long branch sniper ?

I cant see a makers mark but can see the inspectors stamp looks like H.W.D.

Attachment 43083Attachment 43093Attachment 43092Attachment 43091Attachment 43090Attachment 43089Attachment 43088Attachment 43087Attachment 43086Attachment 43085Attachment 43084Attachment 43094

Moderator Edit: After you click on images to ENLARGE them, you may find they automatically size smaller in your browser's window making them harder to view. The auto sizing is your browser's way of keeping images entirely within the screen size you have set. Move your mouse pointer to the bottom centre of the pic and you will see an options panel appear. There will be a small square box next to the large X, which will have a pointer arrow sticking out of it. If it's illuminated, it means the pic you're viewing can be enlarged, so click on this box and the pic will EXPAND and open to its normal size. You can then grab the pic with your mouse (hold down left mouse button) and move it around to look more closely at various parts of the photo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bindi2

P L, jmore as a Action shooter i have a 686 with a grub screw in the trigger guard behind the trigger it has a piece of rubber inletted into it.

---

The ol' PPC revolver has just such a set-up, but that's just the way it was purchased. Probably the most accurate .38 Spl revolver I own.

As for paul87buick's rifle goes, the sear stop seems to be located in a very inconvenient location. If (when) it gets out of adjustment, there's no quick way to rectify the situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul87buick

I'm not big on engraved guns but that pistol looks dam good,its tastefully done

---

It is a factory job. Pulled off the line before the frame markings were applied. Old random birthday present to myself purchased used but ANIB for a very reasonable price.

Btt for 2003 views

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul87buick

Btt for 2003 views

---

Eh? No saavy!

Btt is back to the top to celibrate over 2000 people viewing these Posts or threads ?:dancingbanana: here are my latest Canadian items for my long branch Sniper A new old stock long branch front handguard A lucky find, used LB rear handguard and used long branch magazine .Does any body recognize the B in circle on the magazine follower. :banghead: PS How do you delete a post as a forgot to ad pics to this one .YES I am dead tired. and why does editing close so quickly thats a pain in my @$$ PPS THIS REALLY IS A GREAT WEBSITE this and the fal files are two of my favorites

Btt is back to the top to celibrate over 2000 people viewing these Posts or threads ?:dancingbanana: here are my latest Canadian items for my long branch Sniper A new old stock long branch front handguard A lucky find, used LB rear handguard and used long branch magazine .Does any body recognize the B in circle on the magazine follower.

Dunno who the 'B' relates to, but no doubt somebody will. You also see it on the back of LB forends, stamped onto the tie plate.

I can see you're all fired up with this project & I understand entirely; there's nothing like the feel of satisfaction on taking a rare old LE that somebody has done their best to trash & then painstakingly restoring it back to its former glory. (Well, no feeling of satisfaction that I have ever experienced with my clothes on, anyway.....).;)

I must admit to having a few doubts about this rifle: there is no "T" stamp on the receiver wall, and that rear pad is such a mess I just can't see it being an original Long Branch fitting. Sometimes the mess is made by attempted removals and replacements of pads, but that pad does not align with the top or side of the receiver at all. I cannot see that pad being original to the rifle. The screws are obviously not original. The weird 'chatter' or file marks on the bearing surface are a mystery as well. Not something we see on pads on other rifles.

I'm not sure what to think; was it a pad that was grafted on there in a restoration attempt by someone? Is the receiver really a No4(T) receiver? The way it was found and the presence of the butt are convincing, as is the SN, but I have a 1943 Long Branch action here that someone attempted to mount pads on; is it a 'factory reject' or just someone messing about later?

The holes are tapped 4BA BTW and I've posted about the rifle years ago. No butt, and no SN, and we have to remember that there was quite a bit of this stuff, including un-numbered receivers, floating around at Small Arms Ltd. (Long Branch) and in the Canadian ordnance system after WWII.

Rifles were made up by and for the staff, rifles were made up for presentation, both formally and informally to retiring civil servants etc, and I'm sure the staff amused themselves with all kinds of projects using the parts that were rejects or just 'lying around'. The same is true for 30 or 40 years of Canadian amourers. You could order brand new cheekrests in boxes of 5 or 6 right into the 1980s!

I knew a retired inspector who told me how he had a rifle made up at SAL for one of his colleagues who was retiring, "came complete with the paper tag on it just like the real ones" was how he put it.

I mention all that just to give some perspective to my comments.

Getting back to the rifle, the pads were soldered originally; what is that brazing rod-like material at the top of the pad?

The holes for the front pad do look 'old', but are they tapped 4BA?

You can see from the discolouration that someone has got the receiver wall very hot indeed around the rear pad, and that is not something that was done originally. Someone who didn't really know how the conversions were done, but wanted to 'make one up', might well think the pads were brazed on when they were actually soldered.

