Savage "US Property" efield questions.


PDA






Detritus
October 7, 2004, 08:49 PM
over the past week or so the lingering desire that i've had for an Enfield rifle has come to a head once more. and this time i MIGHT have a decent chance to act on it and get an example that i WANT at a decent price, rather than someting i'm willing to "settle for" at an OK price.

One of the options running around in my head at the moment is that of getting one of the Savage made No4 Mk1s that are going for around $229.00 before plus transfer fee, shipping and taxes, (so total of around $300, with a $35 transfer, $15 shipping and then taxes)

but i want to know a little more about these guns first.

are they built to the same exact standards as the British guns? are they somehow better?
is the parts interchangability still the same? in other words am i going to have to hunt down "savage enfield" parts just to make it run if something breaks, or will a part from BSA or Fazackerly(sp?) work just as well?

in general are there anythings i should be aware of??

thank you for your time and any input you can give me.

sincerely,
Doug (aka Detritus)

If you enjoyed reading about "Savage "US Property" efield questions." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
rbernie
October 7, 2004, 09:26 PM
AFAIK, the Savage units are not as collectible but are rumored to have much nicer fit-n-finish. I seem to recall hearing that they are also supposed to have much more uniform barrel dimensions and shoot more consistently as a result. Their parts should interchange with the British-made Mk4No1's just fine. (BTW - the nomenclature went from Mk1#3 to Mk4No1 - dunno why, it just did. Therefore, the rifle is a Mk4No1.)

Problem is, most of the Savages that you're likely to find are probably going to be Mk4No1*'s and not Mark4No1's. I have both a Fazakerley Mk4No1 and a Longbranch Mk4No1*, and if I knew then what I know now - I wouldn't have bought the 1*.

The issue is that the 1* doesn't use the Mk4No1 plunger-style bolt retainer. To simplify wartime production, the Mk4No1 design was slightly modified (hence the Mk4No1* designation) to put a cut in the right receiver wall that allowed the bolt head to be rotated and the bolt removed rather than mill out the plunger groove and install the plunger assembly. (Once you see it, you'll know EXACTLY what I mean.) The problem with this cutout is that the 1* bolt head is prone to jumping out of its raceway as it traverses this cutout, and jamming the action. Not optimal.

By the way - the serial numbers of the Savage and Longbranch Mk4No1*'s are supposed to have a "C" (Savage) or a "L" (Longbranch) in them, which may help you identify them as 1*'s if you can't see the receiver firsthand.

Anyway, you can usually get a decent Matlby or Fazakerley for around $200, at least in the DFW area. The best fit-n-finish that I've seen on the Mk4No1's has been on the surviving early production (say, '42) vintage Maltbys. Also, be aware that the later production Mk4No1's and 1*'s went from a five-groove barrel to a two-groove barrel. Most folks say that it doesn't make a bit of difference in the accuracy, but I'm old-fashioned - I want four or five grooves in my rifling, daggummit. :)

nemesis
October 7, 2004, 09:58 PM
BTW - the nomenclature went from Mk1#3 to Mk4No1 - dunno why, it just did.

Never did.

The SMLE eventually evolved into the No. 1, Mk III. The No 1's were refined up to the Mk VI, approximately 1926, and that rifle eventually went into production in the mid/late 1930's as the No. 4, Mk I.

I've never had any significant problems with bolt heads rotating out of the race in the 40-some-odd years I've used LE's. The British No. 4, Mk II captured the bolt with the plunger but I never saw the need for it and have always favored the No. 4, Mk I, Improved (*).

Most of the war years rifles had the 2 groove rifling and they are not known for their outstanding accuracy. I have a Korean War era Long Branch No, 4, Mk I* which has the Mk 4 6-groove Bren style barrel and it has been able to print 5 round groups inside 2 inches. That's acceptable for an old war horse.

Bridger
October 7, 2004, 10:09 PM
Well, I'm no expert on them, but I got my first Enfield as one of those recently. I'm impressed! I like it a lot, haven't shot it yet, but don't see how it could disappoint me. Here's some pics, as it came straight out of the box:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v244/BridgerNY/09-17-04%20SKS%20and%20Enfield/enfield1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v244/BridgerNY/09-17-04%20SKS%20and%20Enfield/enfield2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v244/BridgerNY/09-17-04%20SKS%20and%20Enfield/enfield3.jpg

Detritus
October 7, 2004, 10:20 PM
on the rifling issue, i personally don't care how many grooves it has as long as the bore is in good shape and it's a decent shooter (battle rifle accurate).

