didn't think it was definitive. Anyway great find. I'd have scooped it up for $250 and been very happy.
 
#8 ·
My Skennerton book says FR is a Indian marking. Several Savages have surfaced in my local area with FR on them and they are in very fine condition and one cannot see any repair done to them so my suspicion is it really is Field Repair and is some minute thing like safety replacement done in British service.

I have never seen a FR marked No.4 with a Ishy screw in it but maybe I just have missed seeing all of them.

Anyway: I think FR is not fully locked down for a Indian marking.
 
#16 ·
Now that is the question.
Yeah.

And from what I've read in a dozen or more threads on FR, and the general variances in references and opinions, my answer remains the same.

Yeah.


Thank you for the compliments, folks. And yes, Ed, I would surmise that the cocking piece is original. Though I don't have it pictured, it also sports the S stamp. I would say that the main item that is missing from original production would be the S stamped mag, and another board member has already taken pity on me to provide one at a nominal fee.
 
#19 ·
Yeah.

And from what I've read in a dozen or more threads on FR, and the general variances in references and opinions, my answer remains the same.

Yeah.


Thank you for the compliments, folks. And yes, Ed, I would surmise that the cocking piece is original. Though I don't have it pictured, it also sports the S stamp. I would say that the main item that is missing from original production would be the S stamped mag, and another board member has already taken pity on me to provide one at a nominal fee.
No reason to not think the cocking piece is original to your rifle, none at all. Magazines got mixed around easily and for simple reasons. I've never chased magazines to 'match' them to the rifle wrt manufacture, never gave them a thought, in truth, so long as they work they all belongem.
 
#10 · (Edited)
Ah, Martin. You post interesting stuff. Your Savage is lovely. I have previously said that early, and maybe most Savage-built No.4s seem to have the poorest finish wrt 'bluing' of any No.4s, worse even than 'the pool's' rifles. Typical finish. Early cocking piece does not mean a lot, cocking pieces can be changed out by the armorer but on this Savage, I will stake my next free beer on the fact that it is original to the rifle. Looks to me that all, maybe I missed something, parts contain the beloved S stamp save the magazine which appears...to have a Large D and arrow...reminds me of the Australian ownership mark but that would be a long shot to make. I'm not at all good with Savages' production number sequence but the buttsocket clearly shows 1942 and later production, IIRC did not include a year date there. The left receiver wall clearly shows Mk.1*. Savage, IIRC, did not serial number the barrels and I can't recall any other No.4 mfr doing so but... FR: Many years ago, and in a gal...oh no, different story...I bought a '42 sequenced sported Savage Mk.1 (a Mk.1 rcvr built into a rifle in '42) from Kevin Carney, North China Arms, no import marks that had a birch butt with the big FR stamp on it. I restocked the rifle with WWII Savage contract WWII wood courtesy of BDL (fabulous bit of luck there) and my eldest son now holds the rifle (Which I'd love to have again but I'd have to give it back to him on my demise). Your Savage is, in my humble opinion, a $300+ rifle. Two-groove; BT bullets tend not to work well in these, stick with FB, IMHO. Lovely rifle! Savage rifles tend to sell much better in the U.S. ("Made in the USA"). The Mk.2 backsight is typical. If the rifle had gone through FTR it likely would have ended up with a Mk.1 backsight. I keep the Mk.2 backsight on my early '43 Savage for 'old times' sake'. Congratulations. Clean, BLO, oil, shoot often, enjoy! ed
 
#14 ·
The 'FR' stamping on the wood has been a subject of many years of speculation. I, personally, doubt that it has anything to do with India when it is on the wood, only. Finding it on my Savage Mk.1 with its serial number in the Mk.1* range originally made me wonder if it was peculiar to such a production anomally. Is 'FR' speciific to a manufacturer or a year of production? As of this afternoon I now know, for certain, of two FR butt-stamped Savage rifles but that 'data' means nothing at this point.
 
#24 ·
Very interesting. Thank you. Judging from the proof marks themselves, I would never in a million years have reached that conclusion. It doesn't appear to be dated at all.

