Enfield Sniper

[1988RRC]

Did anyone ever come up with a current price for the package shown in the photos?

---------- Post added at 02:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 PM ----------

sorry, I did not see that there were multiple pages............haven't been on this site in a while.

[oger]

Did anyone ever come up with a current price for the package shown in the photos?

---------- Post added at 02:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 PM ----------

sorry, I did not see that there were multiple pages............haven't been on this site in a while.

It's in my safe and not going anywhere for now. The price I got it for seems real fare now that I have been doing some checking.

[Seaspriter]

71L is a 1944 Long Branch serial number. The side wall of the rifle shown is dated 1945 ...just doesn't add up.

Without trying to harsh Lee Enfield's mellow (both he, Seaforth 42, and Brian Dick have studied this and kept phenomenal records beyond the limits of most collectors), let me try to explain what I think happened (Lee Enfield, Seaforth 42 and Brian -- please correct me if you disagree or can lend deeper insight):

In 1944 Long Branch was attempting to fill a large order it received for Snipers. From what the pieces of the puzzle are telling us, Holland & Holland, the experts in sniper production in the UK, sent at least one person to Long Branch, probably in early-mid 1944 to advise LB on how to increase sniper production from a custom/one-off/bespoke process to one that followed something more akin to a production line.

At that time, we think H&H set up a serial block numbering system. Long Branch set aside a "block of numbers" that would be assigned to future builds that year. In the 71L series, about 650 numbers were set aside from 71L0001-0650, then another bloc in the 71L8500 range. (Evidence is showing there were maybe a handful in the 63L range, maybe a dozen in the 64L range, and perhaps 50 in the 68L range -- these are still estimates as data is still being evaluated.)

It is a good guess that Long Branch expected to get all these completed before 1944 ended as the war was raging in Europe after the D-Day invasion, where most of the snipers seemed destined.

However, a problem occurred: REL could not get the necessary lenses for the scopes that had to go on the rifles. Thus the rifles were delayed in production. Some of the 71L block (it seems after 71L0581) could not be assigned to a real rifle in 1944 because there were no scopes.

Finally, when a small/partial shipment of scopes was received in early 1945, Long Branch pulled rifles off the line (which had 1945 dates on the receivers), fitted them out with the necessary scopes & brackets, assigned them serial numbers to be stamped on the receiver ring, then shipped them out to the front lines. (these had serial numbers such as 71L85XX, 72LXXXX, and 74LXXXX -- built with 1945 receivers although some could have had 1944 serial bloc numbers)

Apparently, in frustration, when they couldn't get REL Scopes, Long Branch found a way to fit Lyman Alaskan scopes to the snipers with what is known as the "trade pattern" mount (Seaforth 42 has been collecting scope data and can probably give the best estimate of the number of Lyman Alaskan scopes, building off of the Skennerton and Clive Law studies.) These all appear to be mounted on 74L0000-74L0350 builds.

This appears to be the "logical" reason for the anomalies in serial numbering, receiver dates, and erratic scope serial numbers.

Then, just to add to the confusion, Long Branch may also have used an inventory system known as FIL0 (which means First In, Last Out). As an example, this means that a rifle (perhaps just receiver/action and barrel only) that was destined to become a sniper could be pulled off the line in late 1943, then sent to the Sniper bay for full assembly. Perhaps (just an educated guess) it might have been wrapped in brown butcher paper for protection in the bin. But if there were no scopes available (the records indicate a constant frustration because of a very severe delay in the delivery of scopes), the barrel and receiver could have been put in the bottom or back of the storage bin and might sit there for a year or more as others came in, and were stacked/stored on top or in front of the older ones, and the ones on top were picked for the next set of builds when an order of scopes was received. Remember, at that time, no one was really interested in receiver dates -- this was wartime. So you see many anomalies as rifles get picked out of the bin -- FILO sequence -- while no one checked or cared about the date on the receiver, simply assigning the next serial number on the list, and moving on.

To add to the confusion, it was found that drilling the holes for the bracket mounts was extremely difficult in hardened receivers. Thus a process was worked out where an unhardened receiver was first drilling (perhaps in the Sniper bay), then sent back to production for hardening, then sent back to the Sniper bay for barrel mounting, stocking, etc. If the scopes hadn't arrived yet, the hardened receiver would sit in the bin, waiting.

Now, you should know that while this might sound like a logical explanation of the anomalies, there is no proof that everything I've said above is 100% true -- it makes sense -- but only some parts of the story are "fact," some are logical deduction. Others experts may have a better or equally valid hypothesis -- and they will chime in! (Lee Enfield and Seaforth 42 have been wrestling with this for quite a while, and Brian Dick has handled more Long Branch rifles than I can countenance -- their opinions should be given credence.)

When it comes to non-snipers, the logical sequence of serial numbers is pretty well established. But when it comes to Snipers, don't look for sequential logic. Regular "bog standard" Long Branch rifles with serial numbers up through about 83LXXXX would have been made in 1944, but "most snipers" with serial numbers after 71L0581 seem to have 1945 dates (and there may be a few exceptions with 1943 dates -- FILO ).

And remember too, the last 376 LB sniper receivers were built in mid 1945 (while most have 90L serial numbers, I think/perhaps about a dozen might have 80L80XX numbers -- yet to be confirmed), but not fitted with scopes until early 1946, which is the release date when the contract was actually fulfilled.

While you might think this confusing in retrospect, put yourself in the position of the Production Manager, who must have thought -- "This whole Sniper thing is a pain in my behind -- we are producing 1,000 rifles a day, and I can't fulfill a small sniper contract that amounts to only 36 hours of regular production. I can't put a full-time person on this either it's so sporadic. (and, according to the records, apparently there was only one craftsman who was really productive doing the tasks associated with sniper builds.)

