Lee Enfield No. 4 Mk I* Marked "U.S. Property" on the receiver.

[Ken The Kanuck]

Saw this ad on a Canadian website, I did not realize that the U.S. used the L.E. What can you tell me about these rifles? I couldn't copy the pictures, sorry about that.

Thanks

KTK

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Lee Enfield No. 4 Mk I* Marked "U.S. Property" on the receiver.

You can see from the pictures the condition is pretty good for a rifle of this type.

As far as I know it is all original. Having said that I did replace the rear sight with the thumb screw style sight shown in the pictures but I still have the original rear sight which is included.
That way it can be returned to its original state if you so desire. The sight is heavily greased so it does not rust.

I also have 2 boxes of 303 rounds for the gun that are included as well. I bought them in the fall of 2014.

I have never fired the gun so I cannot report first hand on the accuracy.

The gunsmith did look it over for me and assured me that the barrel is in very good condition. It is bright and shiny with crisp edges in the grooves.

The bayonet and scabbard are also included.

$870 shipped including the extra rear sight and 2 boxes of ammo.

[dryheat]

I want to say Savage produced them.

[Col. Colt]

Yes, these were Lend Lease Act rifles, produced by Savage for the British Government. Thus they were marked as US Property and shipped to England - but never US Military issue, as far as I know. CC

[free1954]

the last one i seen sold was in good condition and went for $400.00 with the bayonet here in northeast PA

[da gimp]

Ken, wait for JBWhite to chime in or Art, they're both into Enfields... the NRA did a piece on these several years ago. The US marking was an attempt to get the USA to purchase them, if I remember right, it dinna work, but GB bought them anyway.

[jgaynor]

The US property marking was just an effort to keep our political skirts clean. The British needed rifles after Dunkirk. They subsequently arranged for production in Canada an in the US (Stevens Arms Division of Savage). They also began negotiations to lease the old Rock Island Arsenal production equipment so Remington to manufacture a hybrid version of the the M1903 in .303 caliber. At an early point in the War, prior to Pearl Harbor, arms sales had to a point been done on "a cash and carry" basis. Britain quickly got to the point where they could no longer pay so the pretense was to mark the rifles "U.S. Property" and say to any critics "see these are our guns we are just lending them to the Brits". The analogy FDR used in one speech was "if your neighbors house was on fire would you not lend him your garden hose?".

We also sent over about a million M1917's but of course they were in the wrong caliber so they wound up being used mainly for the home guard. And the .303 version of the M1903 never came to pass. Remington went into production of .30 variants of the M1903 for the US.

[SMOKEY]

Savage for sure

[Sunray]

You're kidding aren't you. No way, no how, it's worth $870 unless it's in mint condition. As in unfired and exactly as it came out of the Savage factory.
All Savage made rifles along with the machinery and remaining parts were packed up and sent to Long Branch when the contract ended(1942 or 1943). Had one of 'em on my MIU long ago. Never used by any U.S. military unit. Made for the Brits under direct contract with Savage.
"...The US marking was an attempt to get the USA to purchase them..." The U.S. Property stamp was a way around the U.S. Neutrality Acts prior to 1941.

[JB White]

Originally the UK contracted for purchase of No4 rifles. The US gov warned off Remington, Winchester, and High Standard fearing they would be caught up on British contracts, thus being unable to meet demands if the USA entered trhe war. Lessons learned from WW1. Savage then agreed and set up with British inspectors on site. Intitial production was dodgy and failed strict British inspections, Took a while to work things out.
The first batches of rifles were indeed produced under contract, but wind of Lend Lease was already known to be retroactive once initiated. When the first TRAINLOAD..not truckloads of rifles left Savage they were all marked US PROPERTY contrary to rumors the early rifles were not marked as such.

The Lend Lease marking on the rifle was one of Savages ways of guaranteeing them getting paid for all of them under US government lend lease subsidies. If it was to skirt the neutrality act, everything sent under Lend Lease would have been marked in similar fashion.

Savage produced more No4 MkI and MkI* rifles than any other maker including British ROF Fazakerley, so they are not scarce by any means. The rifles were sent anywhere and everywhere needed including South Africa and China.

[dave]

They are marked US Property because the Brits paid a fraction of the cost for them, the US tax-payer paid most. Same with Mossberg 42MB .22 rifles sent to England under Lead Lease. The first batch of these (10,000), the US Gov. paid 9.35 and the Brits paid .65. When the Brits got rid of them, post war, they sold them to English civilians and they were later exported to the U.S. and sold.
As an aside, Brit proof marks were not applied to these rifles until they left military control. The Brit military is not subject to British Proof Law. By looking at the proof marks you can zero in on date they were released by military.

[John Sukey]

Just a note on that. ALL firearms sold on the civillian market in the U.K. have to pass proof, even if they were on a British army range the day before.
I think the only exception would be a de-act.

[harrisd27]

I have a Pair of No4's both made by Savage and US Property marked on the receiver's One has the British Proof marks and the other has the flaming ordnance Bomb of U.S. military ordnance inspectors. neither is import marked and Both have the early flip sights and both are All matching numbers and all the parts from the stocks to the bands etc. are all "S" marked. can someone explain the U.S. Ordnance flaming bomb on the Enfield if these were made for export to the British

[John Sukey]

And there was nothing wrong with any of the No4's produced here. The Brit arms inspectors were just being "picky"

[JB White]

I have a Pair of No4's both made by Savage and US Property marked on the receiver's One has the British Proof marks and the other has the flaming ordnance Bomb of U.S. military ordnance inspectors. neither is import marked and Both have the early flip sights and both are All matching numbers and all the parts from the stocks to the bands etc. are all "S" marked. can someone explain the U.S. Ordnance flaming bomb on the Enfield if these were made for export to the British

I reckon it depends upon who was there to do the inspecting? Savage only produced a handful of parts themselves. The other bits were produced by numerous contractors, then shipped to Savage for assembly.
As you mentioned, they are inspectors markings. They are not acceptance/national ownership markings.

As an aside, a great number of Savage rifles lost markings when reconditioned. Others had the US PROPERTY scrubbed off postwar. (hence the "early unmarked" myth) It's sometimes tough to call why some markings are present and others aren't.

[JB White]

And there was nothing wrong with any of the No4's produced here. The Brit arms inspectors were just being "picky"

According to one historian, 'picky' is an understatement! I was once told somebody at Savage did an end run around and questioned the MoD whether they wanted rifles or not.