The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: General

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 7, 2009, 04:25 AM   #1
Ignition Override
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 18, 2008
Posts: 1,774
Is the Savage Enfield .303 different than British .303?

Or was there a specific round produced for whatever this Savage is? As a relative novice, nothing would surprise me.

Am about to choose an LE Jungle Carbine, but one seller stated that his rifle used a Savage Enfield receiver or such. Will double-check.
Ignition Override is offline  
Old April 7, 2009, 04:32 AM   #2
darkgael
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2006
Location: Homes in Brooklyn, NY and in Pennsylvania.
Posts: 4,296
.303

The .303 British cartridge and the .303 Savage are different rounds and are NOT interchangeable.
As to whether Savage made receivers for the Enfield rifles, I cannot say. Maybe someone else.....
Pete
__________________
"Only hunting and mountain climbing are sports. The rest are just games." - R.Ruark
NRA Life Member

Last edited by darkgael; April 7, 2009 at 04:40 AM.
darkgael is offline  
Old April 7, 2009, 04:39 AM   #3
darkgael
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2006
Location: Homes in Brooklyn, NY and in Pennsylvania.
Posts: 4,296
.303

duplicate post.
__________________
"Only hunting and mountain climbing are sports. The rest are just games." - R.Ruark
NRA Life Member
darkgael is offline  
Old April 7, 2009, 04:57 AM   #4
B. Lahey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,835
Savage made Enfields in .30-06 and .303 British, but .303 Savage is a whole different chambering.
__________________
"A human being is primarily a bag for putting food into; the other functions and faculties may be more godlike, but in point of time they come afterwards."
-George Orwell
B. Lahey is offline  
Old April 7, 2009, 06:53 AM   #5
madcratebuilder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2007
Location: Northern Orygun
Posts: 4,869
Savage manufactured Lee Enfields during WWII, No4 MkII models I believe.
If the intended jungle carbine is built on a Savage made receiver it is a clone. AFAIK no jungle carbines were made by Savage. Look for the lightening cuts on the receiver, that is one thing about the jungle carbine that is difficult to fake.
The bolt handle should have a lightening hole in it. It may or may not have a nose cap on the forestock.
madcratebuilder is offline  
Old April 7, 2009, 07:17 AM   #6
Tikirocker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 11, 2007
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 915
Ok ...

There were two North American manufacturers of the Enfield rifle No4 - Longbranch in Canada and Savage in the U.S. Both of these rifles were built exactly to British Enfield spec and were .303 British.

There was NEVER any British built Enfield rifle made in 30-06 by any manufacturer ... the only far off distant rifle that might even come close to fitting this bill was the Enfield designed M1917 which the U.S altered from the British P14 .303 to chamber in 30-06 during WW1.

Savage only made the No4 Mk1 and Mk1* models ... they never made the MKII ... MKII rifles were only British built.

All No5 Mk1 Jungle Carbines have a receiver unique to itself and not like previous models - No1 MKIII, No4 Mk1 et al ... any so-called Jungle Carbine that is built on a No4 receiver is one of the many clones of the Jungle Carbine out there and are not legit. There were two U.S companies building clones of the No5 ... Gibbs and Santa Fe.

As to Savage 303 ... it bears no relationship to the British .303 round and also has no connection to Savage Enfield built rifles. If you want information on Enfields you are recommended to visit the Enfield forums at Surplus Rifle linked in my signature ... Enfields are complex in their models and general history and there is enough misinformation out there as it is. Ask a squirrel if you want to know about nuts.



Tiki.
__________________
The Lee Enfield forums - http://www.surplusrifleforum.com/viewforum.php?f=27
Surplus Rifle Forums - http://www.surplusrifleforum.com/index.php

Last edited by Tikirocker; April 7, 2009 at 08:10 AM.
Tikirocker is offline  
Old April 7, 2009, 10:16 AM   #7
wogpotter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 27, 2004
Posts: 3,099
If your Savage made Lee Enfield is in caliber .303 British it is 100% identical from the ammunition point of view to any other .303 British chambered Lee Enfield.

