No4 Mark 1

Authenticate? What does that mean? Are you trying to determine if it’s been modified or original? Many of us here can easily identify whatever you have if you post pictures.
 
I think there is a lot of confusion about the words? An "authentic" former military rifle can have a lot of parts changed out on it, during it's service. But proving the changes were done by a military 70 years ago, or at someone's kitchen table 2 months ago, goes to records. Where has it been, where are the repair records? An "original" or "all matching" is different - that is claiming that it is exactly as it left its factory when new - can not have a single piece that is not from that factory - and to be able to prove that the part was not installed last week. So that goes to "provenance" - what is the story or explanation for that rifle - how can it be what it appears to be - where has it been and who has owned it.

Can see on various websites that this can get very detailed - does the scratch marks on the stock extend over onto the nose cap, or does the nose cap not have any matching scars to go with what is showing on the wood? All very much past "matching numbers" or stamps, etc. Certainly not helped by guys like the fellow in Poland who was selling on eBay virtually any stamp that you wanted made - Nazi SS, British "proof", etc. Records will show that certain rifles were produced within specific serial number ranges that had certain features - those could make the difference between "authentic" or "all original". It is a fascinating hobby. Really highly skilled (and some really poorly skilled) people are trying to "fool" experts in most all areas - art, firearms, scopes, etc. In this day and age, what you say your "old neighbour" said about a particular rifle, is probably not worth the paper it is written on...
 
I suspect that is a hard thing to do. A No.4 Mk.1 could have been made by either Savage or Long Branch (early, before they switched to Mk. 1*) in North America, or by any of the British makers. I would think a knowledgeable person could identify a component that did not originate with that rifle from its factory. But that does not change that the piece is a No.4 Mk.1, nor does that make it a "fake". So it might be a Savage No.4 Mk.1 with a Fazarkely rear sight. There might be a number of reasons why that is "correct" - such as replaced by a British Army armourer in service in 1943, and an equal number of reasons why that might be "fake" - such as I replaced it last week in my shop - and there are some who argue that a genuine Fazarkely rear sight installed on a genuine Savage Mk.1 is NOT a "fake". As mentioned in a post above, there are probably a number of people on this forum who could point out "issues" as shown in good pictures - but, without paper records, I am not sure how anyone could ever state, for sure, that a piece is "authentic" - whatever you might mean by that.
 
Last edited:
I doubt very much there is even such a thing as a 'fake' No.4. Perhaps a 'kyber pass' made one (why with so many originals?), or something like a complete rework of a No.4 Mk.1* into a rare Long Branch No.4 Mk.1. That would take a great deal of work and talent to look legit; anything less would surely be easy to spot.

There most likely are 'fake' No.4 Mk.1T's out there.

Is original vs. restored what you are asking?
 
Part of the fun of owning a milsurp is learning all about its history and how, when and where it was made. A good place to start is the milsurps.com website. It has a wealth of information on your No4Mk1. To get complete access you need to sign up, it's free though. Welcome to the addiction.
 
bogusiii said:
Is original vs. restored what you are asking?
Click to expand...

Even that is not as simple as it might sound - so 1950's England - British military had massive "FTR" program underway at Fazarkerly Amoury - rebuilding in-service No. 4's. Since these were British guns, mostly, were likely all Mark 1, not Mark 1*. All parts re-finished to new standard. All parts to be gauged or replaced "as new". Rifles come out of that "as new" - completely, in every way, ready to go, as new rifles. But they are not original. They were "restored". May not have any parts that it left its factory with. May have different wood. Likely has different finish on the metal. But certainly not "fake". But almost all of that could be done by careful work in 2005, as well - but have to know exactly what it was that was done and how.