I wonder if it also received its "FR" mark at that time - though one could never tell with certainty, I know. As I have posted pictures of this gun elsewhere, there are collectors with far more experience than do I, who state that the FR on the stock means Indian refurbishment...

...seems like a lot of bouncing around for a US made rifle, sent to the European war theater, refurbished in India, nitro proofed in Birmingham, and then sent or brought back to the States.

Seems that there must be more logical chains of possession and events. Though we are dealing with the military and political entities, aren't we?
 
#23 ·
That rifle is nice and a very good price. I like the round cocking piece and the flaming bomb mark as well. I would have snapped it up without thinking about it at $250. That will teach me a lesson I will not forget. Nice pick up. :) Next time we get together to shoot, remind me to bring my extra Savage magazine.
 
#32 ·
As mentioned before, my 1943 Long Branch is marked "FR", but is stamped much deeper (there's a lot more 'crushed wood') and with a different, thicker, smaller, font from the picture heading this thread.

It looks VERY MUCH like the FR on the darker buttstock shown in the first picture in post #30, only my stamp looks to be stamped a bit deeper into the wood. I have to figure that my rifle and the one in the post got stamped in the same place.

My rifle shows only very light use, if any at all. The only real evidence of use was some deep gouging to the rear of the front sling swivel. Strangely enough, this rifle DOES have a Savage magazine, and a safety lever that is definitely not from Long Branch.
 
#33 ·
To expand a bit more on the 'FR' issue...IMO, the main problem that remains with it as a Pakistani property mark is that (to my knowledge anyway) it's not often found on POF produced rifles, although it does appear quite often on POF produced spare wood.

It's also worth noting that it's not just found on No.4s...below is a pair of No.1s with the mark. The Canadian is a pic I snagged off of a different discussion (don't remember where or I'd give proper credit)...I would think that was "FR" a property mark, any old ones would be removed or lined out. The other is my 1918 LSA, commercially proved at the London Proof House and imported here in the early/mid '60s as evidenced by the pre '68 "England" import mark.

I also have a '42 Maltby on which the "FR" is cut into the butt as with a knife, and shares the space with a small "D^D" Aussie property mark.

Nothing concrete obviously...just some more opinion to add to the mix and confusion.
 

Attachments

#36 ·
IMO, the main problem that remains with it as a Pakistani property mark is that (to my knowledge anyway) it's not often found on POF produced rifles, although it does appear quite often on POF produced spare wood.
I agree with jrhead, I posted this same comment on another forum, I double checked my No4 MkI and Mk2 POF rilfes and not one of them has the "FR" on the buttstock; however, I do have a Savage MkI* that has the "FR" on the buttstock and an "Ishy Screw".
 
#34 ·
My 2 cents really just confirms more of what Ronbo6 and jrhead75 have presented. I have read that 'FR' marked on the buttstock means that the weapon was 'Field Repaired'......now I find myself searching for the source. It was apparently used throughout the Commonwealth. I have two Long Branch rifles so marked; one had been in Canadian service, the other in British.
 
#40 ·
Original or restored? I'd really like to see pics of that old beauty!

Nothing's appeared so far that would render any of the theories impossible. I guess one of the next steps would be to try and compare timelines, which would require both U.S. import info and any UK embargo dates...a tall order indeed.
 
#41 ·
I remain of the opinion that if 'FR' is/was a Field Repair stamping and is not canceled/dated, the rifle remains forever identified for Field Repair, as I stated. I am in favor of accepting Thunderbox's explanation. Jr's comment that FR is not (often) found on POF produced rifles but is often found on Pakistani-produced wood - if found on POF produced rifles, is it likely that the wood was replacement wood? Is 'FR' a 'quick and dirty' means of identifying Pakistani ownership or intent to own? Easy thing for someone to strike the buttstock with a die; much easier than striking the metal. Was it not one Mr. Edwards who postulated that 'FR' was evidence of Indian ownership? I absolutely agree with Thunderbox on the issue of the 'FR' being seen very frequently on Savage-built rifles and their (and LB Mk.1*s?) relative 'unpopularity' with UK forces (by reason of the bolt-head release wear/damage issue). With respect to the SMLE/No.1 rifles with the FR stamping, Pakistan possibly was interested in any LE it could get into its service. A poll might show some very interesting results. ? ed
 
