Punch marks on No. 4 Mk 1* receiver

[Merc]

My 1944 Savage made Enfield has three small punch marks in a row on the left side of the receiver near the cartouche S No. 4 Mk 1*. It was probably the Rockwell hardness test. Did they test all or just do a sampling?

[Sunray]

Never saw 'em on Long Branch rifles. Never noticed any punch marks on the one Savage No. 4 I had on my MIU(Materials In Use) long ago. Kind of doubt a Rockwell test would need 3 pokes to do either.

[Merc]

Here they are:

5584606E-2207-40C3-8DF8-1D0E01D3A01E.jpg

Owners of this variety, take a look at yours to see if it has them. If not a hardness test, maybe it IDs something else.

[Sunray]

I'm thinking it might be a Savage peculiarity. No dots on my 1944 vintage Long Branch. Mind you, the things are at least 75 years old and other people have fiddled with 'em.

[Merc]

I think my No. 4 is a very interesting rifle because it’s so complicated compared to the ‘03 and ‘17. The British were great at engineering everything but went overboard with their bolt action firearms. No complaints though. Great shooter. Their design of the P14 was a big step in a different direction for them.

[Sunray]

"...it’s so complicated..." Isn't really. The close bolt cocking with what feels like spring loaded opening makes 'em fast as a rat to cycle. It's why the Germans thought the Brits had hordes of MG's at 1st Ypres in 1914. There is a technique to it where you use your middle finger on the trigger and cycle with just the thumb and fore/trigger finger.
The '03 is a Mauser copy. The P14 and 17 are the same rifle in different chamberings.

[P51MUSTANG]

My opinion.....Done by a soldier and not factory. Based on having close to 20 Savages over the years and looking at close to another 100.

[Merc]

IMHO it seems complicated with its 2 piece stock and bolt arrangement but is very easy to load, cock and shoot.

[Sunray]

The No. 4 Rifle was a simpler design over the No. 1.

[lyman]

checked my Savage last night,

no marks at all in that area

[Merc]

The No. 4 Rifle was a simpler design over the No. 1.

You’re correct. The British obviously took great pride in their engineering skills. They lead the world into the Industrial Age.

[Merc]

checked my Savage last night,

no marks at all in that area

I’ll have to start paying more attention to the Savage No. 4s at gun shows to see if they’ve been punched. It will remain an open question however, it wouldn’t surprise me if the British required a hardness test on every 10th receiver produced.

I find it strange that the serial number is stamped on the metal wrist band instead of the receiver.

[lyman]

I’ll have to start paying more attention to the Savage No. 4s at gun shows to see if they’ve been punched. It will remain an open question however, it wouldn’t surprise me if the British required a hardness test on every 10th receiver produced.

I find it strange that the serial number is stamped on the metal wrist band instead of the receiver.

the wrist is part of the receiver, and where most #4's and #5's were stamped until sometime after WW2,

[Merc]

the wrist is part of the receiver, and where most #4's and #5's were stamped until sometime after WW2,

Oops. You’re correct.

[JB White]

Why does everyone assume the marks are British? No4 rifles served in countries around the globe. They spent time outside the service of Britain and her commonwealths. They have been out in the secondary and civilian markets for decades.

It's fun to imagine that all our rifles were carried by Tommy Adkins until released from service. For all we know Billy Bob could have thrown a fork at Bubba Joe during a July 4th BBQ and hit the rifle squarely dead center. That in itself is worth another beer.