I have been playing with P14 and M1917 - so both were built at Eddystone, Winchester and Remington factories in USA during WWI. Each maker's P14 product somewhat different from the other. Their M1917's were more similar, but not exactly the same. None of either made in USA prior to WWI, none made after, although some may have been assembled in 1919. Some, not all, P14's in Britain underwent Wheedon overhaul in 1930's(?). Some, not all, then re-built again during WWII, using British contractors to supply wood stocks and other parts. Meanwhile USA also had large re-build programs at a number of USA Arsenals during WWII for their M1917's using WWII contractors to provide barrels, and other parts. So at least three "genuine" versions of each of three makers of the P14's and at least two versions of the M1917's by each of the three makers. Sort of boils down to what do you claim it to be, and what does the details say about your claim...
 
Last edited:
Post a bunch of pictures here and we should be able to give you a fairly good idea if it is legit or not......
 
The best reference I have found that breaks down the nuances of pieces by version and by variation, is "British Enfield Rifles, Lee-Enfield No. 4 and No. 5 Rifles", Vol. 2 (For Collectors Only), by Charles R. Stratton, ISBN 8601419482429.

With the book open in front of you, turn to the appropriate section, start where you like, and you will quickly be able to do your own research. The markings are not random speckles for decoration, they tell a very distinctive tale.
 
How would you go about doing it?.... for example, I have a no4mk1 thats all original ... butt stock is Savage marked,front wood is all Savage marked, receiver....trigger group...mag...sights...everything is as it should be, in like “new” condition. So the rifle should be....like a $2000.00 dollar rifle. But hold on....the front wood is NOS, rear sight is Savage marked, but cost me like $175.00 plus shipping. Is the rifle factory correct? Yes in every way....is it factory built, yes like it should be, but it’s not as it came from the factory!
I rebuilt it back from a sporter, mind you it was a great sporter, rifling looks new, as with the reciever, butt stock etc. If no one new( but I do) there wouldn’t be NO WAY of knowing it wasn’t factory built, other then it looks way too new, almost “ unissued”....to the right guy, with the right backing, this could be a $2000.00 plus rifle, if you were the right kinda talker....if you know what I mean.
It’s hard, buyer be ware, buy from people you know or places/ businesses you trust, or places like CGN , where they have a trade rating. And backing from people that have a lot more knowledge then me!
In the end if your a diehard collector, then is all makes sense ($$$ or the other kind of money) . Me I like rebuilding things..LE...old trucks...etc.
I have about $1200.00 into me LE Savage marked mk1 per “ property of USA” rifles. Is it worth it? Every penny! The people I’ve met, and all the help along the way, priceless.
Cheers
Brian
 
Probably difficult for the one milsurp owner to understand, but some people have a lot of investment in reference books about these arms. I have at least 4 books just about the Model of 1917 rifles produced in World War One. These books are filled with charts showing what marking got applied where - what does it mean - sometimes inspector's marks contain numbers that identify the individual inspector who moved from plant to plant during his career - those moves are documented, so an inspector mark on a part isn't good enough - it also has to contain the appropriate number of the guy who was there when that rifle was produced. And not all parts were stamped, so finding a part with a stamp, have to confirm in the first place whether it should have had one or not. So, way more than "looking" at a rifle - involves dismantling and detailed look with magnifiers, etc. and then reference to charts, etc. to find what should be there or what should not be there. Inside of the wood pieces - should there be markings? of what? on both hand guards, or only the rear one? How were authentic replacement parts marked? - For example the P14 "spare" firing pins (strikers) had an "X" - not an "E", or "R" or "W". So an "X" marked firing pin is not "wrong", in an "E", "R" or "W" rifle, if it was installed at an appropriate time - probably "wrong" if it was installed in 2019. And so on...
 
Last edited:
.......I will say ,The question is one of the MOST interesting I have ever seen on CGN!!!
..................Some of the replies are even more interesting !!!
 
Read the tutorial and then post pics, lots of 'em. Good clear shots of the rifle overall, the receiver, all the stamps, etc. If you want a hands-on, I'm in west end Toronto. I'm not a top notch expert but I know enough to be dangerous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom