1944 Long Branch No.4 MK1* T

Hi,

I have a 1944 Long Branch No.4 MK1* (T) which is a matching number rifle however in trying to ascertain it's history a number of anomalies have come up which has left me confused. The first relates to the serial number. According to Clive Law's book Without Warning blocks of serial numbers were set aside for the sniper rifles "71Lxxxx consisting of mostly No.32 Mark2 scopes; 74L0001 to 74L0350 set-up with the Lyman Alaskan; 80L8xxx with the No.67 Mark 1 scope and 90L8xxx mounted mostly with theNo.32 Mark 3 scope". The serial number on my rifle is 80L0259.

Having read the article “Is my Lee Enfield sniper rifle a fake?” there is a comment regarding scopes which says "a Long Branch rifle with a British scope should be approached skeptically". My rifle has a No32 Mk1 scope dated 1943 made by William Watson & Sons.

As I said in my opening sentence the rifle is a matching example. The serial number of the scope has been stamped on the front edge of the butt and the rifle serial number has been stamped just in front of the scope number. The rifle number is also stamped onto the scope bracket along with a Canadian manufacturing mark. Please see attached photo's.

So my question is were British scopes used on Long Branch rifles in late 1943/44 and was the block of serial numbers set aside for sniper rifles 80Lxxxx as opposed to 80L8xxx?

Many thanks

Angus, brace yourself, 'coz there's no easy way to put this to you, but I think your rifle has been made up. Specifically:

The butt is beech. The numbers look to have been stamped in recently. An original LB rifle would almost certainly have been stocked up in walnut.
To my knowledge no British scopes would ever have been fitted to Canadian rifles, or vice versa, during the war, 'factory original'. What happened after the war, during FTR's is a different matter.

The scope is an original William Watson Mk1 of UK mfr

The bracket is not genuine. In fact, it looks like it may well be one of mine that has been doctored up to look superficially like a genuine Canadian item. Someone has gone to a lot of trouble with the markings, but the differences between that bracket & a real one are obvious if one has seen a few real examples.....

The rifle is not well shown but the difference in colour of the front pad compared to the surrounding rifle body side wall makes me suspicious. We could give you more info if you let us have further views, preferably with the scope & bracket removed.

Oddly enough I have an identical reproduction bracket that has been played with to look like a Canadian bracket on my bookshelf just now. It has an original REL scope in it which was losing its focus. I fixed it for the owner who is a dealer friend of mine, but have not been able to return it yet because of the coronavirus fun & games. He bought it at auction, assuming it was a copy, & paid accordingly. The bracket has been marked up in exactly the same way as yours. Presumably whoever did it secured at least two of mine & modified them.

And before anyone asks, I'm afraid I don't know who it was that did it. I've sold around 700 reproduction brackets worldwide over the last thirty years........many dealers preferring to have them in the white, as I get them back from the machinist, without the final finishing off that I usually do myself.

Angusmcrat, can you post a photo of the actual serial number on the rifle, and the rifles bolt?

Many thanks for your detailed response. I had a sneaking suspicion so wasn't totally surprised but still disappointed. :crying:

Anyway as requested I attach some more photographs. I am aware that the swivel in front of the magazine has been changed for a parker hale version at some point in its history. If you want me to remove the woodwork, happy to do so if this will help.

Neil

Thank you. The bolt body has been renumbered to match the rifle. Lee Enfield is more specialised than I on Long Branch products, so I would be interested to read what he thinks, but I still believe the rifle has been assembled relatively recently. The front pad does not look absolutely typical of a Canadian pad to me, in spite of the (bogus) C/l\ it bears. The rear pad screw heads do not look as I would expect on a Canadian rifle, & as mentioned before there is a marked difference in colour of finish between the rifle body & the pads, yet the rifle body finish looks original to me. If that is so, the pads should have the same blued appearance. The side wall T also doesn't look typical of either of the two sizes of sans serif T's that I am familiar with on Long Branch rifles, although other variants of size & font than those with which I am acquainted may well exist.

Are there any modern Italian proofs on it, or Italian ownership stamps in the woodwork? Just curious.....

