I see there is a "flat" filed on the elevation wheel of the rear sight.
Is that supposed to be there? It might help with counting turns.
some other nasty file-marks though.
Printable View
I see there is a "flat" filed on the elevation wheel of the rear sight.
Is that supposed to be there? It might help with counting turns.
some other nasty file-marks though.
And a bit more Canadian Sniper "ephemera":
From a barely legible copy of a page from a Canadian EME document (C 503 Instr 41??, page 21, 27 June 55 Issue 1)
Cheek-rests
86. When the cheek-rest as fitted to a rifle with a telescopic sight does not suit the individual to whom it has been issued, a spare rest will be assembled to the rifle in an endeavour to meet his requirements. If this is not satisfactory, the most suitable will be adjusted for shape and position. When wood is removed for this purpose the surface will be finally be smoothed and polished, and if the cheek-rest has been repositioned the existing screw holes will be plugged before the rest is secured.
Further down the page is this:
Re-numbering of rifles
89. Rifles may be found with master number indistinct or illegible. This number may be ascertained by reference to the serial numbers on the bolt . The number will be re-stamped clearly on the left side of the butt socket. Any previous markings will be barred out.
I dragged my two regular LB out both 1944 a 61L and a 62L They are both have various machine and file marks when you start looking close.No different from my 71L0350 .These Sniper rifles were picked out for being accurate not pretty.Here are some pics of other LB no4 T low points and sunken screws ,ruff machine work,file marks.AS for this receiver being and the safety being a reject I call BS as this weapon was in British service and is a military weapon not a pretty commercial gun.As for presentation or made up at Long Branch then again it wouldn't of been in British service.The rear pad at the bottom and a little at the top looks like some was trying to pry it off on mine. the heat marks could of been from this attempt.As for the screw holes they are 4ba.The 1945 rifles do seem nicer finished.We should question things we think are wrong this is a good thing.The pad screws are not all the same on these long Branch snipers.That rear sight with wheel ground down is from ebay
Interesting that one of those 1943 rifles shows the Long Branch "T" stamp. Location is slightly different than the other rifles so maybe the stamp was added later by an armourer, as happened with some early No4(T)s in UK service. Doesn't look like it was added later though.
I've honestly never seen so many poorly finished or misshapen parts on a Long Branch, but the ENGLAND stamp may be its saving grace. The other actions you post photos of do look better finished IMO.
No trace of a T stamp?
Rifle serial number on the tongue of the butt?
Re: your comment about them being picked for accuracy not looks, they weren't picked at all. They were done in batches. Long Branch had a high enough standard of accuracy that they were able to do that apparently.
I doubt they decided to do them that way because it was hard to drill the receivers, unless the Long Branch receivers were harder than the UK production, because the resources we had in North America for tooling and machinery were certainly better than what was available in the UK, (and I don't think anyone has ever suggested that the Long Branch receivers were drilled before the bolt bearing lugs in the receiver were hardened.)
It would make more sense from the point of view of economics to convert batches rather than strip down rifles that had already been completed and convert, refinish and restock them.
What are the numbers stamped in the butt socket below the serial number?
Another LB:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo..._zpsd68a-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff037-1.jpg
Haven't got much else detail photo'd in these areas, yet.
The funny thing is that there is a S/N list for these rifles. Just not published. Hopefully one day!
While looking at my long branch 71L0350 .I did found the trigger guard is a bit rougher than most in some areas but better in others areas .Ive been comparing it to three other spare LB milled trigger guards, their is one other big difference that jumped out at me.It is that between my three spare trigger guards and 71L0350 trigger guard, is on the bottom of the oval were your finger goes in is tapered toward the edges on the three spares ones but not on 71L0350, its the same thickness. Are all ww2 long Branch snipers thicker in this area?. 71L0350 is the one with the trigger in it and the king screw split washer in these pics.I am asking everybody with a long branch sniper to check this and to post a pic.Thanks Paul .Ps thanks surpmil for making me notice this.
Attachment 43334Attachment 43335Attachment 43336Attachment 43337Attachment 43338Attachment 43339Attachment 43340Attachment 43341Attachment 43342
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.
They had to have been hardened after the rear pad holes were drilled. I just built a repro on a bubba Longbranch and the receiver was so hard back there the drill bit basically had to spot anneal its way through the last couple mm's. I'm not sure what it would have drilled like with cobalt or carbide bits but it finally took a 1/8" masonry bit to pilot the holes. Really really brutal stuff.
Quite the opposite. Otherwise the rifles would have been accuracy tested with unhardened locking areas! The locking lug area is locally induction hardened. Unless Long Branch's procedures were different than the the British standard during mfg. there should have been a locking recess gage or measuring standard that located the furthest rearward cut in the LH locking recess. Both pads would be located axially of this datum. At least that what I've gathered reading Peter Laidler's description, but just how it was checked has not been specified to date. I'd guess a bolt diameter plug gage with a small hardened dowel at right angles to reach into the locking cut.Quote:
Originally Posted by flying pig
After re reading your post I believe I follow you. They hardened just the bolt path and bolt bearing surfaces? This makes sense as the front 4ba hole was easier to drill than the rear and it's higher up the receiver wall.
It would definitely be interesting to find out what they had for bits if they were drilling the holes on completed receivers. If I had money burning a hole in my pocket or had access to a more or less ruined British manufactured receiver I'd love to try drilling rear pad holes just to see if they are as hard. With the HSS bit only I would never have gotten through.
That being said, this is my only experience with these so
I'm merely interested in seeing what others think. Is there any truth to the serial blocks being put aside? After drilling those 3 holes I could surely see it!
After doing this project I now really need a copy of Peter's book and Without Warning! More interested in learning and understanding the technical history than ever.
At least get PL's and Skinnerton's books. Even I can find all sorts of nonsense in Without Warning.