1941 No.4 Mk.I Longbranch (CGN Private Ad)

Ad posted on CGN ....

1941 No.4 Mk.I Longbranch (click here)

If you can't view the advertisement, it's probably due to the fact that you have to subscribe to the EE (Equipment Exchange) forums on CGN in order to view them, or the ad has been deleted.

Quote:

---

Seller says:

Here is my pride and joy! A fully matching 1941 No.4 Mk.I Longbranch. Polluted with LB stamps. The spike is LB as well. She comes fitted with a Parker hale 5C sight and correct C Broadarrow and date stamped sling. The bore is superb. I have the battle sight and five foresight blades as well. The extra mag is British. The oiler is Canadian DA stamped. I have more sealed Canadian ammo. I'm asking $1100.- for the package, shipped in a hand made crate.. Ammo is extra.

---

Regards,
Badger

Saw it. It's definitely been rebuilt. Looks parkerized. Also it's been reserialized. The wood looks like Savage birch to me. Not the Mk1 type band and sight protector.

IMHO it's well overpriced.

For comparison and with thanks to Advisory Panel member Lance, members who are considering this rifle should check the Canada - Milsurp Knowledge Library (click here)

A rare 1941 No.4 Mk1 Long Branch Rifle (click here) .....

This is a fascinating rifle to study its markings and components in detail, with some interesting oddities and variations from the standard No.4 Mk1* noted in the "Collector's Feedback and Comments" section of the main Knowledge Libary entry. There's also information with pictured examples of how to check for a correct front waisted sight protector, versus a home made, or possible fake.

Regards,
Badger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claven2

Saw it. It's definitely been rebuilt. Looks parkerized. Also it's been reserialized. The wood looks like Savage birch to me. Not the Mk1 type band and sight protector.

IMHO it's well overpriced.

---

I have to partially disagree;

It does appear to have been parkerized. The bolt is a replacement, but is LB, the locking bolt (safety) is also later long branch.

However, the butt stock appears original, and the forend could be original as well. If the barrel is dated '42, I think that (from the photo's anyway) the forend is probably correct (or an early/period replacement).

Early LBs have a light coloured, staight grained walnut which could almost be mistaken for birch.

I doubt very much that the fore end wood is correct. By what I can see in the photo, it is not low cut where the mag cut off would have gone. The low cut wood went way beyond the 0L and 1L mk1 rifles.

I have seen many armorer put together rifles, and while many were concerned about accuracy, very few that I have ever met had any concern or inkling about what was correct for the various time periods of production from LB.

As either a shooter, or a collector's rifle, I would agree with Claven that the price is a tad high.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stencollector

I doubt very much that the fore end wood is correct. By what I can see in the photo, it is not low cut where the mag cut off would have gone. The low cut wood went way beyond the 0L and 1L mk1 rifles.

I have seen many armorer put together rifles, and while many were concerned about accuracy, very few that I have ever met had any concern or inkling about what was correct for the various time periods of production from LB.

As either a shooter, or a collector's rifle, I would agree with Claven that the price is a tad high.

---

The drilled out serial number area is painful to look at...

BTW, parkerizing? Black? Did real 41's not have that black finish? If it was Long Branch parkerized, it'd be green or grey.

The forend is definitely wrong, they'd all be low cut...I've seen lots of 42's with low cut forends...

Anyone have any idea of the origin of that serial number?