I had a good look at your pictures and observe the following:

1. Bolt is not Long Branch. Appears to be Brit and renumbered with a partial serial number. How is the cocking piece and bolt head marked?
2. Rear sight is not Long Branch. Appears to be Brit "F" marked.
3. Trigger guard is Brit.
4. The serial number on the butt socket looks like a restamp
5. Are pads soldered on? They look CDN except for the staking.
6. Bracket is not CDN. Someone has gone to a lot of efforts to stamp with an inspection mark and serialize. Can you show us a picture of the opposite side to see if an numbers are stamped on the cradles.
7. Remove the front handguard and see if the barrel is Long Branch and date '44.
8. Scope is Brit as a couple folks have already stated. This would not be original to a LB T however would for a Brit Refurb.
9. Forestock id CDN maple.
10. Handguards appear to be walnut. If removed are they LB marked?

I'd shoot the rifle and enjoy it as is.

Ron (Canada)

Gentlemen,

Many thanks for your comments.

I will carefully strip the rifle down tonight, photograph everything and post them here.

As you say, someone has gone to a lot of trouble with this one.

Thanks again it's most appreciated.

Neil

I agree that this "sniper" rifle 80L0259 / 2787 is not correct.

We would expect the serial number of a 1944 rifle to fall within a known range of serial numbers and this one does not. Furthermore, the 80L8xxx range of sniper rifles were fitted with C No. 32 Mk. 4 (later called C No. 67 Mk. I) scopes on very different style Griffin & Howe style mounts made at Long Branch.

There are no known cases of British scopes being fitted at Long Branch to production sniper rifles, though as mentioned previously, this was sometimes done during service repairs or Factory Thorough Overhauls when a scope was replaced in service due to damage, loss or upgrading to a newer model.

This rifle, 80L0259 with scope 2787 was discussed previously, September 20, 2013, on Milsurps.co, on thread http://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=45624&page=1 A potential buyer in Australia opted not to buy it in 2013. I do not know who the seller was at that time or who the forger was.

Thanks Seaforth, I wish I'd known about this forum before I bought it!! :crying:

In stripping it down to look for various marks and answer a number of questions asked I looked at the serial number under a strong magnifying glass - see the first photograph! The first digit is a 6 so the correct serial number is 60L0259 although if you look at the number on the bolt it shows 0258.

Between 2013 and when I bought the rifle in 2017 it had lost its transit chest and scope case.

The $64,000 question is what are my chances of getting my money back as it was sold to me as a genuine No4T by a dealer, who in my honest opinion should know better?

Whilst rgg_7 advice was to "shoot the rifle and enjoy it as is" it is leaving a somewhat hollow feeling in my stomach. :(

Any advice on legal recourse against the original dealer would be appreciated (I'm UK based).

I've attached various other photographs for reference.

Many thanks

Neil

1. It's been rebarrelled as you can see marking on the knox form where the action wrench slipped. The barrel is Long Branch "LB" marked , '45 dated and correct proof mark.
2. Serial number is much clearer - 60L0259 althougth the "6" looks restruck as you can see a double impression. Generally these line up and the "60" is misaligned. Maybe correct.
3. Handguards are Brit - S76 on front top guard and SL74 rear. both walnut.
4. Butt is Brit Beech JC N22
5. Pads appear to be soldered. The screws in the rear pad are setting above the pad which indicates they have been replaced. Neither should be staked if CDN.
6. It's interesting that there's an 2013 thread asking about this rifle.

It's not the real deal. Somebody has put a lot of effort into this creation. Wonder how it shoots?

As far as recourse - I'd talk to the Seller - show him our comments. You have a few knowledgeable people telling you that it's not genuine.

Ron (Canada)

Neil

My reading of your bolt picture is that the number is a badly stamped “9” which could be taken for an “8”.

Given that you’ve clarified that the rifle serial begins “60” and not ”80” as per the scope mount it’s worth checking what’s been entered on your FAC to ensure it shows the correct serial number. You don’t want any issues arising with your local licensing dept at Police Scotland!

P.s. the link to the earlier thread about the rifle was interesting. The 2013 photos look very like the staging/style of a UK dealer based in SE England (Kent?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desperatedan

Given that you’ve clarified that the rifle serial begins “60” and not ”80” as per the scope mount it’s worth checking what’s been entered on your FAC to ensure it shows the correct serial number. You don’t want any issues arising with your local licensing dept at Police Scotland!

