long branch sniper ?

jmoore: If you go to pictures 79/84 on the piece about a '45 No. 4*T (knowledge library, page 3, Canada) they show the backside of the front pad. THe one illustrated, while clearly different from an H&H fitting doesn't look as bad as some I've seen pictured. I'm also curious about the long, skinny "T" on some Longbranch's. Anyone know where and when these were applied? Someone who faked a Savage T I bought when I was young and naive (ie. last year) inappropriately used this exact skinny T.

Ridolpho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ridolpho

they show the backside of the front pad

---

That's a useful photo, but what I meant to ask is: Are there any photos of the backside of the Canadian pad itself whilst off the rifle? I.e., the area that gets the solder. There's some differences that are largely hidden when the pad is installed.

ETA: Like this photo of a British pad under rehab:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC01739-1.jpg

some people know what there talking about ,others don't . this one is the real deal ,and with some effort will be a very nice piece.

The biggest problem in getting it 'just right' will be to find a genuine LB front pad. It is possible to modify a front pad to incorporate the minor differences alluded to by jm - but the real item would be oceans better. I managed to get hold of a genuine pad from the late Bruce Gorton for one of my 90L rebuilds. It came out so well I kept it for some years (until another forummer prized it out of me!).

ATB

Got my long branch today:Dafter the taking of the after market mount its got three holes in the receiver two in the front one on the left side of the bridge they are about a quarter inch deep ,not great but could be worse.toke of the fore stock beautifully fitted but no wood replacement under the barrel bearing were it meets the receiver like the h&h .there are marks were cheek piece use to be. the cheek pieces holes are 3 inches apart but in different position then the h&h the front one is centered and the rear slight to the left .the H&H are both to the right also the long branch buttstock is narrower than the brit stocks the tryed my original brit cheek piece on it just doesn't fit its to wide and the holes are in the wrong place.barrel bore looks very good no pits.the sling looks like its marked H.W.D. not sure about the h though.

The wrist stamps look fine to me. Here are a few other Long Branch (T)'s wrist markings for comparison. It doesn't look engraved to me.

Yours is included for quick comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vintage hunter

A couple of novice observations. Did Long Branch mill the receiver side wall where the front pad would be attached as H&H did? Don't see any signs of it on this one.
It doesn't look like the front pad area was prepared very well before soldering, patches of blueing showing through where the solder didn't take.
Discoloration around where front pad would be hint at it being epoxied in place while the holes were drilled.
You experts correct me if I'm wrong, cause I probably am.

---

Good observations. Long Branch receivers are generally very accurately machined. No doubt it was not found necessary to machine a flat for the pad. The residue around the area could be anything, including an attempt by Bubba to re-attach the pad at some point. I doubt anything like epoxy was used at LB as it would have needed to be removed before soldering.

Whoever gets it should dig hard to find that front pad. Might still be in Bubba's basement somewhere. Let's hope he put it in the butt trap!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Whoever gets it should dig hard to find that front pad.

---

Had thought that it was removed when the new mount was attached. But who knows how many owners ago that was?

No front mount in buttstock:( .Remeasured the cheek rest holes in buttstock the long branch are slightly shorter 2 7/8 and H&H are 3 1/8

Long Branch pics