I am looking at old Lee enfield rifles, I saw on of the Savage Stevens US made No.4 Mk1 Marked property of united states. Are these any more desirable than others, are they decent to good shooters? I kinda like Lee Enfields and wonder if this one is worth $20.00 more than a UK built one.
Lee Enfield Mk4 NoI Property of US
- Thread starter Wheeler44
- Start date
- Status
cracked butt
Member
Yes, the U.S. property no4s are worth about $20-50 more than the others depending on condition.
DMK
Member
As a collectable.
As a shooter, no. It's not any better than other Enfields. In fact, Savage Enfields have a lot of shortcuts to improve manufacturing. I was never a fan of the simplified rear flip sight myself.
That all said, I had to buy one along with a Canadian Longbranch just to have 'em in the collection.
DougW
Member
Generaally speaking the Savage #4mk1*'s are more desirable in the US, just because they were US made. They can bring a premium up to $100 depending on the condition.
The war time expediant mods that were made and approved by the Brits helped speed up production radiclly. Savage produced more #4's from '42 thru '44 than any single British manufacturer did from '41 thru '45. Keep in mind that the Savage plant was not being bombed all the time.
I had a batch of five '43 Maltby (British) rifles come through with the 300/600 flip frear sight and the safety assembly that did not lock the bolt. War time in England demanded that rifles be produced as quickly as possible to re-arm the Commonwealth troops. Shortcuts were not looked down on, and generally did not compromise safety. They were necessary though.
My Savage was shipped Lend Lease directly to South Africa, and came back in from them. It is all matching with the 300/600 flip rear sight. The current value here in N Texas is around $250. I wish I had bought 10 when I got this one. It cost $69 from Interordinance about 5 years ago.
The war time expediant mods that were made and approved by the Brits helped speed up production radiclly. Savage produced more #4's from '42 thru '44 than any single British manufacturer did from '41 thru '45. Keep in mind that the Savage plant was not being bombed all the time.
I had a batch of five '43 Maltby (British) rifles come through with the 300/600 flip frear sight and the safety assembly that did not lock the bolt. War time in England demanded that rifles be produced as quickly as possible to re-arm the Commonwealth troops. Shortcuts were not looked down on, and generally did not compromise safety. They were necessary though.
My Savage was shipped Lend Lease directly to South Africa, and came back in from them. It is all matching with the 300/600 flip rear sight. The current value here in N Texas is around $250. I wish I had bought 10 when I got this one. It cost $69 from Interordinance about 5 years ago.
No it's not a 1917 it's a Mark4 No1*. I knew Savage Stevens made them for the Brits on a lend lease deal, I just didn't know if it is worth $20.00 more than an almost identical UK built job. The price is $229.00. The barrel looks good, not bright but not too hairy, 2 grooves. It doesn't have a bayonet or any other accesories. and if I remember the bolt #'s don't match. The clerk said it would probably be on sale in the next 6 wks. for $179.00-199.00 Sound like a good deal, anyone?
4fingermick
Member
If the numbers don't match, it is generally ok, but look for the letters FTW, which means Factory Through Workshop from memory. These generall have no matching numbers and often very crappy wood. The armourers were not collectors and swapped bolts, etc until they had a good headspace with the new barrel.
The two groove barrels are ok, especially suited to cast bullets, but work fine with both.
The American and canadian rifles are generall a bit better finished, but have funny home made looking magazines. They are usually more desired. My No4 is a US Property one. Cool markings for a British rifle.
The two groove barrels are ok, especially suited to cast bullets, but work fine with both.
The American and canadian rifles are generall a bit better finished, but have funny home made looking magazines. They are usually more desired. My No4 is a US Property one. Cool markings for a British rifle.
iamkris
Member
Another question for you guys in the know on Savages.
I've seen two of these Savage No 4 Mk1*. There were quite different. 1 had a lighter stock with grooves on the handguard, most parts looked milled, safter spring is a flat spring with a "block" on the end. The other has a darker walnut stock, no grooves, a lot of the parts are stamped/formed sheet metal (bottom metal, front sight protector) and the safety spring is in an S shape when seen from the side.
Both were made in 43. Was there a major cost reduction that happended at a certain point?
I've seen two of these Savage No 4 Mk1*. There were quite different. 1 had a lighter stock with grooves on the handguard, most parts looked milled, safter spring is a flat spring with a "block" on the end. The other has a darker walnut stock, no grooves, a lot of the parts are stamped/formed sheet metal (bottom metal, front sight protector) and the safety spring is in an S shape when seen from the side.
Both were made in 43. Was there a major cost reduction that happended at a certain point?
DougW
Member
Since the #4mk1 rifle was the primary battle rifle of the Commonwealth, nearly all have been through an "armorer's" shop. Acceptable stocks were of walnut, birch, and beech, There may not be a consistancy, but the rifles stock sets were interchangable. Wood variations are normal. Keep in mind that Savage and Long Branch in Canada traded parts often, so it is common to see cross parts on either rifle.