---

Thats a very good point......RFD you bought it from likely wrote the number down on your FAC as the one beginning with 8.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AngusMcRat

Any advice on legal recourse against the original dealer would be appreciated (I'm UK based).

---

Is the dealer UK based? if so talk to him before you consider any "legal" course of action. If he (or she) has any sense they will do the best to help as a bad reputation in the gun world in the UK spreads very quickly.
We all make mistakes me included and it is quite possible that it was purchased as genuine especially if they were not clued up on Enfield rifles let alone the sniper versions which are now being copied more and more.
If you don't get any joy I suspect that you would have a claim under the sale of goods act with something being incorrectly described, but first of all talk to the dealer. Good luck.

I would agree with Paul. It could well be that the dealer who sold it to you is not that 'au fait' with Enfield snipers & may have bought it in in good faith. I would endorse Paul's advice to have a word with the seller before contemplating anything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

I would agree with Paul. It could well be that the dealer who sold it to you is not that 'au fait' with Enfield snipers & may have bought it in in good faith. I would endorse Paul's advice to have a word with the seller before contemplating anything else.

---

It might be that whoever bought back in 2013/4 also eventually found out it was a fake, and hawked it around enough RFD's until finding one that wasn't clued up enough to realise and offered a good enough price.
It could also have found its way into a non-clued up RFD via estate disposal after the death of a local FAC holder?

Is there a statute of limitations as we are talking 3 years or at the very least say 2.5 years since the sale it may sound cruel but the dealer may well tell you to take a hike after all that time if you had come back after say a couple of weeks yeah possibly but now well I think you may be pushing a wheel barrow full of rocks uphill with a flat tyre!

Actually looking closer at the vertical leg on the T it looks engraved right near the bottom like they went to far then the next run stopped short...

Sorry you got dusted bloke I am not immune either getting dusted my F/S even though a ratified 3rd pattern saw me in a bidding war that pretty much took my wallet! My wife well:mad::banghead: so I run in zig zags as if in a straight line she is just to good'a shot I'd be toast......

Gents,

Many thanks for all your comments.

Quote:

---

The 2013 photos look very like the staging/style of a UK dealer based in SE England (Kent?).

---

That was my immediate thought.

As for the dealer I bought the rifle from, he is UK based and having discovered the back story, may have been used as a pawn by the previous owner of the rifle. I will be writing to the dealer who sold me the rilfe with all the facts that have come to light and fully expect to be told to take a hike if I get a reply at all. Thereafter I have a number of courses of action open to me which I intend to pursue.

As for the Statute of Limitations, S32 states

Quote:

---

any fact relevant to the plaintiff’s right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant...........the defendant include references to the defendant’s agent........the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be)

---

so on the face of it I should be alright although I will take advice on it.

As for the serial number, I will discuss the matter with my local firearms department with whom I have a very good working relationship with as I'm the Police Liaison Officer for one of the clubs I belong to.

I will let you know what happens.

All the best.

Neil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AngusMcRat

As for the dealer I bought the rifle from, he is UK based and having discovered the back story, may have been used as a pawn by the previous owner of the rifle. I will be writing to the dealer who sold me the rilfe with all the facts that have come to light and fully expect to be told to take a hike if I get a reply at all. Thereafter I have a number of courses of action open to me which I intend to pursue.

As for the Statute of Limitations, S32 states so on the face of it I should be alright although I will take advice on it.

---

Do you still have a printed out copy of the RFD's original advert for the rifle, showing his exact description?
As without that, its just his word against yours and probably not worth bothering to make contact.
If you have a copy of his wording which states its a real one with no vague 'arse covering' phrasing, then yes make contact and see what he says.

Can you remember if the RFD was selling it as 'his own' rifle or on behalf of the owner.

Big difference in legal liability.
It is was 'miss-described' and it was his rifle you have some legal come back.
If he was selling it on behalf of the owner he has no responsibility for it as he was simply acting as a broker. The owner is unlikely to have any liability either as it was in effect 'a private sale' and it is Caveat Emptor.

Speak with the RFD but I'd suggest you tread lightly in the first instance as going in 'all guns blazing' may just lead to 'not my responsibility mate'.



