paging tikirocker and wogpotter

tahunua001 · March 9, 2014, 04:55 PM

I just picked up a longbranch no4 MK1*. the receiver and mag serials don't match. is that common or do I just have a mixmaster?

gyvel · March 9, 2014, 05:58 PM

No. 4s were issued with matching numbered mags. Somehow yours just got replaced/swapped over the years. Actually, I have NO idea why the Brits numbered those mags. They all generally interchange, so I see no real reason why it should be. In fact, I have some in my spares that have no numbers.

For that matter, as official policy, No. 1 mags were NOT numbered to the the guns. I don't know why they instituted it on the No. 4s.

Just because the mag doesn't match doesn't mean you have a "mixmaster." See if all your other numbers are matching (bolt, etc.); That's the most important thing. If it bothers you too much, you can always find an un-numbered mag and have some jeweler that has a pantograph machine number yours (they were done with electropencil).

Maybe wogpotter can shed more light on the practice.

wogpotter · March 9, 2014, 07:41 PM

Mystery to me as well.

The big deal is the bolt & receiver matching.
I've had Savages with no numbers on the magazine, so it seems to be a British preoccupation.

My best guesses?
Back then every part was a "firearm" in the U.K. unlike U.S law where only a specific part counts as a "gun" legally. Many European guns had every part numbered because of this, even small internal parts had the last 2 digits stamped. I'm guessing administrative rather than functional concerns.

Individual mags need a little "tweaking" so it makes sense to match them up post tweak.

tahunua001 · March 9, 2014, 08:21 PM

my savage MK1* also has no numbers on the mag, why I was asking.

gyvel · March 9, 2014, 09:26 PM

I have seen some Savage No. 4s with numbered mags, but I'm not sure if they left the factory that way or were numbered by the Brits later on. To the best of my knowledge, only the Long Branch guns and Brit guns had numbered mags from the outset, a practice they followed until the end of production of the No. 4 Mk 2s in the 50s.

James K · March 10, 2014, 12:42 AM

Those magazines were never intended to be replaceable or expendable, like the STEN or U.S. Carbine magazines. They were considered part of the rifle and were to be loaded with chargers ("stripper clips"). The original Lees, back in the late 1800's, came with two magazines fitted to the gun. One was installed in the rifle; the second was kept in the soldier's kit or pocket as a spare or for a quick reload if necessary. A chain kept the main magazine from being lost when/if the second was in use.

Still, as mentioned, not all magazines were numbered and if it was required by regulation, the rules weren't followed.

The numbering of parts did not come about because of any law; it was because the parts were all were hand fitted "in the white", numbered, and then the gun disassembled for hardening and final finishing of the parts. The numbers were used to make sure the fitted parts got back together on final assembly.

Jim

tahunua001 · March 10, 2014, 01:36 PM

alright my brother and brother in law pointed out some things I hadn't noticed before. there appears to be some pitting in places on a lot of the stock hardware but the finish covers it. it looks like parkerizing to the untrained eye but could this be a coat of sunorite? the receiver has a star and N stamped on top which I've found means that it had been found to have a rusty bore but I don't know the level of repair/refurb it would see in response.

the safety spring piece is also blued and does not match the rest of the metal finish. is this a replacement part or did they simply not paint it because it was spring steel?

wogpotter · March 10, 2014, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Still, as mentioned, not all magazines were numbered and if it was required by regulation, the rules weren't followed.

The numbering of parts did not come about because of any law;

2 thoughts on this. Firstly laws vary country to country. What is required by law in one may not be in another. Secondly it may just be custom (as with Lugers for example) where every bit is numbered in some way, heck it may even be a combination of both!

gyvel · March 10, 2014, 07:39 PM

The mag numbering was probably some sort of MOD stipulation, maybe.

James K · March 10, 2014, 08:36 PM

Luger (and Mauser) parts were originally numbered for the reason I gave. But the German Army, in writing its requirements, incorporated the numbering, possibly without really understanding the reason for it. The result was that Army contracts required numbering and inspection of parts even long after hand fitting was no longer necessary. The unnecessary costs, in time and labor, must have been significant for Germany in two wars.