#42 ·
FR marked wood might very well be replacement wood (in fact, it very probably is)...but if it's indeed a property mark, why isn't it on all Pakistani rifles? POF is a ordnance factory, not an ownership mark. And if it's a purchaser/buying commission's mark on purchased goods, why would it be found on Pakistani produced bits, when they'd been made at the POF in Wah in the first place?

I'm still tending to believe it's someone's "Field Repair", "Field Replaced" or some equivalent.
 
#43 ·
For a start, its not certain that "Pakistani wood" (i.e. the dark stuff thats all over eBay right now) was actually all made in Pakistan. Much of it has been identified as Turkish Walnut (a common gun trade wood in Europe), and much of it appears to be British or North American walnut. Thus it could all be contract wood made in UK or somewhere else. This is the era when BSA's machinery is being exported to Pakistan, and ship-loads of spares and parts are being surplussed out and sold to India, Pakistan and dozens of other countries. There are questions about whether even the POF rifles (or the receivers) were all made in Pakistan - many of them closely resemble BSA production and might well be UK BSA-made as part of a machinery proving contract with the Pakistanis.

As for "Field Repair" - why on earth would such a mark be applied to new components and to rifles which clearly have not been repaired? Indian and Pakistani military marking procedures are pretty much identical to the British systems that they once were - nowhere in the Commonwealth (or indeed anywhere else in the world) are new components pre-marked as being part of a repaired rifle. I've seen hundreds of FR rifles - mostly Savages - and they all appear to be WW2-original rifles. I don't think i've seen one that has been through any sort of FTR or detectable repair. To be permanently marked, one would assume that a rifle would need to have more than a bent rearsight replaced or similar.
 
#45 ·
A chunk of wood with a "P over 58" would certainly seem to indicate a Pakistani produced part...unless I'm missing something along the way, that's a POF inspection stamp. As for India/Pakistan being "identical" to the British system...they weren't even that when they were part of the British Empire.

The "permanent marking" problem also applies to a purchasing agents initials or something of that sort...why take the time and effort to apply two separate stamps, when a stencil and brush would be so much faster and easier? I would think someone tasked with purchasing in bulk would value expedience. I'll be much more easily persuaded that it's NOT a "Field Repair" mark of some sort (that theory doesn't answer on all counts either, I'll admit), than I will be the it IS either a Pakistani property mark (why wouldn't it appear on all Pakistani gov't property?) or a purchasing agent's initials (see immediately above).

As always...I'll be positively giddy to be PROVEN wrong, if only to get the whole thing sorted out.
 
#48 ·
There is reportedly some historical evidence that the fore end reinforcing screw concept originated in the U.K. The RFI then used the modification on its grenade-firing rifles. POF apparently also installed the reinforcing screw in some of its rifles. People refer to the 'Ishapore screw' because it is most commonly seen in rifles with some evidence of Indian service. Many years ago I held a POF No.4, Mk.1 with a 1957 date and the rifle had the fore end reinforcing screw. I made a comment, on a now defunct LE forum that the rifle must have been captured by the Indian forces and "screwed at Ishapore". A very knowledgeable LE spokesperson replied that Pakistan also applied the screw to some of its rifles for grenade launching and that most of the POF rifles that came to the U.S. did so directly from Pakistan, not from India.
 
#49 ·
If the FR indicates the rifle has a Pakistani produced buttstock, puzzle me this:

Why is the buttstock on my 1943 Long Branch (with the FR stamp) otherwise identical in all respects (wood, cut, and finish) to the buttstock on my all -original 1942 Long Branch without an FR, right down to the Canadian "arrow-in-a-c" stamp behind the triggerguard on both of them?

Not trying to be a wise-a** here, just want to know.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top