1944 Long Branch No.5 Mk1 Jungle Carbine ...

[Ian Skennerton]

Non-availability of many Long Branch records was a cause for concern in my studies on North American production. In contrast, we have a good array of British and Australian factory records. Digital photography and computer programs make almost anything possible today, so a photograph is no longer sufficient proof. Agreeing with Peter, one needs to examine the item hands on before venturing an opinion. Such markings used a roll die and such a die would hardly be made up unless there was a reasonable production run. It is odd that we've never seen a Long Branch No.5 rifle, there is none in any official collection that I know of, nor have we seen any report on same. I would need to see the rifle/action body and consider it along with the other component parts.
Life would be dull if one knew everything, that is for sure.
Cheers, Ian

[canuck98k]

The original poster on CGN has admitted he photoshopped it.

Of course there's CGN's inveterate BSer and attention hound claiming he's seen crates of them in the '90's.

[limpetmine]

The horizontal cross bar in the "A" in Branch is lower in the No 5 than in the typical No 4 LB. The letters looked stamped individually to me. I say a big hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[Badger]

Could the "5" be photoshopped? It looks a little off.

That's what I was thinking. Nice try though!

Good eye ... nice catch !!!

Hard to believe anything you see on the Internet nowadays ...

Regards,
Doug

[Beerhunter]

I suppose that the first thing that comes to eye is the use of a I for the mark number instead of the correct 1.

[browningautorifle]

the use of a I for the mark number

That's the same as the #4 before it...

[Roger Payne]

.........& wouldn't it be more likely to be a 'No5 Mk 1*' (or is it built from a 1941 Mk1 receiver? I somehow doubt it). However, the markings are very professional in appearance & short of handling it in person it would be really helpful to see more photo's of the rifle as a whole. There was what purported to be a toolroom example/prototype in the Charnwood collection. Unfortumately I've no idea what became of it & I can't remember what receiver markings it bore, but IIRC they were not 'standard' type receiver markings as shown here, but were more in keeping with what one would expect on a prototype weapon.

[tiriaq]

As canuck98k reported above, the chap who originally posted the photo at canadiangunnutz.com has announced that the photo is photoshopped. It is buried in a thread initiated by "Strangeday" about his "go to" rifle.

[Roger Payne]

Thanks tiriaq, but forgive my IT ignorance.....I presume 'photoshopped' means faked up using their software?

ATB

[muffett.2008]

You could even call it digitally remastered.