48 Attachment(s)
1944 Long Branch No.4 Mk1* Jungle Carbine Prototype?
I separated this thread from the other one titled 1944 Long Branch No.5 Mk1 Jungle Carbine (click here), primarily due to the confusion of the photo shopped picture where someone had "touched up" the receiver to make it look like it said "No.5 Mk1" Long Branch. :lol:
Anyway, a member on CGN showed some pics of a No.4 Mk1* Jungle Carbine that is purported to be a Long Branch prototype, described by its owner as being one of ten made, with a second one claimed to be in England.
The CGN member Cantom who photographed it, also provided this description to go with the photos shown at the bottom of the thread..
Quote:
Bolt handle is curved as on the Lightweight rifle. Rear sight is LB 1300 yards. Buttplate and flash hider appear to be British. (not worth gearing up to make 10 pieces). Wood is the normal gorgeous Canadian walnut. Receiver was machined and then case hardened I was told.
The forend is not cut for the lockout block, is not low cut, and is not cut for the British bolt head release.
We compared the machining side by side with a British Jungle Carbine. The lightening cuts and profiles are definitely different. It is not a clone of the Brit rifles.
A gent who was there has seen it disassembled. He is 100% convinced it is totally genuine. He saw the lightening cuts in the forend and on the barrel, very nicely done and obviously not No 4 parts.
s/n is a contract number and is on the receiver and bolt.
As I mentioned in the other thread, I can't find any reference to an official Long Branch No.5 Mk1 Jungle Carbine, any No.4 Mk1* marked variant ever being produced, although I can find a reference to an experimental one being produced using a No.4 Mk1* receiver.
According to Skennerton's newest publication The Lee Enfield on page 319 ..
"At least one prototype .303 N0.5 jungle carbine was produced at the Long Branch factory, the illustrated specimen is from the Canadian War Museum collection. This example utilized a 1943 vintage No.4 Mk1* receiver with No.5 type barrel, flash eliminator assembly and fore-end. The backsight is s No.4 Mk3, re-graduated to 800 yards, which makes it similar to the British-made No.5 Mk2 sight. The carbine is stocked to within 6.25 in. of the flash hider, similar to the ROF Fazakerley and BSA Shirley-produced No.5 model."
The photograph from Skennerton's book referenced above also appears on page 319 and shows it marked as a 1943 No.4 Mk1*.
So, that's about all the information I have on this old girl displayed in the pics below. I'd like to thank member Cantom for his keen interest in wanting to research this piece, as well as granting his permission to use his photographs displayed in this thread. :clap:
So, what do you all think now? ;)
Time to add another page to the many Lee Enfield research books that have been published, just an over active imagination on the part of some talented home basement gunsmith? :lol:
Regards,
Doug
Long Branch Jungle Carbine?
To offer an authoratative opinion one would need to examine the rifle alongside a contempory Long Branch rifle and British No.5 to examine each component for the machining, cuts and finish. Wood and metal alike. Unless it were a tool-room one-of, there would have to be 10, 12 or 20 produced so we would need to compare the only known sample (not saying that is kosher either) at the CWM. Special parts like the flash hider, barrel, rearsight (would have been graduated to 800 years, surely), &c.
Also consider the requirement of the Canadian war machine at that time. Would they have needed a jungle carbine? With two factories churning them out in England, I doubt that England would have considered an order on same from Long Branch.
CWM sample has the action body made in 1943, another point for consideration. And a folded sheet metal rearsight rather than the machined Mk I Singer type. At least it is marked to 800.
We really need to see some documentation from Long Branch to certify either/both. Other projects had drawing numbers such as the J-5550 series. Would there have been any point in fabricating a jungle carbine type for comparison with the Lightweight rifle? And if so, it does not appear in any of the extensive reports on the Lightweight, duplicated at Aberdeen, England and even Australia, where some Lightweights have showed up.
Bear in mind that people tend to believe what they want to believe so there should be some scepticism applied.
What of the alleged paperwork some member claims to have but not have enough time to dig it out?
Ian Skennerton
P.S. Doug's thread with quote from p.319 L.-E. book (Skennerton) should read 'No.4 Mk I*' rather then 'No.4 Mk II*'.