Oh anyone know if by any chance some of these had the flip up micrometer sight instead of the simple two position version??


mainly i want a No4 type rifle and since i happen to like savage rifles anyway i've always thought that one of the US Property No4 Mk1s would be a cool thing to have. and right now AIM and i beleive SOG are selling these at what i consider a reasonable price.

also i eventually want to have BOTH a British made No4 (prob. a Frazakerly) and one of the savage production examples. mainly i want an example of each rear sight style, as well as thoe two countries of origin.

BTW every time i find almost ANY No4 "out in the world" (ie at a show or ona dealers rack) one of two things occurs...

1. it IS reasonably priced, and in decent shape, but i'm too low on funds to get it, and gone by the time i can get back to it.
or
2. the seller has to be smoking SOMETHING b/c it is either in such sorry shape that it make me cringe that someone would DO that to a rifle (and yes i'm taking into account the habits of soldiers here), is priced like the internals are gold, or both.

Detritus
October 7, 2004, 10:28 PM
Bridger,

Nice! THAT is almost exactly what i would like to see come out of the box when i order one.

i wanna hear a range report when you get a chance.:D

rbernie
October 7, 2004, 10:52 PM
The SMLE eventually evolved into the No. 1, Mk III. The No 1's were refined up to the Mk VI, approximately 1926, and that rifle eventually went into production in the mid/late 1930's as the No. 4, Mk I. Yeah, I fat-fingered that in my haste.

I've never had any significant problems with bolt heads rotating out of the race in the 40-some-odd years I've used LE's. The British No. 4, Mk II captured the bolt with the plunger but I never saw the need for it and have always favored the No. 4, Mk I, Improved (*).
I'll sell ya the 1* cheap, iffen you like 'em.... :)

Detritus
October 7, 2004, 11:07 PM
Informational note, RE: why No1 to No4 "skip"

no "skip" involved

No1Mk3 = SMLE

No2 = .22 training rifle, i beleive in teh same config and weight as the No1

No3 = Pattern 13 (.280 enfeild ??)and mainly Pattern 14 (.303) Enfield, which of course was modified to fire 30-06 and became the P-17 Enfield that most US troops used in WW1

No4 = the major Brit issue rifle of WW2 and Korea

and No5 = the Jungle carbine


there was also a No7 which was an Austrailian jungle carbine experiment in .308 based on a lithgow No1 action and sights. i have no idea what No6 was.

RGO
October 7, 2004, 11:13 PM
The No. 6 was an 18" version of the No. 1 developed at Lithgow. Only appeared as a prototype.

Nos. 2, 7, 8, and 9 are .22 cal.

The P-13 used a .276 cal cartridge similar to .280 Ross.

jefnvk
October 8, 2004, 12:03 AM
also i eventually want to have BOTH a British made No4 (prob. a Frazakerly) and one of the savage production examples

Don't forget a Long Branch Canadian made one :)

As for the sight, I have a Long Branch bringback that was missing a sight. Local gunsmith put on a battle sight (300/600 m flip) that I didn't like. I bought a micrometer sight on ebay for $13. If you don;t liek the one on it, get a new one ;)

Detritus
October 8, 2004, 12:27 AM
Don't forget a Long Branch Canadian made one

Of course not!! :D

can't leave out the most consistently accurate enfields built...:)

Ash
October 8, 2004, 08:40 AM
I generally see the Savage's go for more money than the British-produced models, their history being pretty interesting, lend-lease and all. Quality-wise, the Savages are the same as any others, their barrels are one-groove but as accurate as any other war-time rifle. They do have the simplified bolt-removal (they designed it, if I recall right).

If you would like a Savage for your first Enfield, get it. They make fine rifles. Be warned, though, that you might then want a Longbranch, and then go to the mother country with Fazaquerly and Maltby and some of the dispersion patterns. Then the original SMLE and its many makers will call you, as well as a Number 5 and then, why not, a Pattern 14 just so have a Mauser-Enfield hybrid...it's a slippery slope that is very tough to climb out of!

Ash

Detritus
October 8, 2004, 10:24 AM
then, why not, a Pattern 14 just so have a Mauser-Enfield hybrid..

nah, already have plans for getting a P-17 (gotta have a "Sgt York Rifle" :D ), had that desire since before i seriously thought about a "regular" enfield. and i just don't see a need for P-14 b/c to me that would be "buying both just so i have both calibers".

as for what the future might hold in the way of more standard type enfields, i'm pretty certain that i'll wind up with at least a Savage, at least one No4 and if only one then a Fazakerly, and hopefully a Lithgow No1Mk3

nemesis
October 8, 2004, 08:43 PM
there was also a No7 which was an Austrailian jungle carbine experiment in .308 based on a lithgow No1 action and sights.

