EAL Type Longbranch Experts Weigh In

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Lee Enfield and Brian dick have pretty much nailed it.

Where are Cantom & Wheaty?

First off Longbranch would not have used a Mk 1 receiver to assemble anything after the war.

You do not even have the bolt catch that would be used with the Mk 1 and the stock was not relieved to accept one.

The EAL furniture barrel sights etc. came from a military EAL.

This stuff did not even show up till around serial # 5000 so would not be found on an early rifle.

There is no way this is an EAL or a LB prototype.

Well, I've looked at it and all the posts and in the absence of more documentation - not that history always agrees with the documentation, don't we know - I couldn't definitely say it is NOT a prototype. Can anyone else?

Saying it MIGHT BE is not the same as saying IT IS.

I don't see anything illogical about the suggestion that a few rifles would be made up for evaluation or as samples for end-user inspection, with the machining understood to be done if production went ahead. That can't be ruled out without some evidence.

"Look: I said "Either this is 02, EAL, OR it's #2 ever made at Longbranch -- highly unlikely -- or it's a forgery, which would have been pointless."

There is another option that is quite logical and previously demonstrated: a rifle made up for a staff member, or as a gift or favour for someone associated with CAL. As I've mentioned before I was told by a former Eng. Lt. Cmdr. RCN who became an inspector for the Department of Supply, that he had a rifle made up at Long Branch for a colleague who was retiring, he knew very little about rifles, but as he described it, "...it came with the tag on the muzzle..." He was quite clear, because I made sure to ask, that it was made up for him, not just taken from stock somewhere. His friend was a hunter and the Lt. Cmdr. knew people at CAL because he visited sometimes in the course of his work. He just asked and they provided. This probably happened hundreds of times over 20 +/- years. And when the writing was on the wall for Long Branch, there was probably a flurry of rifles made up and "lunch-boxed" out of the place.

First off Longbranch would not have used a Mk 1 receiver to assemble anything after the war. -- Longbranch shut down, according to records, the day the war ended. Feeding, housing, and paying 5500 people costs money.

You do not even have the bolt catch that would be used with the Mk 1 and the stock was not relieved to accept one. -- bolt catches missing are not uncommon in my experience. The last three No4s I've handled had them missing. Inletting for a bolt catch is there.

The EAL furniture barrel sights etc. came from a military EAL. -- so the stamp matching on the receiver and the forestock is coincidence?

This stuff did not even show up till around serial # 5000 so would not be found on an early rifle. -- the serial numbers seem arbitrary and this fact is not constant; buckhorn, L-style, and express style like this are evident in various models.

There is no way this is an EAL or a LB prototype. -- inconclusive. What about the matching cartouche and barrel stamp showing later manufacture than Longbranch?

Regards Surp.mil's third, refreshing, option: it could be, but still doesn't account for the matching bolt and receiver serial numbers.

Surpmil it looks like we posted at the same time.

I`ve seen this rifle before and the stock was not inletted.

I may still have the pics somwhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dogfish858

First off Longbranch would not have used a Mk 1 receiver to assemble anything after the war. -- Longbranch shut down, according to records, the day the war ended. Feeding, housing, and paying 5500 people costs money.

You do not even have the bolt catch that would be used with the Mk 1 and the stock was not relieved to accept one. -- bolt catches missing are not uncommon in my experience. The last three No4s I've handled had them missing. Inletting for a bolt catch is there.

The EAL furniture barrel sights etc. came from a military EAL. -- so the stamp matching on the receiver and the forestock is coincidence?

This stuff did not even show up till around serial # 5000 so would not be found on an early rifle. -- the serial numbers seem arbitrary and this fact is not constant; buckhorn, L-style, and express style like this are evident in various models.

There is no way this is an EAL or a LB prototype. -- inconclusive. What about the matching cartouche and barrel stamp showing later manufacture than Longbranch?

Regards Surp.mil's third, refreshing, option: it could be, but still doesn't account for the matching bolt and receiver serial numbers.

---

I can't put my finger on it now, but I seem to recall a MkI receiver used for another rifle believed to be assembled post-war - can anyone remember the thread?

Your blanket statement about "would not have used a MkI receiver to assemble anything after the war" cannot be proven, nor does it make sense IMHO. The MkI* modification was a foolish idea that the UK factories pointedly avoided. That should have been enough to convince LB and Savage not to proceed, but further research needs to be done on why they did. If I were having a rifle built there, or building one for someone I knew, you can be damn sure it would have a MkI receiver, if one was available.

Now, finding a Long Branch bolt head retaining catch is not an easy thing at all, but you can bet they had some at Long Branch in the drawers and boxes, and if this rifle was assembled there without one, that suggests to me that it was just a "looker", not a "user".

