long branch sniper ?

I was only told, in some detail by Sid Harvey about his work-friend (they were near neighbours too) who was shipped out to Canada. They were told that he was going up to Birmingham(?-not sure about this to be honest) to assist setting up the new sniper production line. It was a secret to start with until some months later when it was a bit of gossip spread through the H&H works. No date and unfortunately Sid has gone to join the rest of the No4T conversion team. BUT, if I was a betting man, I would venture to suggest that it would have been for the 71L/90L batches/era/time. I say this simply because Harvey said that while H&H did keep a sizeable reserve of suitable rifles in the vaults (the old cellars, which still had the long rifle racks fitted, with a small hole bored on the top wood shelf section where the bolts could be inserted while/if the rifles were being converted), they found it far, far easierand simpler in time and machine setting etc etc if the rifles came in from ONE source. Much like buying a fleet of Fords made in Cologne as opposed to a few from Dagenham, some from Seville and others from wherever. The fact that they were all the same made production line conversion simpler. They could also deal directly with BSA managers for day-to-day matters.

That's the reason LB took a big pile of, probably, same-day production and using the production like technique imported from H&H converted them knowing that when a certain machine was set up by the skilled machine setters* it was good for all of them

Regarding the Mk1 scopes. I think that it's a case of repeating the old saying we used to have. You go to war with what you got. You can have what you need, later. But you can never have what you want!

* The machine setters at Enfield and elsewhere were not 'skilled' workers such as the apprentices etc etc but were the very top of the pile from the UN-skilled workers and were highly regarded by the workforce and managers.

When I say "sloppy" and ugly fit and finish this is what I am referring to:
front of pad (looks fine, pretty close to H&H)
Military Surplus Collectors Forums

back of pad (notice the relief cut at the front) and the gap which on H&H conversions was much closer fitted
Military Surplus Collectors Forums

rear pad (notice the top of the rear pad was undercut compared to the top of the receiver rail during fitting of the elevation of the rings)
Military Surplus Collectors Forums

This rifle is 71L0630 which was good enough to be re-incarnated as an L42A1

Obviously the rear pad top height is a product of fitting the rear elevation interface of the rings. As I said my 1943 50L is above the receiver height, while my 71L is below (or vice versa).

My theory is that the jigs and system that LB was using to fit the rings was (substantially?) different from that used at H&H.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

.... I say this simply because Harvey said that while H&H did keep a sizeable reserve of suitable rifles in the vaults (the old cellars, which still had the long rifle racks fitted, with a small hole bored on the top wood shelf section where the bolts could be inserted while/if the rifles were being converted), they found it far, far easierand simpler in time and machine setting etc etc if the rifles came in from ONE source. Much like buying a fleet of Fords made in Cologne as opposed to a few from Dagenham, some from Seville and others from wherever. The fact that they were all the same made production line conversion simpler. They could also deal directly with BSA managers for day-to-day matters.....[/I][/B]

---

Very interesting Peter, I hope you have set down all you recall about these conversations? The stuff that doesn't make it into the books is often very interesting.

This is tangential to the thread, but was there anything in what you were told about the storage systems etc. which suggested why the "T less Telescope" rifles accumulated without being fitted with scopes? The early Savages and the 1944 BSAs in particular?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Enfield

....Obviously the rear pad top height is a product of fitting the rear elevation interface of the rings. As I said my 1943 50L is above the receiver height, while my 71L is below (or vice versa).

My theory is that the jigs and system that LB was using to fit the rings was (substantially?) different from that used at H&H.

---

The front spigot was being machined with the pad fitted and then the rear pad "hand-fitted" and moved up and down to obtain the proper vertical alignment? Do-able but awfully time consuming and requiring the rear pad to be made thick and then reduced gradually until the exact distance between the body side and the mating surfaces of the bracket was achieved. The position of the pad would have to be scribed and then the pad and body tinned, the whole lot heated and the pad clamped while the solder cooled, then the bracket or jig removed and the holes drilled and tapped...They'd soon get sick of this sort of jiggery-pokery. North American production was geared to jigs, accuracy and repeatability, not fitters with files and hammers. I don't think the production engineers would go for that, but if a few people who didn't really know what to do were put in a room and told to "get on with it" with minimal engineering input and a low overall priority??

Our best chance of finding out something is to log the rifles and see what patterns emerge from the data.

And we should have done this research 25 years ago (or more) when the people were still around; some of them.

Another one with matching REL Mk 2 scope...

The rear pads were screwed to and soft soldered to the bodies (at H&H) as flat plates, drilled through with the clearance sizes of the BA and BSF screws. Then drilled and tapped accordingly. THEN the pad was dovetail machined across fore and aft in one hit in an exact line with the bore. In much the same way that the front pad was although the spigot of the front pad was machined to an exact height from and to a pre-set depth that was adjusted to suit the mechanical centre of the bore in relation to the bracket cradle, Thereafter that bracket stayed with that rifle.

This is all written down but when the book could only be 126 pages long, you gotta' leave a lot out to cram a lot in!

Why the surplus of rifles less scopes. Simple. There were 28,000 or so rifles and numerically the same amount of telescopes. End of war, end of contract. H&H only got paid for what they had DONE by that date so they finished as far as humanly possible what they had in hand. No more telescopes, unfinished stuff gets returned incomplete, H&H get paid! That's my guess

I have to go back to the installation of the rear pad on the OP's rifle. We're a bit off topic, (some interesting information is being posted), and I agree that the Long Branch pad fitting isn't quite as neat and tidy as the work done at H&H. I still say that there's no way in Hell the rear pad on the OP's rifle was installed by a trained fitter/Armourer. The workmanship is total crap and even the worst Long Branch No.4Mk.1*T I've observed isn't even close. I still own three here and I went and looked at them a few times over the course of this long discussion along with a couple more that are going back to Canada on export, (both 90L series). Something else that hasn't been mentioned is the FACT that many of the front pads shot loose and had to be repaired by Armourer's in the course of their service. That just might account for the fact that maybe some of those aren't quite as nicely done but they still don't show the lack of fit and finish observed on the OP's rear pad. I've had quite a few LB "T's" through here over the years, probably upwards of twenty or so without counting them in my bound book. I've also repaired quite a few front pads, both for rifles I imported for resale, (mostly L42's), and also a few for customers who sent them here for repair. It's just my observation so take it for what it's worth.

I have to agree with BRian for that comment. In fact I don't ever remember having to re-sweat a rear pad. The only time they came in for some recoil load was when the bracket was fixed to it of course. And then, it was bolted THROUGH the pad and directly into the body, making the pad simply a positioning sandwich!

Front pads...... an everyday fix at Field and Base workshops. In fact you'd almost do them as a matter of routine

That's a great point Peter. I've never had to mess about with a rear pad, only the front ones. The L42 was a lot worse than the No.4T. When I imported the last 30 in 2001, there must have been a dozen with loose pads. But then you'd probably remember since you taught me how to fix them with the long distance Armourer's course!! :thup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

This is all written down but when the book could only be 126 pages long, you gotta' leave a lot out to cram a lot in!

---

Volume Two: "The Anorak Files"..............???