--------------------------
BTW, when it comes to any sniper with serial numbers in the 1941-43 range, LB did not use serial block numbering, so there is little sequential logic in those dates. Also, apparently only about 70 snipers were built in this range. BEWARE of fakes in this range ('41-'43) -- it is possible that about 1/3 of the LB snipers with these 1941-43 serial numbers/dates showing up in the last few years could be fakes. (More to be said on this at a later date.) Be sure to get provenance from any seller unless you are sure -- too good to be true probably is. If you have any doubt (such as numbers not matching, transit chest missing, wrong wood, etc. etc.) be sure to get more opinions from the real LB experts who have eagle eyes and lots of experience weeding out the fraud from the real deal. In the '44-45 range, the easiest way to spot a fake is to check it against the know ranges of serial blocks.

The same advice goes for scopes -- these can be faked too. Brian Dick just validated one for me -- thanks Brian.

Now, if this hasn't boggled your mind, bear in mind one other point of confusion. While there was a directive from MOD to stamp "T" (for telescope) on all Snipers, there are many LB Snipers that are the real deal that don't have the "T" stamp. So the existence of the "T" is not the only/best way of verifying authenticity.

[Peter Laidler]

I disagree that there was any shortage of optical lenses from REL (Para 5 and 6 on) solely on the basis that I have seen REL No42 12C and 1649C. That assumes that c1630 or so sets of lenses including counter cells for the OG's plus carriers for the erector cells were produced. Doesn't seem like a shortage to me......... There simply MUST be more to it than that

Para 11. The No4 rifle body is in simple terms, just a couple of steps above mild steel Seaspriter! Drilling or cutting one with simple hand tools - as I have done with a saw, grinder or guillotine has confirmed many times. The only hardened points are on the locking surfaces as we re-discovered while converting rifles to DP spec, having to grind away part of the left body outside the left locking lug.

Not strictly relevant but the War Dept specified that '....... the letter T will be stamped close to (or alongside?) the designation of the rifle in order to signify the change in nomenclature and of its telescope status'. That is the reason why some early ex trials rifles are marked with the letter T on the left side of the butt socket 'close to the designation'

[Seaspriter]

Doesn't seem like a shortage to me

According to the Production Manager's reports:
During 1944, - 644 Sniper’s Rifles were produced. The production of Sniper’s Rifles depended entirely upon the receipt of telescopes.
2nd Quarter 1945
Sniper’s Rifle production fell off to 24 due to not receiving the necessary telescopes.
3rd Quarter 1945
Production for the third quarter on the Sniper’s Rifle was 161, with total production of this item up to 1,083. Production was progressing in a satisfactory manner, compatible with the receipt of telescopes.

To fill the void in scope supply, Long Branch arranged to have 350 Lyman Alaskan scopes fitted to Snipers. At the end of 1945, there was a backlog of 360 REL scopes which were fitted to rifles in 1946.

[Peter Laidler]

I realise that and have read it may times BUT...... There definately wasn't a shortage of lenses - or indeed tubes, on the obvious basis that all c.1950 or so No42's needs a tube - albeit a simplified one - and a set of lenses. The ONLY answer MUST be that No42 telescopes were a higher priority than No32's. Even thought the Mk3 tele is far simpler/easier to produce than the Mk1 and 2. In fact the Mk3 was initially referred to as 'the new simplified telescope due on stream.....'.*

The final tranche of LB T's in 1946 is similar to UK production whereby H&H were paid up to and including a certain date.

* Here's another WD ambiguity in the making..... Did they mean simpler to adjust or simpler to produce as a whole? Because the Mk3 drums are certainly more complicated but the optics are identical

[Brian Dick]

Robert, I don't deserve any credit like L.E. or Seaforth as I've never collected any records on LB sniper production. In fact, I think I've seen more on this forum than anywhere else. I do have a few of my own including a restored TP. You'd have to refresh my memory too on validating fake scopes. The recent copies are easy to distinguish as fakes if that's what you mean. Sorry if I sound a bit confused. It's because I AM! Brian

[Seaspriter]

Sorry Gentlemen, I'm just a lowly amateur part-time historian and even more amateur collector of old things. I've only try to shed a few facts on the complexity and ambiguity, with the hope that others more learned, wise, experienced, and informed will contribute their insights and draw whatever conclusions they wish. I have no position to establish or hold.

[Brian Dick]

I don't think there's any need to be sorry Robert. I can appreciate what your trying to say, (I think), but it's pretty much speculation. Peter makes a good simple point about lens production at REL. The production of rifle scopes wasn't high on the priority list compared to other optical stores. I have had hundreds of Long Branch No.4's through here but most were straight service rifles and not snipers. I've had several, (I'd have to go back through my Federal log books and count them), Long Branch No.4T's through here too. The majority I was brokering for export back to Canada. I have one 1943 50L, a 1944 71L, a 1944 74L TP and a 90L in my own collection but the only one with a matching scope and bracket is the 90L rifle. I've only restored two including yours in my workshop. I have Clive's book "Without Warning" which is really the only definitive book dedicated to Canadian sniper production and use other than Ian Skennerton's books and Peter's book "Armourer's Perspective". All are great references and worthy of reading and rereading which I've done several times. Warren Wheatfield has eluded to having much reference material, notes and such on both Long Branch and REL production but we're still awaiting that contribution. Much like anything and everything Lee Enfield, it's a never ending learning process. I reckon that's why most of us are here in the first place!