longbranch 1942-43

Printable View

06-29-2009, 12:37 AM
oldhound

longbranch 1942-43

I have read that in 1942 and early 43 the longbranch factory had trouble drilling their case hardened receivers for the sniper mounts. The tested rifles were set aside until such time as they could find a way to do it. In later years their snipers were done in special runs with consecutive numbers. I have a No4 mk1* with a distinct T stamped on the underside of the receiver. Would this possibly be one of these set aside rifles. Would anyone have a opinion or any information on this. Has anyone got a 1942 or 43 longbranch that is stamped T in the normal place.
06-29-2009, 01:40 AM
limpetmine

Long Branch snipers

Long Branch started their sniper program in 1943, so I think unlikely that if yours is a 1942 that it is what you think. In 1943, LB produced 73 snipers, which were from various serial number ranges. They were mounted with an REL Mk1 No.32 scope. Mine is a matching rifle/scope setup. These were the preproduction run, as "official" production began in 1944. As you stated, they did have problems with the hardened steel, (makes we wonder about the H & H method, what was different?), so they did start working them in blocks, most often found in 71L range and 84L. Many of the early rifles were not stamped with the "T". If the rifle saw British service, it is presumed that the British armorers "made it right" and stamped the "T". Cleve Law has a book you need, if you are interested in more about Canadian snipers. I've not heard about a "T" stamp on the underside of a receiver. Is it the characteristic "T" ? They made about 1,250 snipers, finishing up the program in 1946. I need a Canadian -15 box, if you can find me one! Post some pictures. hth
PS: Out of Nowhere by Martin Pegler (sp?) has a few pages of good information on the Canadian sniper program.
07-02-2009, 10:55 AM
oldhound

The one I have is a 43. I don't think it was ever issued. My uncle worked in stores at that time so likely just claimed it. I remember him telling my father that it was a sniper. Years later I looked for the mark T but when it was not there, figured it was just a story. A few years ago stripped down the rifle and found this T on the bottom of the receiver. Thanks for your input and I envy the rifle you have. Is rather rare.
07-20-2009, 12:09 PM
Lee Enfield

Quote:

Originally Posted by limpetmine

Long Branch started their sniper program in 1943, so I think unlikely that if yours is a 1942 that it is what you think. In 1943, LB produced 73 snipers, which were from various serial number ranges. They were mounted with an REL Mk1 No.32 scope. Mine is a matching rifle/scope setup. These were the preproduction run, as "official" production began in 1944. As you stated, they did have problems with the hardened steel, (makes we wonder about the H & H method, what was different?), so they did start working them in blocks, most often found in 71L range and 84L. Many of the early rifles were not stamped with the "T". If the rifle saw British service, it is presumed that the British armorers "made it right" and stamped the "T". Cleve Law has a book you need, if you are interested in more about Canadian snipers. I've not heard about a "T" stamp on the underside of a receiver. Is it the characteristic "T" ? They made about 1,250 snipers, finishing up the program in 1946. I need a Canadian -15 box, if you can find me one! Post some pictures. hth
PS: Out of Nowhere by Martin Pegler (sp?) has a few pages of good information on the Canadian sniper program.

I've never read that LB STARTED the sniper program IN 1943, just that 73 snipers were COMPLETED by Jan 1, 1944. Rather obviously (to me anyway) is that the program would have had to START earlier than that.

Skennerton, Laidler & Law each make it clear that there was a major problem in the MkI scope production. I have to admit to have never seen a REL No32 scope dated before 1943, but even just for the glass, bases & rings to have been manufactured the program would have had to start before 1943.

LB seems to have had difficulty converting completed rifles, and Law say's that part of the reason is the hardened receivers (not case hardened by the way). Interestingly is that part of the reason that the M1C was superceded so quickly by the M1D is that Griffin & Howe had major problems drilling and threading completed and hardened M1 receivers. G&H also started to utilize a batch lot conversion system in which they did the majority of the conversion work on unhardened receivers.

In relation to the original question of a marking on the bottom of the receiver? It could be, I've owned a No7 receiver which has ".22" stamped into the bottom of the receiver.

Having said that, LB doesn't seem to have used the "T" marking until 1944.

Also my buddy has a 1942 LB which has a (Canadian style) "T" stamped in the correct location on the receiver. It is not a completed (seems to have a filled hole corresponding with the rear pad hole) "T" action and the "T" marking had not come into standard use by 1942, so it is probably a later addition.

Failing your action having tapped holes in the side of the receiver, can you give us the serial block number for your rifle? 43Lxxxx could give us a good idea how close it might be to known "pre-batch" serials...
07-20-2009, 03:17 PM
Thunderbox

Stamps on the underside of the receiver are just manufacturing inspection marks. Most letters of the alphabet were used - you just happen to have a "T" on yours....
07-22-2009, 02:02 PM
Peter Laidler

The No4 rifle is only hardened in two places and that is induction hardened on the locking cams of the body. Even with the somewhat archaic (by modern standards) hardening methods, it would seem rather unikely that this process would have extended to beyond where it was necessary. In any case, even if it was hard, it would be a simple matter to drill through and tap the hardened area at the rear. And in any case, just thinking out aloud, how would they know how hard it was until they tried it?

LB wasn't short of rifles for the sniper programme, they were short of the wherewithall to get the programme moving. That's why H&H got involved
07-23-2009, 09:59 PM
limpetmine

A question

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

LB wasn't short of rifles for the sniper programme, they were short of the wherewithall to get the programme moving. That's why H&H got involved

REL was busy making naval gun sights, binoculars, artillery sights, aircraft sights, and then was tasked with the No. 32 scope. I've read that the British production of scopes was maxed out, and could not provide support for the Canadian program for this reason. Thus, the Canadian sniper program was limited by what REL could provide, not the armorers making the conversions at Long Branch. (from Cleve Law, and Martin Pegler, authors).
Are you saying that H & H provided scopes for the Long Branch program, or technical support to REL?
Thanks for your reply.
07-24-2009, 03:27 PM
Lee Enfield

Quote:

Originally Posted by limpetmine

REL was busy making naval gun sights, binoculars, artillery sights, aircraft sights, and then was tasked with the No. 32 scope. I've read that the British production of scopes was maxed out, and could not provide support for the Canadian program for this reason. Thus, the Canadian sniper program was limited by what REL could provide, not the armorers making the conversions at Long Branch. (from Cleve Law, and Martin Pegler, authors).
Are you saying that H & H provided scopes for the Long Branch program, or technical support to REL?
Thanks for your reply.

Clive Law by the way.

No, he was saying that H&H sent personnel to Long Branch to speed up the conversion/production process. H&H did not manufacture scopes that I'm aware of.