However.......
If someone made a "#5" from a Savage do check that the caliber was kept at .303 British. (Just to be safe) a lot of "modified" rifles also had the caliber changed as part of the process.

The only differences you'll find with an original Savage #4Mk1, or Mk1* will be minor & have no effect on using standard .303 British ammunition.
There are minor detail differences, things like how the bolt is removed for cleaning & the add on scope mounts will be where these detail differences will show up.
wogpotter is offline  
Old April 7, 2009, 02:58 PM   #8
p99guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2004
Location: Haslet,Texas(DFW area)
Posts: 1,506
One possible advantage a replica No5 jungle carbine using a standard No4 Mk1 receiver has over a "real" No5...is in the wandering zero problem,the real ones had due to extra materiel being machined away from the receiver (to make it lighter in weight) Replicas made with unmodified full weight receivers
dont suffer from the Wandering zero.....the problem that caused untold problems in british service, and led to the No5 being used only a short time.
__________________
Lighten up Francis!.....;Actor Warren Oats, in the movie "Stripes"
p99guy is offline  
Old April 7, 2009, 03:51 PM   #9
Tikirocker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 11, 2007
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 915
Quote:
One possible advantage a replica No5 jungle carbine using a standard No4 Mk1 receiver has over a "real" No5...is in the wandering zero problem,the real ones had due to extra materiel being machined away from the receiver (to make it lighter in weight) Replicas made with unmodified full weight receivers
dont suffer from the Wandering zero.....the problem that caused untold problems in british service, and led to the No5 being used only a short time.

With respect ... this is the kind of misinformation that gets touted about Enfields that are explained at dedicated Enfield forums. The No5 Mk1 receiver had very little metal work machined away at all - the lightening cuts in the knox of the barrel would have more to say than that removed from the receiver itself.

The wandering zero "issue" cannot be replicated by the many modern day owners shooting these rifles ... including myself; my own No5 is very accurate indeed and as accurate as the No4 out to 600 yards which is exactly what the British trials found when shot side by side with the No4 Mk1.

British armorers could not consistently replicate the Wandering Zero problem when trialling the rifles back in England - this hints at the fact that the issue was not metal component related; some rifles were found to wander and some were right as rain as one very well known British armorer recently noted.

The real issue was found to be more likely environmental ... here is why. The No5 Mk1 was issued to Commonwealth Forces bound for the Far East ... India, Burma and the Pacific campaign. A large portion of accuracy in any Enfield rifle resides in the correct stocking up of the furniture to the barreled receiver. In a country like Burma where humidity, rain and monsoon were constants the furniture of the No5 rifle was in a constant state of flux ... expanding and contracting. During this period Linseed Oil was the only finish used for Enfield rifles ... as some may already know Linseed oil is permeable and not water proof. Hint No2.

During live fire the rifle would heat up and the furniture would expand ... this constant shifting from being wet through humidity and drying out would create tension and torque on various parts of the bedding, the result of which was the tendency to wander. This is the very reason why later in the No5 production they made the addition of a steel nose cap to the for-end. The manual states that this was to stop moisture from entering the end grain. They knew full well what was happening.

Later on the Malaysians used the No5 well into the 1970's ... having learned from the lessons of the Australians and British during the Malayan Emergency in the 1950's they decided to varnish their No5 rifles to totally eliminate any chance of the furniture going soft and from becoming moisture soaked in the long term. And now for the politics of why the No5 got the tag of "wandering zero" ...

I quote from my own No5 Mk1 FAQ at Surplus Rifle.

Quote:
Back when the No5 was still being manufactured there was a period of time when the No5 was seen as being the logical successor to the No4 rifle as the standard battle rifle. After performing various trials it was ( apparently ) reported that the No5 would not hold it's zero and under certain circumstances would lose it altogether. More trials were conducted and there were various reports of the lightening of the receiver being a cause of the issue as well as stocking up in some instances.

