A never fired 1943 Long Branch no4?

[Kingsburyshot]

I am surprised always had the impression a firearm had to be proofed to be sold.

[Brian Dick]

My very first LB No.4 is a 1943 24Lxxxx out of NZ service. Yes, I still have it. It has seen honest service and has the usual handling marks as it should. It's stocked in birch and is matching throughout. I also have an early NZ owned 1942 2Lxxxx that is pretty much factory new with some storage damage to the Dulite blue finish and stocked in birch. I had one other 1942, 15Lxxxx that was also factory new with the yellow crayon check mark still on the butt and stocked in walnut. I had several newish Savage No.4's too out of NZ purchased from the late Bruce Gorton in the early 2000's. I still have one dated 1943. We've discussed it here before and Peter L has also shed light about cases of new No.4 rifles of N. American manufacture found in ordnance stores but brought over as deck cargo and rusted beyond repair when finally discovered and uncrated. Since the NZ Army was equipped with the SMLE up through the Korean war along with our Australian friends, there is quite a bit of evidence that many No.4's sent there never saw much if any service. Since 1943 rifles, both LB and Savage can be found, that would discount that they were a shipment destined for Hong Kong or am I missing something? Maybe there was more than one shipment. When I purchased 400 rifles imported via Interarms of Manchester, GB/Alexandria, VA in the mid to late 1990's; most of which were post WWII Fazakerley manufacture, there were also quite a few Savages and just a small handful of LB's so they were obviously receiving wartime production rifles from N. America too. Interesting stuff.

[Buccaneer]

Not in NZ it doesn't! And even in the UK that isn't strictly correct...........

I believe that a firearm that is not proofed can be traded between RFD's but is not allowed to be sold or even offered for sale to the general public, ie FAC holders unless it is proofed. There are heavy fines involved for those who infringe proof regulations and it applies to all third parties whose hands the firearm might have passed through. Some foreign proofs marks are acceptable however if in doubt contact either the London or Birmingham proof houses for conformation.
We all make mistakes, I recently bought from a private seller a 7.5 straight pull Schmidt Rubin that I thought was covered by its Swiss proof marks but on enquiry found out that it wasn't, an expensive mistake as I then had to pay to get it proofed, still you live and learn...

[5thBatt]

I believe that a firearm that is not proofed can be traded between RFD's but is not allowed to be sold or even offered for sale to the general public, ie FAC holders unless it is proofed. There are heavy fines involved for those who infringe proof regulations and it applies to all third parties whose hands the firearm might have passed through. Some foreign proofs marks are acceptable however if in doubt contact either the London or Birmingham proof houses for conformation.
We all make mistakes, I recently bought from a private seller a 7.5 straight pull Schmidt Rubin that I thought was covered by its Swiss proof marks but on enquiry found out that it wasn't, an expensive mistake as I then had to pay to get it proofed, still you live and learn...

As Peter said "not in NZ" & if you have a NZ marked No4 you just have one that has been accepted into NZ service but not necessarily issued, a lot of the No4s appear to have been inspected, accepted, stamped & repacked & sat around in crates until they were sold off as surplus.
The only NZ service the No4 had (from my understanding) was with the RNZAF or Cadets or being used as "enemy weapons" in war games.

[Roy]

There is a photo from 1943 of US Marines training in New Zealand with members of the Tararua tramping club. The marine carrying a No4. In the late '50s my father remembers using a No.4 during his compulsory service. He didn't like cleaning it so he went to the medical corp.
I know of two gunsmiths who used junked no4. barrelled actions in the foundations of their houses and there is a driveway which is reinforced likewise. When the NZ No.4s were surplussed there must have been so many around that any which were not in excellent condition were perhaps broken up.

Ive tried uploading the photo but usual method is not working. Will try again later

[Buccaneer]

As Peter said "not in NZ

I agree with Peter "not in New Zealand" My comments were in reference to the "not strictly in the UK" comment, see post #23