Alternatively, if some industrious person was assembling a rifle some time in the not-too-distant past, a Long Branch bolt head retaining catch would be a very hard thing to find, and if they were 'trying to put one over', using a British made catch would be shall we say, "unconvincing"! Better perhaps to have no catch at all??

Or maybe someone was restoring a Long Branch MkI and needed a bolt head retaining catch and 'this here rifle' just happened to provide one?! ;)


As I said, the only possible conclusion is that there can be no conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Your blanket statement about "would not have used a MkI receiver to assemble anything after the war" cannot be proven,

---

You are quite right, I`d like to change that to would not likely have been used.

Sometimes 'the bleedin obvious' can be interpreted as '.....the wisdom of the crowd....'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dogfish858

...snip...

Heritage Mississauga.

C.A.L. was a separate company from Long Branch and employed 200 vs 5500, turning out over 30,000 units per month.

I get you, but regards lightened design -- which would make sense for air crews -- it wouldn't make sense to go to the expense to mill out a unit if it was a one-off to win a minor gov't bid. If they had a mill on hand, wouldn't they have used it instead of farming out the work?

If it was a surplus bitsa, then there's still the 02 serial, which would indicate the second No4 ever made at Long Branch.

---

"Long Branch" was never a company, "Long Branch" was a facility OPERATED by "Small Arms Limited" (a wartime Crown Corporation), on Dec 31, 1945 "Small Arms Limited" passed control of the Long Branch facility to Canadian Arsenals Limited (a post war Crown Corporation) on January 1, 1946 which then operated the Long Branch facility as "Canadian Arsenals Limited, Small Arms Division", a sister division to the Canadian Arsenals Limited, Explosives Division and apparently few others.

Small Arms Limited didn't cease to exist on Dec 31, 1945, it continued to tie up its operations until mid 1946.

Oh yeah, Long Branch, and EAL serial numbers are on the LEFT side of their receivers.

It's all good. Look, frankly Peter, Lee, Brian, Vintage, Ax: you're all wrong. Gov't docs state that the Longbranch facility closed upon armistice to avoid paying, feeding, and housing 5500 people 24 hours a day. The charter was surrendered end of 1945, and in 1946, C.A.L. took what it needed from the S.A.L. factory to use in its own separate factory of 200 people, and the gov't disposed of the rest. Just the facts, man. Newspaper articles based on gov't docs and in person interviews. Unless you're willing to believe a factory made for thousands of workers producing thousands of pieces per month stayed open to produce hundreds of pieces per year with a fraction of the workers. Imagine the heating bill on a structure hundreds of meters across.

Regards your serial numbers, yes, you're right, most of the time. But the fact remains that I have in my possession a photograph from a reputable source of an early series EAL rifle with no EAL stamp, a Longbranch serial still on it, and a low two digit serial number identical to mine, and not placed on wrist or receiver.

I lifted the cartouche on the stock today; it reads 130 Broad Arrow EXAM. Whatever that could mean. The unknown K stamp evident on wood, bolt, and receiver appears to be a proof stamp of some sort, as I've found another on another North American No4. But it's clear that, in spite of some of your braggadocio, you actually don't know what you're talking about with regards EAL rifles. It's the great risk of asking advice, though, so in the end it's my fault.

You'll notice, actually, that nobody except Surp.mil has come even close to answering my questions: where and why the 02? Why does it match the bolt? Why is the butt stamped 130>EXAM? Why does the 02 match another two digit serial number on an EAL rifle? Why the strange, rare proof marks?

Was it aliens? Or factory gnomes? Some believe in them.

When you can offer some sort of answer or even mild speculation, I'll believe you actually know what you're talking about, because, frankly, your guess is as good as mine -- and it seems my guess is better.

Respectfully, ish. Thank you for your useful posts.

Ah...... While I readily admit that I know diddly squat about these EAL rifles I do understand the well used phrases like '....the bleedin obvious' and the wisdom of the crowd. Additionally, there are some VERY learned historians on this site. Nope....., not me I hasten to add as I am just a mechanical engineering type.

I notice that in para 2, you have uncovered all manner of irrefutable or hard evidence by way of photos. Same in Para 3 too. BUT THOSE THAT KNOW AIN'T SEEN IT!

As for your 'my guess is better that yours' notion, then yes, it IS better than mine. But I'll tell you something else. It ain't better that some of the others who have waded in with answers. It also raises the question of '........er..... if you are right and do indeed know more than the respondents on the forum, why are you asking us in the first place?. Just a point to ponder!

Some of those you have ribbed aren't quite as diplomatic as me. But, like I used to say to my son while I was helping him with his Physics and Technology homework at School, when he was always right. 'Robert....... if it makes you feel better I'll say you're right. You're not of course, everyone can see it, but in spite of the glaringly obvious I'll say you are right. Can't say fairer than that can I?