Saw a thread over on CGN about this piece ...
Attachment 28620
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
Anyone have one of these and can provide more pictures?
Regards,
Doug
Printable View
Saw a thread over on CGN about this piece ...
Attachment 28620
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
Anyone have one of these and can provide more pictures?
Regards,
Doug
I'm a little sceptical about this one, the markings are good,very good in fact but they dont look like other long brach markings I've seen.
We'd need to measure the wall thickness if that was in doubt BP and Badger. The markings are usually deep enough when done on the roll-press to be foolproof if it's a fake. The first N and the A COULD be suspect and indicate individual stamps
Some close up views comparing die stamped words Long Branch and date 1944 on other Long Branch rifles to the stampings on this 1944 Long Branch No.5 Mk1.
Attachment 28639
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
I can't find any reference to an official Long Branch No.5 Mk1 Jungle Carbine ever being produced, although I can find a reference to an experimental one being produced using a 1943 No.4 Mk1* receiver.
According to Skennerton's newest publication The Lee Enfield on page 319 ..
"At least one protype .303 N0.5 jungle carbine was produced at the Long Branch factory, the illustrated speciman is from the Candian War Museum collection. This example utilised a 1943 vintage No.4 Mk11* receiver with No.5 type barrel, flash eliminator assembly and fore-end. The backsight is s No.4 Mk3, re-graduated to 800 yards, which makes it similar to the British-made No.5 Mk2 sight. The carbine is stocked to within 6.25 in. of the flash hider, similar to the ROF Fazakerley and BSA Shirley-produced No.5 model."
The photograph from Skennerton's book referenced above also appears on page 319 and shows it marked as a 1943 No.4 Mk1*.
Regards,
Doug
Note: 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.
I was unaware we actually made them???
I, too, am rather skeptical. I suppose anything is possible, but I'd need to see it to believe it - or at least wait until its been authenticated by someone I trust.
There are some visible differences to the No5 marking that I can see in the side by side by side photo. First of all, the alignment of the letters in 'LONG BRANCH' are not as even, nor is the depth, as they are with the other two markings. Secondly, the marking appears to much further back on the receiver - towards the butt end, than on either of the other two markings. Much more of the thumb cut out radius is over the marking on the No. 5 than on the No. 4.
Could the "5" be photoshopped? It looks a little off.
And we haven't seen the rest of the body side either. But I don't dispute that some tool room examples do/might exist. Canada certainly went down the lightweight road until events overtook the need.
That's what I was thinking. Nice try though!Quote:
Originally Posted by canuck98k
Non-availability of many Long Branch records was a cause for concern in my studies on North American production. In contrast, we have a good array of British and Australian factory records. Digital photography and computer programs make almost anything possible today, so a photograph is no longer sufficient proof. Agreeing with Peter, one needs to examine the item hands on before venturing an opinion. Such markings used a roll die and such a die would hardly be made up unless there was a reasonable production run. It is odd that we've never seen a Long Branch No.5 rifle, there is none in any official collection that I know of, nor have we seen any report on same. I would need to see the rifle/action body and consider it along with the other component parts.
Life would be dull if one knew everything, that is for sure.
Cheers, Ian
The original poster on CGN has admitted he photoshopped it.
Of course there's CGN's inveterate BSer and attention hound claiming he's seen crates of them in the '90's.
The horizontal cross bar in the "A" in Branch is lower in the No 5 than in the typical No 4 LB. The letters looked stamped individually to me. I say a big hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by canuck98k
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
Good eye ... nice catch !!! :clap:
Hard to believe anything you see on the Internet nowadays ... :lol:
Regards,
Doug
I suppose that the first thing that comes to eye is the use of a I for the mark number instead of the correct 1.
That's the same as the #4 before it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerhunter
.........& wouldn't it be more likely to be a 'No5 Mk 1*' (or is it built from a 1941 Mk1 receiver? I somehow doubt it). However, the markings are very professional in appearance & short of handling it in person it would be really helpful to see more photo's of the rifle as a whole. There was what purported to be a toolroom example/prototype in the Charnwood collection. Unfortumately I've no idea what became of it & I can't remember what receiver markings it bore, but IIRC they were not 'standard' type receiver markings as shown here, but were more in keeping with what one would expect on a prototype weapon.
As canuck98k reported above, the chap who originally posted the photo at canadiangunnutz.com has announced that the photo is photoshopped. It is buried in a thread initiated by "Strangeday" about his "go to" rifle.
Thanks tiriaq, but forgive my IT ignorance.....I presume 'photoshopped' means faked up using their software?
ATB
You could even call it digitally remastered.
Yes, digitally altered.
There are reports of a real LB No.5 prototype surfacing, though. Photos of this one will be posted in the next week or so. Sounds as if this one might be the real deal.
Fair go, it takes time to get that 70+ years old look down pat, this next one maybe a couple of days older.
Well, the photos of the LB No. 5 prototype have been posted over at canadiangunnutz.com.
I have no basis on which to comment on its authenticity.
It certainly could be a prototype.
Or, if someone wanted to replicate a prototype, it would look the same.