Savage Enfield markings

Discussion in 'The Powder Keg' started by twtalbot, Oct 21, 2009.

  1. twtalbot

    twtalbot G&G Newbie

    Joined:
    May 17, 2008
    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    0
    What's a good source for more info on the No4 MKI*s produced by Savage? I especially want to know if there were quantities of these rifles that were never shipped to Britain and how those rifles may have been used. The reason I'm interested is that I have a Savage that has absolutely no British markings-only the "square S" on just about every part that it could go and a single ordnance bomb just below the serial number on the left side of the butt socket. Century sold it as "Savage Enfield No4 MKI* With Stacking Swivel-Good Condition $179.95" Century's import mark states that it was imported to the USA from the USA, meaning that it must have already been stateside when they took possession of it. I've refinished it, but when I got it, it was in what I would call "carried a lot but hardly ever shot" condition-perfectly sound, working parts tight and sharp-edged; all wear was superficial but that "superficial" wear was all over the rifle-absolutely no finish left, but no corrosion and very few dings in the wood.


     
    #1
  2. SightNSqueeze

    SightNSqueeze G&G Newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,998
    Likes Received:
    24
    I have the same rifle. Mine does have British proof marks with the U.S. Ordnance Department marks, but no importation markings. It was my understanding that British inspectors were at the Savage Arsenal during the early "Cash and Carry" and later, "Lend Lease" production periods until their own arsenals in Canada and Britain were able to catch up with Enfield service rifle production. Apparently, Savage kept making the No.4, Mk 1* and placed them in wartime emergency storage, much like the Army and Navy did for the excesses of '03A3 service rifles. Out of curiosity, does your Savage N0.4, Mk1* Enfield have U.S. PROPERTY on the left side of the receiver? That would place it as a “Lend-Lease” rifle.
     
    #2
  3. twtalbot

    twtalbot G&G Newbie

    Joined:
    May 17, 2008
    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, it does have the US Property mark. If it stayed stateside in emergency storage, might it have eventually gone to a military school, where it lost it's finish?

    BTW, the one place that finish remained on was the barrel under the handguard, and unlike the typical British oil quenching residue, it was blued. Is this common with Savages?
     
    #3
  4. SightNSqueeze

    SightNSqueeze G&G Newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,998
    Likes Received:
    24
    twtalbot, it may have gone to a military school, but I doubt it. They would certainly have removed the expensive rear sight and the firing pin if the rifle was used as a drill piece. There is the possibility that your Enfield did see Canadian service here in North America and ended up as surplus before 1968 when the import marks were required. Canadian service after World War II would not have lasted long before the adoption of the Fabrique National FAL/L1A1 assault rifle, though Canadian troops did serve in the Korean War 1950-53 and they were armed with No.4, Mk 1 Enfield service rifles and BREN machine guns before the newer designs came on board. As far as the finish, my rifle is blued and appears to have a good bit of steel showing as if the blue finish is very thin; sort of like a patina that has developed over time. Perhaps the preservation process was hard on the bluing over time.
     
    #4
  5. timberlord

    timberlord G&G Newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2002
    Messages:
    557
    Likes Received:
    3
    I seen a couple of unissued Sav rifles , layered in cosmo and in cardboard boxes also with Sav logo's on them.
    Pretty high priced ( in my neck of the woods) , but they're out there.
    I've yet to see a Sav rifle that was issued to Canadian troops , ( not that it's not possible) and the Longbranch Mk1*'s were being made again around 1950 for abit during the Korean war .
    Canada switched to the FAL when it joined NATO
     
    #5
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2009
  6. millwright39

    millwright39 G&G Regular

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    Messages:
    555
    Likes Received:
    1
    #6
  7. Lngstrt

    Lngstrt G&G Newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
    Savage made 1.2 Million #4 Mk1 and Mk1* rifles for the Brits. Production ended in late 1944. I don't know that I can say that every single one went to England but, that certainly was the intention. You can assume that it saw service in Europe in WWII. It may have been issued to a rear echelon soldier who didn't see much, or any actual combat but, chances are it did not stay in the US. Unlike the Pattern 14 rifles we made in WWI, the Brits did not have plenty of rifles before we got them delivered. Also note that Long Branch in Canada made over 900,000. North America made more that the Brits made themselves if I recall the numbers correctly.

    I've not read anywhere that Savage kept any in storage. We had no need of 'British rifles', so to speak.

    Is the stacking swivel really just a short post? If so that indicates it was likely in Turkish hands. Many rifles were passed on to other countries after the war. Some were essentially 'left behind' when the Brits - Yanks too - pulled out. Enfields were left in Italy and Greece for instance. Some ended up in India, some in Pakistan, some are still being found in Afghanistan. I have an Enfield #1 Mk III* with Iraqi markings and a #4 Mk 1 with South African marks.
    Here's a pic of my 1943 BSA with the stack post:
     

    Attached Files:

    #7
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Powder Keg Enfield No4 MkI Savage "US Property" May 7, 2010
The Powder Keg Savage Enfield No. 4 finish question Feb 26, 2010
The Powder Keg This #%@&$# Savage Enfield... Feb 1, 2010
The Powder Keg Lee Enfield SMLE no. 4 Mk. 1/3 Savage Jul 27, 2009
The Powder Keg Price of Savage Enfield May 4, 2009