Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
939 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Ok... I was under the impression that all No. 4 rifles made by Savage were part of the Lend/Lease program to England and stamped "U.S. Property" on the receiver. Anyway, I believe this No. 4 is made by Savage since it is stamped with 'S' but I thought it odd that it lacks the property stamp.

It also has some odd stamps in the wood (like a star). Anyway, hopefully the attached pictures will be clear enough so all you Lee-Enfield experts can get a decent look at it.

Oh, and by the way, you can see in one of the pics that there is a M47C stamp on the bolt - which I thought was BSA, yet the bolt number matches the rifle. Anyway, I'm a little confused.

Any information is greatly appreciated!
 

Attachments

·
Copper Bullet member
Joined
·
2,668 Posts
Hello Kurz. I am by no means an expert, however, it looks like a Savage that was owned by Pakistan or India. Pretty cool unit markings and such too! How is the bore. Are you going to shoot it? Range report please if you do. Regards, Rick.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
939 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
So then Savage made rifles for other countries other than England? I thought the Pakistan rifles were made in Pakistan by POF. I probably won't shoot it - at least not until I can check the headspace on it. This poor thing looks like its been through quite a bit - gouges here and there on the wood, considerable wear and tear on the metal, etc. But I do like that little star stamp...

I am going to take it completely apart and clean it over the next few days. This may sound odd but I think I enjoy taking these mil-surps apart and cleaning them as much as I do going to the range.

Oh... and why would a BSA bolt be on a Savage? I mean, I could understand it if the bolt number didn't match the gun but it matches.

Then again, if it sounds like I don't know anything about Lee-Enfields, its because I don't - lol!
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
435 Posts
You have a 1944 Savage made No4 MkI*. I see Savage markings on the receiver, bolt, and butt stock. Savage made approx. 1.2 million rifles (+/-) from 1941 until 1944. All of these rifles were made for England.

It must be an oversight by me, but which pic has the star stamp you are talking about?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
939 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Now I feel kinda silly about the bolt question... That M47C stamp is on the bolt head (I think that's what its called) and probably replaced the original. I don't think the bolt heads on Savages had any stamps on them at all.
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
435 Posts
Look right between the 'U' and flaming bomb stamp on the grip of the stock. Its very light.
Okay, after I enlarged the pic, I was able to see the star you are referring to. It looks as if there is a "W" within the star which has come up numerous times on various sites, but nobody is able to determine the origin of the marking. I remember one member of a site stating that there is always one point down and two points up and the "W" in the center. Is that a "W" I am seeing in the center of the star?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
724 Posts
Check your serial number. Not all Savage built rifles were Lend Lease. Savage produced rifles under contract for England prior to the U.S. Lend Lease program. These rifles were not marked "U.S. Property Lend Lease" until Germany threatened to hold the U.S. in violation of neutrality laws for selling weapons to a nation at war (prior Pearl Harbor). The lend lease program allowed the production to continue since these were technically "loaned" and not sold to Britain. Thus skirting a fine line around the neutrality issue. If yours is an early serial then it would be a contract rifle not a lend lease rifle. It would therefore not have any grind marks to remove what was not there in the first place. Though many actual lend lease rifles were scrubbed to keep these rifles in from being returned after the war lease was over. Not that anyone in the U.S. really expected them to be.

Your serial number is much lower than mine. Mine is marked "U.S. Lend Lease" and is in the correct # range. Yours may be correct for a contract rifle and may be actual British MOD property thus explaining why it went through an India arsenal refurb.

Edit: I don't have my Enfield book at the ready to see the production date of your rifle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
901 Posts
Not sure that this rifle is particularly early, being almost the 991583rd rifle made. That's nearly a million rifles into production. I've read that the US PROPERTY mark was ground off from time to time in British service. I've had two Savages, one of which didn't have the mark. It was in the 67C batch. Cheers, Matt
Check your serial number...if yours is an early serial then it would be a contract rifle not a lend lease rifle.
 

·
Copper Bullet member
Joined
·
570 Posts
My rifle is a 3C series Mark I, and it is U.S. Property marked. I suppose a few rifles might have missed getting the stamp through negligence or something, but virtually all Savage rifles had it originally. As was mentioned by JollyGreenSlugg, there were standing orders to remove it in some British units, as their commanders didn't like seeing it.

-Mark
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
435 Posts
Check your serial number. Not all Savage built rifles were Lend Lease. If yours is an early serial then it would be a contract rifle not a lend lease rifle.

Your serial number is much lower than mine. Mine is marked "U.S. Lend Lease" and is in the correct # range.

Edit: I don't have my Enfield book at the ready to see the production date of your rifle.
S/N 99C1583 (991,583 rifle made by Savage) is a 1944 made rifle. I have a 1942 Savage No4 MkI (no star) with S/N 0C3251 (3,251 rifle made by Savage) and it has the "US Property" mark -- as they all did. As MVolkJ stated, the "US Property" mark was scrubbed off. The story goes that some of the British officers did not like the marking and ordered them scrubbed off.
 

·
Platinum Bullet Member/Moderator
Joined
·
2,894 Posts
Under the lend lease program, Savage rifles were sent to England and China. I have No.4s with Chinese markings on the wood. Canada also sent BRENs to China.

All No.4 rifles were US Property marked based on my having serial number OC1 and a few that are a couple thousand away from OC1.

I believe your gun was sent to another country as a gift from England or sold off and purchased by that country. Along the way it went through a serious rebuild and that is where it obtained the various odd parts, bolt, forestock, bands etc. It may be serviceable to shoot but it should be checked out by a qualified person before firing or at best, tied to a spare tire and fired from a remote position and the fired case closesly examined.
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
1,188 Posts
I have 2 Savage made No.4 mk.1* that have had the US Property marks cleanly removed. Both of these rifle are clean first rate rifles that function perfectly. Both appear to have gone through rebuild in Pakistan as they exibit Arabic markings painted in green on the butt stocks, neither have the Indian both through the forestock. A friend of mine has a similar rifle with Iraqi property marks on the receiver ring that the US Property markings are partially visable, but scrubbed. I also have a No. 4 mk.1* (T) made on a Savage receiver that retains all the US property marks but the front mount partially obscures the markings, no attempt was made during conversion to remove the US Property marks. I have never seen a common wealth issued rifle with the US property marks removed. All the rifles I've seen appear to have gone on to a third country for rebuild and issue where the markings were removed. Most of the rifles I've seen come from Pakistan have had ALL their country of origin markings removed be it US, Canadian or English. Just my observations from my limited access to these rifles.
 

·
Copper Bullet member
Joined
·
2,668 Posts
Not silly. They did all sorts of things depending on condition. One thing they almost always did was to apply the blacking agent to the metal and don't ask why. Perhaps it was cheaper and faster than polishing and rebluing. By the late 50's Pakistan had purchased all the Faz tooling and spare parts so you may find some of those parts on yours. If you take it all apart and post some detailed pictures, there are many here that can provide you with very great detail. The SN applied to the forend was done down the road. You own a rifle that has been around the block, that's for sure....and I for one think that is cool. Regards, Rick.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top