Field use of No.4 (T) kit, and LB-marking questions

Gentlemen (m/f), I'm in the process of having a Long Branch No.4 Mk.1* ('43) fitted with a replica No.32 scope, cheekpiece, center swivel, M1907 sling etc.
The rifle has been deactivated for re-enactment purposes to fire blanks only.

I'm aware of the fact that I'm just trying to create a reasonable lookalike of an original (T), but it is for the sake of setting up convincing displays and of course a bit of personal satisfaction.

Were Long Branch rifles also marked 'TR' on the butt socked after acceptance range testing? If not, how were they selected, was the procedure different? Are there any other differences with the British made ones?

Then, the scope came with a brand new Case, STG. TEL No.8 Mark.I. It has quite a hefty and solid feel. It has some welded loops on it, from pictures it seems to be for a leather strap to secure the lids (?). Or is it intended for carrying purposes? I tried to insert a standard webbing strap but the brass ends do not fit the loops.
How did the sniper carry this case in the field? Stowed away in his small pack or strapped to some other gear? Or not at all, leaving it with the wooden chest? I noticed there is also a later webbing-like version.

Thanks for any comments on this trivial subject...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galf

Gentlemen (m/f), I'm in the process of having a Long Branch No.4 Mk.1* ('43) fitted with a replica No.32 scope, cheekpiece, center swivel, M1907 sling etc.
The rifle has been deactivated for re-enactment purposes to fire blanks only. ...

---

It pains me to read that you are going to a lot of trouble only to fire blanks. However, there is a bright side. More civilians will get to see, hold and smell as near a firearm as many of them ever will. Maybe they will learn more about their history (and the history of firearms too).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galf

I'm aware of the fact that I'm just trying to create a reasonable lookalike of an original (T), but it is for the sake of setting up convincing displays and of course a bit of personal satisfaction.

Were Long Branch rifles also marked 'TR' on the butt socked after acceptance range testing? If not, how were they selected, was the procedure different? Are there any other differences with the British made ones? ...

---

The only people who will inspect your display at 6" distance will be the most knowledgible of collectors. If your objective is public education, you should not give those guys a second thought. You have the rifle, not them. Any criticism should be redirected to reflect on their snob behaviour and attitudes.

The Canadian T rifles do not conform to the same marking scheme as Holland and Holland conversions. If you are starting with a 1943 dated receiver, you could truthfully say there were no special markings at that time, and research suggests only 71 Long Branch rifles converted in that very earliest batch. Take a look through this article: Is my Lee Enfield sniper rifle a fake? “Is my Lee Enfield sniper rifle a fake?” - Enfield-Rifles.com

While we are talking about period specific details, the centre swivel would not be appropriate for the middle war years. Similarly, the most appropriate No.32 scope mark would be a Mark I. And, an REL at that. However, that would be very fine details only a few very well read observers would notice. A Mark II or III scope could have been fitted at some point during the war to replace a damaged Mk I scope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galf

Then, the scope came with a brand new Case, STG. TEL No.8 Mark.I. It has quite a hefty and solid feel. It has some welded loops on it, from pictures it seems to be for a leather strap to secure the lids (?). Or is it intended for carrying purposes? I tried to insert a standard webbing strap but the brass ends do not fit the loops.
How did the sniper carry this case in the field? Stowed away in his small pack or strapped to some other gear? Or not at all, leaving it with the wooden chest? I noticed there is also a later webbing-like version.

Thanks for any comments on this trivial subject...

---

The "tin" should have leather straps to double safeguard against accidental opening. It is a very ordinary 1" wide strap about 60" long with a tongue buckle and keeper loop. There is a seller on eBay who will happily sell you one (or a set?) for about $80. As you suggest, the sniper would leave the tin in the wooden chest back with unit stores. Once the rifle is sighted in, no properly trained sniper would take the scope off the rifle. The tin is only for safe storage and transport in the chest.

