1942 Longbranch No.4 MK1* T .. original?

Hello everyone! got a question for any of you sniper experts. two of them actually.

saw a guy with a 1942 Longbranch No.4 MK1* T at a gun show. It had a matching bracket and apparantly all the rest of the correct for a Canadian sniper at that time. things causing a fierce debate between a couple of 'authorities' on military snipers at the show.

The rifle did not have a scope or sling and the front part of the original walnut stock was cut back to the middle sling ring to 'sporterize' it a bit. and the overall metal finish of the receiver and bracket was definately old. There was no 'history' or story to it other than someone owned it for dozens of years and dug it out of the closet and sold it.

one of the 'experts' says it lacks the S51 stamp on the bottom of the buttstock which makes it
questionable as to it's true originality. Another guys said this didn't matter too much with Canadian snipers, especially early ones in combat due to all the parts swapping in the field. (I certainly will personally attest to this phenomenon while i was in Nam) Either they didn't necessarily get that stamp or the stock could have been replaced later behind the lines if it were broken, but as long as it had a matching walnut cheekpiece, which all agreed it did, it could definately be 'original wood', in any case? It sure looked like original wood to me, but then I'm not an expert. One collector said because the stock could not be proven original, and no scope, it was not worth much than a few hundred dollars? Is that true? How do you judge the value of something like this then? Do they all have to be perfectly matching and 'correct' in every respect to be worth anything?

By December of 1943, Long branch in Canada had produced only 71 of the No.4 Mark 1*(T) rifles for sniper use. They would not have had the S51 stamp on the butt stock as this was a stamp added by Holland and Holland to rifles converted by them in Britain.

If the rifle you saw was genuine, it was a rare example. Despite the condition described, only pictures posted here will reveal if it was indeed a rare rifle or simply someones back yard creation.

As stated "early" Long Branch T's did not have the Holland & Holland markings. The "T" was added to some of the last batch produced for England in 1945. If you can get some pictures of the receiver this should validate originality. You need to look at the shape of the scope pads and the stamping on the pads. 1942 is very early few a Canadian sniper rifle as the first few were produced on 1943/44 actions. What was the guy asking? It might be worth the gamble....saw a nice experimental LB purchased because folks thought it was a fake. Ron

The general consensus is that the 71 pre-production snipers were built up on 1943 actions, in the 40L-56L range (or there abouts, don't have my book close by). This is not to say that a 1942 action could have been used. Did it have a scope serial # on the stock heel? As stated, the S51 stamp is the Holland and Holland mark, and was never used by Long Branch.
Here's a few pics of my 1943, one of 71. It was put back in fighting trim thanks to Brian Dick of BDL and Mr. Laidler, my thanks to both!

I would give my left nut for that Long Branch. :)

I have a 1945 Long Branch T with Ishapore screw and S51 marked buttstock. No S, no DE 6, no SL74 stock. Sniper quality trigger. Serial is 71LXXXX. No mount, no scope. Can this rifle be correct?

I have fitted a very well done mount and a vintage weaver K4 and can tell all it shoots like a T should. Tested with Greek 1970 HXP it shot .75-1.00 inch for 5 shots. Only tested at 100 yards though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by viking guy

I have a 1945 Long Branch T with Ishapore screw and S51 marked buttstock. No S, no DE 6, no SL74 stock. Sniper quality trigger. Serial is 71LXXXX. No mount, no scope. Can this rifle be correct?

---

No, unfortunately from what you describe, it's not ... ;)

For comparison, check the Canada MKL for the following entry with a 160 pic photo montage of an all correct example ... :thup:

1945 Enfield No.4 Mk1*(T) Long Branch Sniper Rifle

That's what it should look like and I suspect your rifle is a compendium of various parts …

Pics would help if you can post them … :cheers:

Regards,
Doug

Maybe you've asked the wrong question Viking Guy. If you'd asked 'is is original' then the answer from me would be 'well, the barrel and body may well be original - but the rest wasn't ORIGINALLY fitted at the factory............!'. But you asked 'is it correct' and I would answer 'well, if the barrel and body is, then if it's had a hard life, then with what you describe, it could well be correct..........'

The problem with some of the well used and battered examples that came from India recently was that by definition, they were well used and battered and had been in and out of Armourers shops for a good part of their lives. So during the course of their treatment will have been fitted with the Ishapore screw (it isn't an Ishapore screw, it's a British Army modification but lets not split hairs here......). It could well have an S51.
marked butt. Taken off another rifle in exchange for, say a smaller butt for a smaller sniper. The S51 butt stays on the shelf for a rainy day until your rifle comes in with a hefty un-repairable crack. It definately won't have the D6E mark because it's never been through the Enfield examiner. That's pretty simple to ascertain because it's Canadian! The SL butt is a red herring too because there were hundreds of butt/furniture makers and SL were just one of them.

Lack of a scope and mount is a bit of a problem because that's what separates YOUR rifle from a No4T sniper.