Jim

March 9, 2014, 04:55 PM	#1
tahunua001 Senior Member Join Date: July 21, 2011 Location: Idaho Posts: 7,839	paging tikirocker and wogpotter I just picked up a longbranch no4 MK1. the receiver and mag serials don't match. is that common or do I just have a mixmaster? __________________ ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar. I never said half the stuff people said I did-Albert Einstein* You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin

March 9, 2014, 07:41 PM	#3
wogpotter Senior Member Join Date: September 27, 2004 Posts: 4,811	Mystery to me as well. The big deal is the bolt & receiver matching. I've had Savages with no numbers on the magazine, so it seems to be a British preoccupation. My best guesses? Back then every part was a "firearm" in the U.K. unlike U.S law where only a specific part counts as a "gun" legally. Many European guns had every part numbered because of this, even small internal parts had the last 2 digits stamped. I'm guessing administrative rather than functional concerns. Individual mags need a little "tweaking" so it makes sense to match them up post tweak. __________________ Allan Quatermain: “Automatic rifles. Who in God's name has automatic rifles”? Elderly Hunter: “That's dashed unsporting. Probably Belgium.” Last edited by wogpotter; March 10, 2014 at 04:03 PM.

March 9, 2014, 08:21 PM	#4
tahunua001 Senior Member Join Date: July 21, 2011 Location: Idaho Posts: 7,839	my savage MK1* also has no numbers on the mag, why I was asking. __________________ ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar. I never said half the stuff people said I did-Albert Einstein You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin

March 10, 2014, 01:36 PM	#7
tahunua001 Senior Member Join Date: July 21, 2011 Location: Idaho Posts: 7,839	alright my brother and brother in law pointed out some things I hadn't noticed before. there appears to be some pitting in places on a lot of the stock hardware but the finish covers it. it looks like parkerizing to the untrained eye but could this be a coat of sunorite? the receiver has a star and N stamped on top which I've found means that it had been found to have a rusty bore but I don't know the level of repair/refurb it would see in response. the safety spring piece is also blued and does not match the rest of the metal finish. is this a replacement part or did they simply not paint it because it was spring steel? __________________ ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar. I never said half the stuff people said I did-Albert Einstein You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin

March 9, 2014, 05:58 PM	#2
gyvel Senior Member Join Date: August 30, 2009 Location: Northern AZ Posts: 7,172	No. 4s were issued with matching numbered mags. Somehow yours just got replaced/swapped over the years. Actually, I have NO idea why the Brits numbered those mags. They all generally interchange, so I see no real reason why it should be. In fact, I have some in my spares that have no numbers. For that matter, as official policy, No. 1 mags were NOT numbered to the the guns. I don't know why they instituted it on the No. 4s. Just because the mag doesn't match doesn't mean you have a "mixmaster." See if all your other numbers are matching (bolt, etc.); That's the most important thing. If it bothers you too much, you can always find an un-numbered mag and have some jeweler that has a pantograph machine number yours (they were done with electropencil). Maybe wogpotter can shed more light on the practice.

March 9, 2014, 09:26 PM	#5
gyvel Senior Member Join Date: August 30, 2009 Location: Northern AZ Posts: 7,172	I have seen some Savage No. 4s with numbered mags, but I'm not sure if they left the factory that way or were numbered by the Brits later on. To the best of my knowledge, only the Long Branch guns and Brit guns had numbered mags from the outset, a practice they followed until the end of production of the No. 4 Mk 2s in the 50s.

March 10, 2014, 12:42 AM	#6
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	Those magazines were never intended to be replaceable or expendable, like the STEN or U.S. Carbine magazines. They were considered part of the rifle and were to be loaded with chargers ("stripper clips"). The original Lees, back in the late 1800's, came with two magazines fitted to the gun. One was installed in the rifle; the second was kept in the soldier's kit or pocket as a spare or for a quick reload if necessary. A chain kept the main magazine from being lost when/if the second was in use. Still, as mentioned, not all magazines were numbered and if it was required by regulation, the rules weren't followed. The numbering of parts did not come about because of any law; it was because the parts were all were hand fitted "in the white", numbered, and then the gun disassembled for hardening and final finishing of the parts. The numbers were used to make sure the fitted parts got back together on final assembly. Jim

March 10, 2014, 07:39 PM	#9
gyvel Senior Member Join Date: August 30, 2009 Location: Northern AZ Posts: 7,172	The mag numbering was probably some sort of MOD stipulation, maybe.

March 10, 2014, 08:36 PM	#10
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	Luger (and Mauser) parts were originally numbered for the reason I gave. But the German Army, in writing its requirements, incorporated the numbering, possibly without really understanding the reason for it. The result was that Army contracts required numbering and inspection of parts even long after hand fitting was no longer necessary. The unnecessary costs, in time and labor, must have been significant for Germany in two wars. Jim