The sniper employment doctrine was much less rigid than for line infantry. Commanders realized these guys had a very intense battle every time they went forward. Whether it was respect or professional courtesy, snipers could carry as much or as little as they individually wanted. If a sniper decided his mission required binoculars instead of the draw tube telescope, who was going to try quoting equipment scales or authorizations? If the local conditions required the guys wear leather jerkins or denison smocks or frizzy ghillie suits or regular battledress, that is what they put on.

Thank you Maple Leaf!
Rest assured that it cost me a considerable amount of sleep before I decided to convert the rifle. It was a decent shooter but not good enough to compete in a match, my older No.I Mk.III performs better. The damage is minimal and invisible however, a small pin welded just in front of the chamber to prevent chambering a live round, but blanks will fit.
My favorite gunsmith drilled and tapped the rifle with the prescribed tooling and the pads fit nicely. He said the only way he did not follow original procedures was the use of Loctite instead of solder and not staking the screws.

I'm pretty sure that a couple of fellow hobbyists will absolutely scrutinize the work done, on the other hand I feel confident that it will prove worthy of showing. And that's better than storing a fine rifle for nearly 100% of its existence in a locker.

After reading the link it is clear to me that no additional marks are needed on my rifle except for possibly the scope number on the butt. I have no problem with a mint looking replica Mk 1 scope on the rifle because the rifle itself is still looking very decent.

Still a question considering the leather case strap. 60" suggests a considerable excess length for only securing both halves. The canvas Mk 2 case also has carrying straps. I just flipped through the book of David B. Gordon, Weapons of the WWII Tommy and saw both items pictured, the steel case with an indeed quite lengthy strap. Like you said provisioned for but practically seldomly used...

Regards,
Theo

Theo

With a No8 scope tin, just passing the 1" leather strap through the bottom loops and the loops on each side of the lid, effectively provided a secondary method of keeping the lid closed.

The long length of the strap was so that it could be slung over the shoulder.

Paul

Galf: I personally think it's a great idea to build a reasonably historically accurate replica for re-enactments. There would be little gained by use of a real one in this role. I have a shootable replica (started as a dastardly fake) which serves to limit the number or rounds I put through my real one. For extra info on Canadian sniper rifles and associated equipment you might want to obtain a copy of "Without Warning" by C. Law (Service Publications, Ottawa) which contains lots of photos of rifle cases, scope boxes, etc. There's one good shot of the No. 8 box that demonstrates how the straps hold it closed, as mentioned above in the thread. It's a good supplement to the other must have books by Laidler and Skennerton. As to markings, based on the books and many images on this forum, there definitely shouldn't be a "TR" and "T"s, if present, may be of a totally different font than the H&H "T" we're all so familiar with. I'd also be curious to hear from experts if the front pads on Longbranch rifles were ever installed with the beautiful close fit characterizing H&H conversions. Many photos of genuine Longbranch T's show a fairly poor fit. Be sure to show us some photos of your end product.

Ridolpho

Some pics:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...156d7c4b-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...d3b2c57a-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...359ea5d4-1.jpg

---------- Post added at 12:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 PM ----------

More pics with mount:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...4ba5f943-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ffb8348a-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...3be84adb-1.jpg

Here is some direct historical evidence for you:

A group of Canadian paratroopers (Ardennes or Netherlands, January 1945). The chap in the middle is a sniper, and has his 4(T) with scope fitted. Around his neck is the Scout Regiment telescope on its leather strap. He is also carrying a bandoleer of ammunition. The scope tin is not visible, but might well be in his small pack on his back.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...06346570-1.jpg

Funny how those little right-angle torches have stood the test of time isn't it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galf

Some pics:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...d3b2c57a-1.jpg

---

The compass pictured is a Compass, Marching. It should be a Compass, Prismatic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beerhunter

The compass pictured is a Compass, Marching. It should be a Compass, Prismatic.

---

I'm sorry, the quartermaster was out of stock, this was the only one available.
The helmet is a refurbished tanker, the smock is replica and I could carry on. My gear is far from complete/perfect but I'll try to get there eventually.
Btw, still looking for a decent (black, not totally brassed, preferrably dated) prismatic compass, if anyone has one for spares...