Fit for purpose?
The Sale of Goods Act 1979, under which traders must sell goods that are as described and of satisfactory quality, applies to second-hand goods just as it does to new ones. But the level of protection you’ll receive will vary depending on who you are buying from.
If you’re buying a used item on eBay from an official company, for example, you will be protected under the Sales of Goods Act in its entirety. This means that the goods must be of satisfactory qualify (as assessed by a reasonable person, bearing in mind the items are second-hand), as described by the seller and fit for purpose.
This is also the case when buying from any standalone official online retailer – whether the goods are second-hand or new. In fact, in this case, another layer of protection will apply, known as Distance Selling Regulations.
“As you haven’t been able to see the goods, this law states that you have a seven-day cooling off period, which starts from the day after delivery, in which to change your mind,” says Frank Shepherd, spokesperson for the Office of Fair Trading. This means you can get a full refund without having to give a reason – regardless of whether the goods are second-hand or new.
To get additional protection, it’s also wise to use a credit card when making an online purchase from a company, as you will be protected by the credit card company itself under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act. The Act provides protection on goods between £100 and £30,000 in value. But even if you just put a deposit on the card, you are still protected for the full amount.

However, if you’re buying from an individual – which constitutes a private sale – the rules are slightly different. For example, the so-called ‘implied terms’ of the Sales of Goods Act only apply to title and description, not to quality. This means the goods must simply correspond with the description, and be legally owned by the seller.
“That means a dress can’t be a size 12 if it was described as a size 18,” says Stephen McGlade, a solicitor at consumer group Which?.
However, if an item is advertised as “a three-year-old bike”, for example, it doesn’t mean it has to work, just that it has to be three years old. In this case, especially when the item has been well-used, the transaction remains a case of caveat emptor, or ‘buyer beware’. “This, put simply, is why you pay a lower price for second-hand goods,” says McGlade.

A bit more here :

Consumer rights – what you need to know - Money Advice Service

The 60L0 serial number appears original and the lack of a straight line is typical of Long Branch.

The bolt appears to be a 1941 Long Branch bolt which has had the original serial number welded over (a true tragedy) and restamped.

As to whether this was an original Long Branch sniper?

In my view it is 95% certain to be fake...

Sight unseen, the 1944 date, and the serial number make it 85% certain to be fake.

The photos supplied by the owner raise that another 10%, but the last 5% is the problem...

In my view the deliberately faked markings and parts are enough that I wouldn't own it.... but I would like to hold it in my hands and physically look at it...under strong light...

My suggestion is to see what the dealer says when you point out the obvious issues with the gun.

If he tells you to "take a hike" provide his name to all as a future deterence. That threat might get you some satisfaction. If not, the dealer will be outed and members of this forum can ensure that future actions from the dealer are contained or eliminated.

Jim

---------- Post added at 01:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:53 PM ----------

BTW, I have 8 LB snipers of which only two are dated 1944. ( 6 are 1945 )

One is a 74Lxxxx matching trade pattern gun which has been reviewed by members of this forum.

The other is a 71Lxxxx gun with a mismatched scope.

jim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Enfield

The 60L0 serial number appears original and the lack of a straight line is typical of Long Branch.

---

Personally, I always view the serial number with great suspicion when I see file marks in the area of the serial. Same goes for different finish, or a slight flat spot in the area. The wrist of this rifle has the file marks in spades. I can almost make out another L slightly higher and to the left of the L in this serial number. There are ways to raise the original number (if that is the case) but they will usually cause damage to the finish. One of them is to wire wheel the area until almost in the white, then put on some cold bluing. The cold bluing will act differently on the hardened surfaces where the previous numbers were stamped.

Gentlemen,

Many thanks for your comments.

Quote:

---

.... but I would like to hold it in my hands and physically look at it...under strong light...

---

Lee Enfield, if you are ever in Scotland and I still have the rifle, you are more than welcome to call in and physically hold it.

As Alan De Enfield suggested, I will be treading lightly to begin with and will be exploring various different options including returning the rifle and being refunded the original purchase price; taking compensation equal to the difference between the cost of a genuine Long Branch No4(T) and a replica either in monetary terms or through the acquisition of another rifle.