In general the fit and finish of the receiver do not look of the standard we normally see on No4(T)s from Long Branch, in fact, for a 1944 rifle, this receiver looks worse than most to my eye, in terms of machining and finishing. Bearing in mind the poor machining to the pad and receiver and the damage to the safety catch, I suspect you may have a rifle here that was put together for someone from rejected or surplus parts, and may well have had that scope and cheekrest originally, but that those parts got removed somewhere down the road.

If the case and scope were 'on hand' it would have been no trouble at all to stamp the appropriate numbers on the action and butt. They had all the stamps there they could ever want, and originals too.

We know that rifles were put together at SAL/Long Branch using sniper parts for some presentation pieces.

Sorry if that seems 'negative', but I assume you want our honest opinions.

https://www.milsurps.com/attachment....0&d=1367601644

Thanks Rob. I must say I hadn't noticed the receiver sidewall photo in #30 - but I have now, & I would entirely agree with your comments about the fit of the pad & messy job done, as well as the degree of temper from excessive heat. I am also aware, though probably not so as you, about the various goings on at LB/SAL with the production of presentation pieces etc etc towards the end of & after the War. However, I would think it unlikely that if someone was making a presentation piece for a pal or retiring boss, or just 'knocking up a shooter' for a mate, that they would have bothered selecting a serial from the correct sniper serial range. Also, if it was made up as a 'fake sniper', surely with all the resources of the factory available, they'd have made a decent job of the pad fitting? I know the markings became more uniform with time, but I have seen/heard of a few LB 4T's that did not bear a receiver side wall 'T'.

It may prove impossible to say categorically what it is, but I still think it more likely to be 'the real deal' that has been the victim of an injudicious restoration attempt (rear pad fitting) than anything else. But that's just my view....

Maybe once we know the thread of the pad screw holes it may push our views a little one way or the other?!? Sticking my neck out, I'm going for 4BA!

ATB

Roger, I see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure how much faith we can put in a serial number. Let's suppose someone had a scope and case and wanted a rifle made up to match, for whatever reason. Well, nothing could be easier at SAL/Long Branch!

And in fact there must have been dozens of sets of those SN number stamps in the hands of various armourers and depots from Atlantic to Pacific.

Take a rejected action, a rejected pad, a rejected safety and the rest of the bits and put it together. The wood they had by the warehouse full. The hard part is not stamping the numbers in, the hard part is fitting pads properly, and I'm not sure that ever happened in this case.

There were literally thousands of un-numbered receivers in stores here and no doubt hundreds if not thousands more at SAL/Long Branch. I have the impression from other rifles we've seen, that parts which which were cosmetic rejects were kept around for possible use. (The same way hundreds of slightly defective No5 flash hiders surfaced in the hands of Sarco(?) fifteen or twenty years back. They weren't considered good enough to use, but why just throw them out after so much money had been expended manufacturing them? This was the 'waste-not, want-not generation' let's not forget! Those flash hiders must have sat in some depot since 1948 or so.

AFAIK you are right that we don't see the distinctive "T" stamp used at Long Branch on all their snipers, but if I'm not mistaken it was a SOP that was settled on in 1944/45. Could be this rifle was converted before it became an SOP, but its absence is just one more fact that makes the genuineness of this rifle less likely IMO.

When I first saw the photos of this action, before I even questioned its "T" status, I thought "that is a damn rough looking action for a 1944 Long Branch". Rough enough to be a cosmetic reject, or perhaps even rejected for a slight functional defect.

Look at the rough, rough work on the front pad screw holes above the bolt way; has anyone got a LB "T" with those burrs on the screw holes or a half-cocked attempt at filing them down as we see here?

The stock inletting is rough indeed around the reinforce of the barrel. The inlet for the handguard retaining ring is the deepest I've ever seen.

It doesn't add up to me. Not a single piece with the "Cross Pattée" mark either apparently. The trigger guard is also probably a cosmetic, if not functional reject.

Looking at the photos further, I must add one caveat to the above: the ENGLAND stamp. This I assume would only be found on a rifle that had been supplied to the UK during WWII and later exported. If true, that would make it almost impossible for this to have been a rifle built up at SAL in the 40s/50s/60s.

So, bearing in mind the ENGLAND stamp, if it has the meaning I assume above, the final question is: is this SN from a known range for Long Branch No4(T)s?

If it is, I would have to conclude that this rifle is a low point in Long Branch QC, as I see no sign of the SN being altered or replaced, and a rifle without a SN would never have been shipped from the factory, or accepted for service in the UK.

No question though that at the very least, the rear pad is an incorrect later replacement.