If I was you, firstly, I'd get one of the Canadian experts to confirm that it's a genuine Long Branch No4T body and barrel. Then I'd get hold of a mount and a genuine scope, make sure that they are correctly matched and fitted and then, without trying to hide the previous numbers, you have a genuine No4T. No, it's not factory original but it's been matched up and it shoots like a dream. And to be fair and honest, that's what a lot of the old and well used British No4T's were. It's certainly what a lot/most of the L42's are/were.

That's my 2p's worth...............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limpetmine

The general consensus is that the 71 pre-production snipers were built up on 1943 actions, in the 40L-56L range (or there abouts, don't have my book close by). This is not to say that a 1942 action could have been used. Did it have a scope serial # on the stock heel? As stated, the S51 stamp is the Holland and Holland mark, and was never used by Long Branch.
Here's a few pics of my 1943, one of 71. It was put back in fighting trim thanks to Brian Dick of BDL and Mr. Laidler, my thanks to both!

---

I see a "D" and a small Broad Arrow on the front pad. What's that all about? Very authentic looking "T" stamp as well, except that AFAWK no Canadian Ts got them except where applied retroactively on the individual initiative of armourers or civilian owners.

Is it possible some RSAF(E) made pads were sent over at the begining of the program at Long Branch and your rifle has them?

Is it a D/broad arrow on the front pad or could it be an upside down C/broad arrow? Just a thought.
ATB

I'll pull it out and get a better picture of it. I guess it's any one's guess as to how each of these rifles get to us-buy the rifle, not the story, we've all heard. And while this one "speaks" to me, it's not telling me! lol
The story on this one was it was hunting deer in Arkansas for the past 30 years.
I've heard and read the same about the "T" stamps not being applied in Canada. There must be more than a few with the T, here are a few I've saved along the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

I see a "D" and a small Broad Arrow on the front pad. What's that all about? Very authentic looking "T" stamp as well, except that AFAWK no Canadian Ts got them except where applied retroactively on the individual initiative of armourers or civilian owners.

Is it possible some RSAF(E) made pads were sent over at the begining of the program at Long Branch and your rifle has them?

---

Quoting myself now, :rolleyes: but I remember a thread here or on Gunboards that showed photos of another LB No4(T) that definitely had RSAF(E) pads, at least the front pad; (though the pad was loose and could have come from another rifle. I can't remember if the rear pads displayed any markings...Roger?

Perhaps have a close look at your 1942/43 dated rifles, those lucky enough to have them?

It would have made sense to send some along, and RSAF(E) may well have had some extra after finishing converting the 1400 odd trials No4s to "T" specs. Just as H&H did when they finished their contracts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

Is it a D/broad arrow on the front pad or could it be an upside down C/broad arrow? Just a thought.
ATB

---

The broad arrow I see at about 5 o'clock on the left hand screw of the front pad, and the "D" at 9 o'clock on the right hand pad. I could be wrong about both...

Sorry to disagree a tad chaps but I have the most serious doubts about Enfield body pads being used on a LB sniper rifle. Seriously......... If Canada were already making rifles, Brens and pistols from drawings, then they were well capable of making body pads....., surely! Enfield were virtually divorced from the T project by the time LB were even getting started. H&H had, presumably, told LB that in order to get a move on and switch from bit part production to actual production line production techniques, they needed to do exactly what H&H were doing. You're all aware that the shop foremam from H&H went to LB to get the line into production line type output. As for sending some pads over.......... That wouldn't help beyond 10 minutes machine tool time per pad.

In any case, a finished pad is of little use as the spigot part is finished while it's on the rifle in order to collimate the bracket to the bore

Thinking off the top of my head, the only reverse supply of parts that I can think of is Bren bipod legs from Hercules Cycles who supplied thousands of the part finished taper rolled bipod leg tubes to help with a botleneck in Canadian production. The legs are rolled into a taper before being squeezed oval for use in much the same way as bayonet scabbard ends.

Rifle body pads......... sorry I just don't think so chaps

Surpmil, my eyes are getting old & tired, & I agree with you about the broad arrow, but what you are reading as the 'D' I suspect may be an upside down C with or without broad arrow. I've had other rifles with upside down markings. I guess an enlarged photo would settle it, FWIW.

Out of curiosity, if the rifle is held muzzle to observer, & one looks back down it towards the receiver, does the front face (that that a sizeable proportion of which butts up against the receiver ring) have a radius on it nearest to where it is soldered to the receiver? This, & the hall-mark faint but definitely present transverse machining mark running horizontally across the front of the front pad near the top tend to help to distinguish Canadian pads. However, I must admit I don't know how rigidly their presence holds true on the early conversions. All of the 90L's I have seen have been pretty consistent.....

ATB

The resolution of the photo isn't quite good enough even on this gigantor monitor to be certain about the mark between the screws on the front pad of the early rifle pictured on post#3(?), but it surely looks like a smaller version of the mark in the roughly 10 o'clock position of the front bracket screw. That mark appears to be a "C" w/ some additional gunk inside it's curvature. An arrow? Possibly. I'm pretty sure someone knows if it's "real", but he's wisely silent on these matters.

(The individual pixels mean there's nothing much more to see from this version of the picture, I reckon, but an expert in these matter I'm very NOT!)