With this in mind, could someone give me a ballpark figure for the price of a genuine Long Branch No4(T) without its transit case or scope case and a replica/clone. I have seen Lee Enfield replica's on the market for £2,495 recently with originals from £3,500 and upwards.

Many thanks,

Neil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AngusMcRat

With this in mind, could someone give me a ballpark figure for the price of a genuine Long Branch No4(T) without its transit case or scope case and a replica/clone. I have seen Lee Enfield replica's on the market for £2,495 recently with originals from £3,500 and upwards.

---

What does it actually shoot like?
If its a good shooter, then its top end of a replica price, of £2250-2500. The only issue with most replica's that are sold as replica's is they are not carrying faked markings, and this one now has 'history' so it might actually be worth less than £2000 in that respect. Probably needs some work to de-fake the markings to make it more obvious as a replica.

As you say, a real one, without accessories is now £3500 and upwards, so you are looking at minimum of a £1000-1500 difference.

At the time, were you specifically looking for a Long Branch T, or just a T in general?

Maybe it's time we had a "Notable Fakes" thread? I was reminded of a few while looking through old photos the other day.

The marks on the barrel reinforce are original IMO as they are under the original finish. Also the burr on the edge of the Nock's Form is in the direction of tightening, not loosening. Unusual to see on a LB rifle, but 1943 was their busiest/most urgent year I believe. But as the rifle is 1944, the 1943 barrel is suspect for that reason alone. However, 60L is very early in 1944 so perhaps just a barrel produced late the year before?

Amusing that Mr. RFD did not get the numbers right when he sent the bracket off for engraving.:p

I have never seen a bolt head face ground in that manner before; anyone else? Might be a "signature"?

Presumably whoever bought it in 2013 realized it was a fake and kept the Chest No15 and sold on the rifle. Has the chest or photos of it turned up anywhere?

A 1944 LB would have a fabricated trigger guard AFAIK, and this one looks like UK production to boot.

And Lee Enfield, the relief hole and the area around it look odd for a LB MkI bolt, don't you think? Could be just the photo of course. (And as you pointed out, no chance of that bolt being on a 1944 rifle)

The "T" stamp warrants close examination. I see an interesting feature I won't specify here (no need to tutor fakers), which I think will be clear to those who have genuine LB rifles.

Likewise the inside of the rear pad fitting - I won't point out the details, but it should be obvious, are 4BA screws hard to get in some places? :D Is that steel wool or swarf in the hole!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Maybe it's time we had a "Notable Fakes" thread? I was reminded of a few while looking through old photos the other day.

The marks on the barrel reinforce are original IMO as they are under the original finish. Also the burr on the edge of the Nock's Form is in the direction of tightening, not loosening. Unusual to see on a LB rifle, but 1943 was their busiest/most urgent year I believe. But as the rifle is 1944, the 1943 barrel is suspect for that reason alone. However, 60L is very early in 1944 so perhaps just a barrel produced late the year before?

Amusing that Mr. RFD did not get the numbers right when he sent the bracket off for engraving.:p

I have never seen a bolt head face ground in that manner before; anyone else? Might be a "signature"?

Presumably whoever bought it in 2013 realized it was a fake and kept the Chest No15 and sold on the rifle. Has the chest or photos of it turned up anywhere?

A 1944 LB would have a fabricated trigger guard AFAIK, and this one looks like UK production to boot.

And Lee Enfield, the relief hole and the area around it look odd for a LB MkI bolt, don't you think? Could be just the photo of course. (And as you pointed out, no chance of that bolt being on a 1944 rifle)

The "T" stamp warrants close examination. I see an interesting feature I won't specify here (no need to tutor fakers), which I think will be clear to those who have genuine LB rifles.

Likewise the inside of the rear pad fitting - I won't point out the details, but it should be obvious, are 4BA screws hard to get in some places? :D Is that steel wool or swarf in the hole!?

---

I was looking at the previously posted photos earlier this morning, and I am 100% certain that the rifle is faked.

There are 2 things that haven't been pointed out (on the open forum anyway) that:
#1) to my experience with LB snipers absolutely screams fake
#2) Is easier to see, and (on it's own) makes it very unlikely to be real.

As you say, no sense in giving the fakers a primer, as they are getting far too good.