A miss matched bolt may not be an issue to a shooter. A more desirable collectable piece would be all matching, but that is not a requirment. If the rifle went through an FTR (Factory Thorough Repair) at either Fazakerly or Maltby factories, then the possibility of a miss numbered bolt would be high. The rifles that went through FTR were brought uo to spec, and were nearly completely new. Damaged wood, swivels, front sight guards, rear sights, or other parts would be replaced with "serviceable" parts, either new or used.
Concerning headspace, the #4 rifles had 4 different bolt heads, numbered 0, 1, 2, and 3. 0 was the shortest, and 3 was the longest. The rifle headspaces on the case rim, and not the shoulder, like other rifles. So to tighten a headspace, the armorer would change the bolt head only. If a bolt body were replaced, then the origional was damaged, lost, or something else bad. I have FTR'ed #4's that are all matching, so the armorers did not haphazardly sling parts around just for the fun of it. I had one rifle that was FTR'ed at both Fazakerly and Maltby that was all matching. I sold it to a friend because I had 2 other Fazakerly #4mk1's already.
The Savage is a good deal, but see if they will let you put one in lawaway, and wait for the price to come down. I would rather pay $179 than $229 any day.
Here are 4 of my rifles.
A miss matched bolt may not be an issue to a shooter. A more desirable collectable piece would be all matching, but that is not a requirment. If the rifle went through an FTR (Factory Thorough Repair) at either Fazakerly or Maltby factories, then the possibility of a miss numbered bolt would be high. The rifles that went through FTR were brought uo to spec, and were nearly completely new. Damaged wood, swivels, front sight guards, rear sights, or other parts would be replaced with "serviceable" parts, either new or used.
Concerning headspace, the #4 rifles had 4 different bolt heads, numbered 0, 1, 2, and 3. 0 was the shortest, and 3 was the longest. The rifle headspaces on the case rim, and not the shoulder, like other rifles. So to tighten a headspace, the armorer would change the bolt head only. If a bolt body were replaced, then the origional was damaged, lost, or something else bad. I have FTR'ed #4's that are all matching, so the armorers did not haphazardly sling parts around just for the fun of it. I had one rifle that was FTR'ed at both Fazakerly and Maltby that was all matching. I sold it to a friend because I had 2 other Fazakerly #4mk1's already.
The Savage is a good deal, but see if they will let you put one in lawaway, and wait for the price to come down. I would rather pay $179 than $229 any day.
Here are 4 of my rifles.
cracked butt
Member
On the No4Mk1* (savages) the bolthead raceway has a groove milled in it for unlocking the bolthead for field stripping- a bit simpler and cheaper than than the Brittish design. The only downside to it is if the edge of that milled slot gets chipped, the bolt head could possibly flip out of the raceway while cycling the action.
As far as the rear sight goes, all of the current Brittish enfields I've seen on store racks in the last few years have the 'L' shaped 300-600 sight on them.
As far as the rear sight goes, all of the current Brittish enfields I've seen on store racks in the last few years have the 'L' shaped 300-600 sight on them.
cracked butt
Member
I paid $120 for my savage, but I was at the right place at the right time
iamkris
Member
I guess to make my question above more clear
I have both and am likely to sell one or the other...I haven't been able to find a reference that tells me which is seen as "better". Otherwise, condition is about the same.
- Is there any difference in desireability between grooved hanguard and non-grooved?
- Is there any difference in desireability between stamped and milled parts?
I have both and am likely to sell one or the other...I haven't been able to find a reference that tells me which is seen as "better". Otherwise, condition is about the same.
I have an early Savage.....
that has a birch stock and micro rear sight. It has never been FTR'd. Bore is a mirror. Paid 99 bucks for it about 10 years ago. As far as function goes, no difference between stamped and milled parts. Collectors seem to favor milled parts. My rifle has a 5 groove bore. I have a 2 groove Faz that will outshoot the Savage. The Savage has always had a slight premium pricewise over the other Enfields with exception of the Longbranch. The on ly difference between the smooth vs grooved handguard is one less step in manufacturing...chris3
that has a birch stock and micro rear sight. It has never been FTR'd. Bore is a mirror. Paid 99 bucks for it about 10 years ago. As far as function goes, no difference between stamped and milled parts. Collectors seem to favor milled parts. My rifle has a 5 groove bore. I have a 2 groove Faz that will outshoot the Savage. The Savage has always had a slight premium pricewise over the other Enfields with exception of the Longbranch. The on ly difference between the smooth vs grooved handguard is one less step in manufacturing...chris3
Typically there will be a mix of milled parts and stamped parts and likely there was no neat and tidy cut-over point. The grooved h/gs appear and reappear throughout production and postwar refurbishment. Here's a long-running survey/discussion of the various features http://www.gunboards.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=72356
If in good condition there's no real difference between milled-stamped. The bent metal safety spring I have seen faulty on someone else's rifle and I intend to replace it when I see him again
If in good condition there's no real difference between milled-stamped. The bent metal safety spring I have seen faulty on someone else's rifle and I intend to replace it when I see him again
DougW
Member
Right now, just about any #4 that you find and are interesrted in is a good buy, if the price is right. The availability of these rifles is dwindeling, so huge choices are not always available. If you have a particular interest in something in particular, you will spend some time looking. And, I will assure you that the result of your search will be pricy. Search some of MJ's pics of his "T" rifles. Those are four digit $$$$ minimum these days, for the real thing.