In the context of the period the rest of the world was moving toward SLR or Self Loading Rifles and it is now largely believed that the Wandering Zero story was an expedient means of the MOD justifying re-tooling and scrapping the No5 to the Government bean counters so they could move to the SLR. After all the trials and R&D that had already been done for production of the No5 they needed an excuse for this change as Britain was now also facing a struggling post war economy unlike the U.S. It is now widely held that the Wandering Zero was the excuse they required. Few if any No5 owners today find any accuracy issues with their rifles and fewer still can replicate the wandering zero - it is believed to be an exagerrated myth ( The No5 rifle was extremely popular with Commonwealth Forces who used it in Jungle War ) and this seems to be well supported by the many owners who can not find any evidence of it.

So ... nobody I know who owns a No5 has any trouble with accuracy, nor do I. The reputation is a combination of Politics and environment ... if the No5 stock is kept from being moisture soaked and is bedded properly, it will be as accurate as the person shooting it. I hope this puts the Wandering Zero myth to bed for some people here.

Tiki.
__________________
The Lee Enfield forums - http://www.surplusrifleforum.com/viewforum.php?f=27
Surplus Rifle Forums - http://www.surplusrifleforum.com/index.php

Last edited by Tikirocker; April 7, 2009 at 03:59 PM.
Tikirocker is offline  
Old April 8, 2009, 03:21 PM   #10
p99guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2004
Location: Haslet,Texas(DFW area)
Posts: 1,506
Sorry Tiki, I stand corrected and futher educated on the No5
__________________
Lighten up Francis!.....;Actor Warren Oats, in the movie "Stripes"
p99guy is offline  
Old April 8, 2009, 09:57 PM   #11
Tikirocker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 11, 2007
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 915
No worries mate ... just trying the clear the good name of a superb little carbine.

Tiki.
__________________
The Lee Enfield forums - http://www.surplusrifleforum.com/viewforum.php?f=27
Surplus Rifle Forums - http://www.surplusrifleforum.com/index.php
Tikirocker is offline  
Old April 9, 2009, 11:00 PM   #12
DougW
Member
 
Join Date: May 30, 2007
Location: N. Texas
Posts: 86
Tikirocker, +1 on all accounts. Here is a pic of my 8/45 Fazakerly #5mk1 all matching, and the "restoration in process" 46 BSA #5mk1, which I call my "#5/4mk1" since it currently resides in #4mk1 furniture ( has some spare stuff laying around". The complete #5mk1 is the lighter colored rifle. Love these things!



__________________
Enfield Accumulator
Proud Father of Two US Army Soldiers
DougW is offline  
Old April 10, 2009, 01:15 AM   #13
Tikirocker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 11, 2007
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 915
G'day Doug,

Great looking 5's you got there ... and nice to see you have the teeth of your sling facing the right way around also! You wouldn't believe how many slings I see with the teeth facing inwards.

If you get time please contribute your rifles to my No5 Mk1 Serial Number survey here http://www.surplusrifleforum.com/vie...p?f=27&t=52472 ... it has been running a couple of years now with over 100 contributers.

Here's my own all matching No5 Mk1 ...







Cheers, Tiki.
__________________
The Lee Enfield forums - http://www.surplusrifleforum.com/viewforum.php?f=27
Surplus Rifle Forums - http://www.surplusrifleforum.com/index.php
Tikirocker is offline  
Old April 10, 2009, 01:23 AM   #14
T. O'Heir
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,295
"...Is the Savage Enfield .303 different than British .303?..." Nope. However, the .303 Savage and .303 British are totally different. The .303 Savage used a .308" bullet and a completely different case.
Savage did not make No. 5 rifles either. No. 4 Mk I's only. Anybody who tells you they have one, has a No. 5 made out of a No. 4 rifle. Pass on it.
__________________
Spelling and grammar count!
T. O'Heir is offline  
Old April 10, 2009, 01:33 AM   #15
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,902
The only rifles that I know of which Savage made in .303 Savage were their Model 99 lever-actions. If it's a Savage-made Lee-Enfield, then it should be in .303 British unless a previous owner had it rechambered.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old April 10, 2009, 01:38 AM   #16
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,074
"The only rifles that I know of which Savage made in .303 Savage were their Model 99 lever-actions."

They also made the earlier Model 1895 in .303 Savage. Similar to the 1899, but the 99 was more highly developed.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10059 seconds with 7 queries