The No. 7 was a .22 Long Rifle training version of the No. 4. A build up of case lubricant under the extractor was all it would take to induce extraction problems. Reaching in to pry out the case with a finger nail often resulted in cut fingers though I don't recall what the culprit was.

It was a marvelously accurate rifle and pleasant to shoot as the weight made it very stable.

Detritus
October 8, 2004, 11:57 PM
well i now have the rifle ordered, unfortunately i won't be able to pick it up untill on or after the 22nd (had an unexpected bill come in and won't have the rest of the money to pay off the layaway till then).

now i have to start looking for all the litle things, i need but no longer have as a result of being without a rifle larger than .22LR of any kind for over 2 years, sold a buch of stuff along with my Savage 110, when it went for med bill money back in Oct 2002. so as of now i need to start making a shoppng list of cleaning gear etc.

anyone know if using a cotton bore mop soaked in windex is acceptable get the corrosive salts out after shooting surplus, or will teh salts stay on the mop and redeposit later/next time i clean?? just seems it would be a simple ting to carry a rod, a .30 mop, and a bottle of windex to the range each time. just wondering if there is a specific reason to use patches instead.

Dave Markowitz
October 9, 2004, 10:24 AM
A couple of patches wet with Windex will work to get rid of corrosive salts. However, despite the Internet myth to the contrary, you don't need ammonia to get rid of the salts. You need water to flush them out.

Windex happens to work well due to its water content and comes in a handy dispenser. I've taken an old Chinese milsurp oil can, put Windex in it, and dipped a patch on a slotted jag in it with good results.

You can also use WW2 USGI rifle bore cleaner as found in the little green cans, or windshield wiper fluid, if you want something that will dry a bit faster.

All you need is one or two patches through the bore, and also wipe off the bolt face. Wipe off any excess water/bore cleaner/Windex/wiper fluid with a dry patch. Then clean as you would if shooting noncorrosive ammo.

SMLE
October 9, 2004, 08:46 PM
No3 = Pattern 13 (.280 enfeild ??)and mainly Pattern 14 (.303) Enfield, which of course was modified to fire 30-06 and became the P-17 Enfield that most US troops used in WW1 Ok, there is NO SUCH THING as a "P 17" or "Pattern 17". It is the "US Rifle, Caliber .30 Model 1917. :neener:

As for "corrosive" ammo, run a couple of dry patches through the bore, then pour 5 or 6 pints of boiling water into the chamber, then clean normally. You can use an ATF funnel from any auto parts store, just make sure it fits into the chamber. You can also still find British Army issue "boiling out" funnels.

Check out this page for more info on cleaning; http://www.smellysmleshooters.net/pullthrough.htm

Detritus
October 9, 2004, 10:55 PM
You can also still find British Army issue "boiling out" funnels.

gotta source?? where? how much? seriously, i've seen em, mainly at shows, and now that i have an enfield on the way, i rather want one.

checked IMA (http:// www.ima-usa.com) and they do not seem to have them at the moment.

will say that the funnels i have seen are not like the item shown on the Smellyshooters website but instead a brass funnel with an articulated tube ending in a tip that fit snugly into the breech of the weapon.

as to removing corrosive residue, it's about what i thought it would be, hot water with maybe a small amount of detergent (drop per pint or so) to get all the salts out? then a "normal cleaning".
and how fast should i be getting to this? can it wait a few hours or should i keep some sort of solution with me at the range to prevent damage while it's sitting after i'm done shooting but not "home" yet.

SMLE
October 9, 2004, 11:25 PM
I'll have to look for that place that I saw selling the funnels. I thought I had it bookmarked, but I can't find it at the moment.

As for how long you can wait before cleaning, it depends on how humid it is. If you can't clean as soon as you're done shooting, soak the bore with a good oil or even Hoppe's solvent. This will keep the bore safe until you can get home. You can carry a thermos of hot water to the range, or you can even take a small propane camp stove with you and boil up right there.

Detritus
October 9, 2004, 11:42 PM
another questio0n pops to mind, albeit this one is more of a "thing to think about" than a need to do it now.
but if i get a rifle that has the 300/600 flip sight how hard is it to change that over to a micrometer sight and where could i GET one of the micrometer sights??

SMLE
October 12, 2004, 11:58 PM
Check out P&S Militaria @ http://psmilitaria.50megs.com/us.html

Look under "MISCELLANEOUS" and scroll all the way down.

http://psmilitaria.50megs.com/images/funnel.gif

If you enjoyed reading about "Savage "US Property" efield questions." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!