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

I am wading into this late and am relying on a memory that is poor to begin and files that are in deep, although unintended, storage following my office renovations with so please bear with me.

Both the UK and Canada embarked on a rifle suitable for use in the Pacific theatre. Designs were shared and on-going discussions were maintained between London and Ottawa. The chosen model would be known as the No. 5. Canada's design was basically a No 4 that had been reduced in weight. I believe that Skennerton shows this but a photo is reproduced below.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...file3502-1.jpg

Although Canadian tests looked positive the Brits found that the butt was prone to breakage when dropped and didn't like it's length. They decided to go ahead with the British design, now known as the Jungle Carbine, although there was also talk of issues to the army in Northwest Europe.

Taking into account the wonderful photo at SAL I don't come to conclusions based on a single photo of materiel which I cannot personally examine. In researching "Without Warning" it was evident that any development work was heavily documented. LB was supplied wood and metal - both in short supply as war materiel - and had to account to the Department of Munitions and Supply for its use. Further, LB had to pay for labour, etc.. and this would also be documented. In the case of the 20 experimental sniper rifles both money and resources had to be approved. Further, these designs were the responsibility of the Army Technical Development Branch who oversaw the design, manufacture and testing and their records still exist at both Archives and DND, yet there is no mention of a Jungle Carbine.

Based on my studies at Archives and DND I would discount any "Canadian" made Jungle Carbine.

Clive

Interesting, but that photo is hard ignore. That carbine was either made at Long Branch or in the UK. The date of the visit is recorded of course.

Could the documentation have been lost or mislaid in the Archives? Could the project have been initiated without following the usual procedures in the interest of speed and then when discarded, any documents were also discarded due to the project being "unauthorized"?

All the documentation for REL was "lost" after all.

I don't believe that LB manufactured a No5 variant either BUT here's a spanner in the works....... If you look at every edition of Small Arms of the World from 1961 onwards (I've just checked in our technical library.......), there, for all to see is a right hand side view Mk1* variation of the No5 AND it is identified as such AND a No5Mk1* is identified as a minor variant. If you're inclined to copy and enlarge the picture to verify what you're seeing, then don't concentrate on the slot, but the lack of bolt head catch.

The only other variation I can see, although it's nit picking a bit, is the fact that of the hundreds of No5's I've ever handled, the end of the fore-end on the rifle shown seems very squared off and a bit 'different' from the No5's I've repaired/used/shot/gauged/examined in the past.

Comments

Here's another relavent tidbit. I have a copy of Cdn Army EMEI dated October 1946 which provides an illustrated parts list for the No4 rifle.

Para 13 of this document reads as follows; " It is intended that this instruction should identify all components and assemblies, as nearly as possible, of the equipment dealt with, in such a manner that parts lists of other similar equipments (Rifles, C No 7 .22in., Mk. 1, Rifles No 5 and other equipments in the service using No.4 Rifle parts ) can refer to this instruction for identification information where items are identical, and thus prevent an unneccesary duplication of information in the various parts lists."

This, of course, says nothing about the provenance of No 5 Rifles or parts, but it is interesting that it does refer to the No. 5 Rifle when today's consensus is that these were never standardized for Cdn service. Some folks speculate that the No. 5 may have been considered for issue to the Cdn Army Pacific Force for plannied operations against Japan in 1945. This isn't the case as the Cdn Army decision was to equip the Pacific Force with standard US Army small arms to facilitate interoperability and logistics support when operating under US Command for operations against Japan.

I think that the EMER you're referring to is just a good example of good housekeeping/management of Armourers. It might well be that for the Pacific, the Canadian Army were going to be equipped with US equipment but elsewhere in the world at war, and afterwards there were pooled Ordnance stockpiles and even into the 60's Canadian and British Armourers worked together at the big joint workshops at Soest and Wetter. I wouldn't mind betting that somewhere in the Canadian Sterling EMER there was a similar note to say words to the effect that '.......this gun is very similar to the UK commercial gun and many parts are fully interchangeable.

But back to the nub of the matter...................... what about the picture of the No5 Mk1* picture in SAOTW

Pages 320-322 of Skennertons TLE shows photos of a Longbranch No5 prototype.

SAL (Small Arms limited) Long Branch operated a Toolroom for durable and perishable tooling as well as prototype work. We know that the Brit's had their inspectors in this facilty however it was a Canadian run Plant with local employees. A few employees still survived today and have shared shared their experiences with many of us over the years at gun shows, ranges, military functions, and so one. For example...the SAL photo(posted by Cantom) is from a private collection. It was part of a chaps grand father memories past on to him. His grandfather was at a high level position at SAL so we know the provenace of the photo. It clearly shows a number of prototype rifles.

The light rifle program (J-5550 drawing) is well documented in M P Jolley's "Bullletin On Long Branch Light Rifle" date november 25th, 1943. A few examples exist in collections so it's authentisity is not in question. It does beg the question...what else came out of this program? Ian skennerton's book "The Lee Enfield Story 1993" has a photo on p 298 showing for LB Enfield. First is the standard configuration followed by the J- 5550. Here's were it gets interesting. Two "Jungle Carbine's" are pictured below, one in light rifle design and the other in the commonly know Brit design. The both references the light one piece "JC" as from drawing J- 4067-1 p 303. It would be of great interest to the readers if Ian could go into some detail on his reasearch of this rifle. Where is it located? Any documentation on J-4067-1?

The bottom rifle is listed as "Prototype No. 5 Rifle". As mentioned in Ian's book componets from the "light rifle" were taken for these variants. The "JC" picture does exist and is in the CWM (Canadian War Museum). It's built on a 1943 receiver....experimental number appears to be 4062-7 from the photo. If Ian could confirm it would direct us to another bulletin that outlines the its specifications. The CWM has been contacted however I don't know what they have on file.

I've read Clive Law's comments...just wondering if he's aware of the CWM's "Prototype No. 5 Rifle"?

The Long Branch light no5 is out there...it's just a question of how many?

Quote:

---

Pages 320-322 of Skennertons TLE shows photos of a Longbranch No5 prototype.

---

Indeed it does! There's it's been under our noses...that's the one. Right from the War Museum collection.

Pages 320-322 of Skennerton's "TLE" shows photos of a Longbranch No5 prototype.

Indeed! And another interesting thing about the photo on P320 of "TLE" is that all of the three Canadian jobs have their bolt handles bent FORWARD to varying degrees. The lower photo on P 322, ex Aberdeen Proving Ground, clearly shows the distinct forward bend in the Canadian "No5" bolt handle.

The Canadian prototype "No5" also seems to have a typically Canadian "el cheapo" Mk IV, pressed steel rear sight. The "Lightweight:" and J5550 above it have Mk1 type rear sights.

A few years ago, there was a MINT, J5550 action (never fitted with a barrel) floating around in Oz. It came with a very used-looking stock. The interesting thing was that the action was not exactly a good fit into the stock. Yet more variations?

Well, the photo would appear to clinch the discussion! Are there records in storage somewhere detailing everything that LB did and made, or are most of them missing? Can we expect more interesting variations in the future? This is very cool.

Ed