I have a Maltby with a grooved lower handguard that has British proofs. Smooth or grooved is not unique necessairly to one manufacturer, although most Savage made #4's had them.
I have a Maltby with a grooved lower handguard that has British proofs. Smooth or grooved is not unique necessairly to one manufacturer, although most Savage made #4's had them.
Back in the 80's I purchased an almost new Savage No 4 Mk 1*. I really doubt it had been fired outside the factory. It had a very attractive walnut stock.
When I took the front action screw off, the forend fell off the rifle. The bedding was either so bad, or the wood had dried, that the rifle would not group on a 8.5" by 11" target at 100 yards.
Read up on bedding these rifles and it was my first. I do not recommend center bedding, which is what I did. I do not recommend center bedding because I now have a mostly free floating barrel and I would rather have a fore end tip bedded rifle. Accuracy did improve, the best I shot with the thing was under three inches at 100 yards. But I do not think I am going to get much improvement over that unless I replace the two groove barrel. You can look at the chamber throat and see circular tool marks from the reamer. Really sloppy job of a throat leade. Barrel is brand new and appears gray instead of being shiney bright. Rotten internal surface finish.
The absolute best worksmanship on a No 4 Mk1’s are on Long Branches. Next are the British built, Savage about third, sometimes tied for second. The No 4 Mk 2 are as good as, maybe better than the Long Branch models.
Not that worksmanship really matters, go look at a M1903A3. Machine tool marks all over the place, rough as a corn cob. Still goes bang, and that is all that is needed for an Army composed of Draftees. Draftees arrived in theater, in WWI, WWII, who had never fired a gun. They could however, salute and march in formation. And for our first troops in Iraq, Private Jessica Lynch did not know how to clear a jam. Poor girl would have been more dangerous with a pointy stick.
When I took the front action screw off, the forend fell off the rifle. The bedding was either so bad, or the wood had dried, that the rifle would not group on a 8.5" by 11" target at 100 yards.
Read up on bedding these rifles and it was my first. I do not recommend center bedding, which is what I did. I do not recommend center bedding because I now have a mostly free floating barrel and I would rather have a fore end tip bedded rifle. Accuracy did improve, the best I shot with the thing was under three inches at 100 yards. But I do not think I am going to get much improvement over that unless I replace the two groove barrel. You can look at the chamber throat and see circular tool marks from the reamer. Really sloppy job of a throat leade. Barrel is brand new and appears gray instead of being shiney bright. Rotten internal surface finish.
The absolute best worksmanship on a No 4 Mk1’s are on Long Branches. Next are the British built, Savage about third, sometimes tied for second. The No 4 Mk 2 are as good as, maybe better than the Long Branch models.
Not that worksmanship really matters, go look at a M1903A3. Machine tool marks all over the place, rough as a corn cob. Still goes bang, and that is all that is needed for an Army composed of Draftees. Draftees arrived in theater, in WWI, WWII, who had never fired a gun. They could however, salute and march in formation. And for our first troops in Iraq, Private Jessica Lynch did not know how to clear a jam. Poor girl would have been more dangerous with a pointy stick.
DougW
Member
Slam, I know a few people that have tried to wring as much accuracy out of a #4 as possible. I shoot only one of my 12 .303's consistantly, and it is mostly all my reloads. I have several 2 groove, one 4 groove, anf the rest are 5 groove barrels.About the best I can get is 2"at 100 yards, but that includes my #5mk1.
My understanding is that Springfiels Armory came up with the 2 groove barrel design for the 1903 rifle. It allowed barrel production to drastically increase and keep up with the rest of the manufacturing process. Savage proposed the 2 groove barrel to the Brits, and they prooved that while there was no increase in accuracy, there was no decernable decrease either. IN fact, barel manufacturers in England started making the 2 groove barrels also.
I think a stock #4 can be tightened up with proper bedding, a good fore arm stock and screw, maybe a crown tough up, and hand loading. But I would doubt that without a scope that anything less than 1" at 100 yards can be attained. The rear locking action of the #4 just is not the best for locking up tight.
My understanding is that Springfiels Armory came up with the 2 groove barrel design for the 1903 rifle. It allowed barrel production to drastically increase and keep up with the rest of the manufacturing process. Savage proposed the 2 groove barrel to the Brits, and they prooved that while there was no increase in accuracy, there was no decernable decrease either. IN fact, barel manufacturers in England started making the 2 groove barrels also.
I think a stock #4 can be tightened up with proper bedding, a good fore arm stock and screw, maybe a crown tough up, and hand loading. But I would doubt that without a scope that anything less than 1" at 100 yards can be attained. The rear locking action of the #4 just is not the best for locking up tight.
- Status
