1944 Long Branch No.4 Mk1* Jungle Carbine Prototype?

It's interesting what turns up. Not too long ago I got the book, "In Search of Pegasus, The Canadian Airborne Experience 1942-1999". It has a lot of good photos, incl one on page 73 of four troopers armed with a PIAT, a STEN, a BREN, and what is clearly a No5 JC! AFAIK the No5 was never adopted by the Cdn Army and I wondered if this might have been an experimental/prototype Longbranch model. The photo has a DND credit and is captioned, "Four paratroopers at Stevenson Field Ipperwash, Ontario during a rehersal for an RCAF airshow, July 1946". One thing that made me wonder was the identification of "Stevenson Field" at Ipperwash as this was the historic name for the RCAF airfield at Winnipeg, MB.

On a somewhat related topic I recently confirmed that a vertical laminate No4 stock and 2 matching handguards, which I have had for a number of yrs, are actually Longbranch production. These were owned by a known Bisley shooter and the forend has been center bedded. I always assumed that they were made by Fazakerly because of a large "F" stamped on the forestock. I cleaned them up and found the distinctive Cdn "CCM" stamp on the metal forend tip as well as a 3 digit number stamped inside both the front and rear handguards.

If the machining of the butt around the cap appears regular and done by machine, rather than by hand that would be a good sign. If the butt is at least as long as an N or L butt, that would make it difficult to have faked out of a L No.4 butt.

If the forend was never relieved for the mag cutoff block and also bears appropriate stamps and tool marks, that would be another good sign.

The flash hider does appear a bit different from UK examples: the flat for the bayonet ring is shorter, and the pins are a bit farther apart I believe. The overall machining/finishing is a bit better than the UK examples I recall.

The "wobbles" in the machining of the bolt handle side of the sight block are worth a better photo. The electro-pencilled broad arrow doesn't look out of place.

The butt pad is plainly very different from the UK examples and projects far enough to actually keep the butt cap from hitting your shoulder when firing. Not a bad idea that. The edges are sharper, which may not be a better idea from a damage point of view, but does increase the surface area and therefore the distribution of recoil forces to the shoulder.

The handguard does not project as far past the band as the UK examples, although the grain of the walnut in this one looks more like UK manufacture than LB.

The apparently standard backsight is a detraction, but not a fatal one.

The finish looks exactly as it should, except possibly in the area of the lightening cuts, but it's hard to tell from the photos.

The bent bolt knob is interestingly reminiscent of the Lee Enfield Carbines, and of course if someone was trying to produce a fake, unless they had a particularly devious mind, they would probably not include any variation like that from the UK pattern.

The hole in the bolt knob looks a little bigger than that found in the knobs of the LB MkI rifles; is it?

When I see pristine woodwork on a 70+ year old firearm without even a wear or scuff mark or usual handling marks, my immediate reaction is in the negative.
When that sort of timber is mated to metalwork with a high reflective/polished finish,(everything a service rifle doesn't have) I'm even more dubious.
Convince me.

Since this rifle would have been a prototype, not an issued rifle...perhaps we'd expect it to be in a bit better condition than average?

I see your point Canton but these prototypes weren't made to sit in an Armoury or on someones desk. They were USED and abused in the same way that standard rifles are. That's the reason for a) making them and b) trials (that we do here at Warminster).

While we accept that the flash eliminator might have been sent from the UK (or individually made from drawings sent over), can anyone imagine that LB or whoever else might have tooled up to make a small amount of butts or fore-ends or handguards required? As I have mentioned several times, when we were rebuilding/refurbishing many, many hundreds of No5 rifles in Malaya/Singapore, when woodwork was in short supply, some of the spares we got through the Ordnance system were just converted No4 butts and fore-ends (but new handguards as I recall) On the basis that if it wasn't worth the UK Military contractors (P-H and Westley Richards) tooling up for a few thousand, I can't see LB tooling up for a dozen. Proototypes and early trials stuff just isn't like that unlike late trials and pre-production phases generally are.

And these things are always/inevitably followed by paperwork, even if you find it 40 years later on microfische as in the case of some 'lost' L1A1 trials like the prong changed flash eliminator and bayonet grips saga

Just my idle thoughts

Got nothing to add about the rifle in question but this is an experimental rifle and it's close to 70 years old. Wood looks new.

Exactly my point Homer.......... they were actually making that woodwork on site and while it differs slightly in configuration, they didn't have to tool up afresh. And you've forgotted one VERY important point too................ There is paperwork to support/qualify your rifle too - or is there?

What exactly is that rifle Homer? A shortie SMLE with an aperture sight on the charger bridge? Someone did a (inconclusive.....) paper on these short rifles a year/18 months or so ago

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homer

Got nothing to add about the rifle in question but this is an experimental rifle and it's close to 70 years old. Wood looks new.

---

The timber has all the rough tool marks as one would expect, as does the metalwork.
A prototype is exactly that , a rough mockup of the proposed firearm, not a highly polished pristine piece that looks like it was destined to be presented to some dignitory.
Have a look at the finish on the receiver of the OP, certainly not the rough machining standard of the manufacturers other lines.

This pic was just posted on Canadian Gunnutz by 6167. It's of a Dutch Royal Visit to Long Branch Arsenals during the war. Note the second rifle in line, between the Long Branch Training Rifle and the Lightweight Rifle.

Note the recoil pad...same as in my pics. It sticks out almost as far as the steel part. Not at all like the Brit version.

Also note on the LB Jungle Carbine, the mid band is the milled early round profile band, while on the Brit versions it looks to be the later flat band.
Note that in 6167's pic you can clearly see that the band is milled/round!


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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Exactly my point Homer.......... they were actually making that woodwork on site and while it differs slightly in configuration, they didn't have to tool up afresh. And you've forgotted one VERY important point too................ There is paperwork to support/qualify your rifle too - or is there?

What exactly is that rifle Homer? A shortie SMLE with an aperture sight on the charger bridge? Someone did a (inconclusive.....) paper on these short rifles a year/18 months or so ago

---

Homers rifle is an Australian Short and Lightened. Serial Nos XP1 to XP100. Thats not the only one i have seen in that condition.
Do you have the bayonet for it Homer.