1944 Long Branch No.4 Mk1* Jungle Carbine Prototype?

I separated this thread from the other one titled 1944 Long Branch No.5 Mk1 Jungle Carbine (click here), primarily due to the confusion of the photo shopped picture where someone had "touched up" the receiver to make it look like it said "No.5 Mk1" Long Branch. :lol:

Anyway, a member on CGN showed some pics of a No.4 Mk1* Jungle Carbine that is purported to be a Long Branch prototype, described by its owner as being one of ten made, with a second one claimed to be in England.

The CGN member Cantom who photographed it, also provided this description to go with the photos shown at the bottom of the thread..

Quote:

---

Bolt handle is curved as on the Lightweight rifle. Rear sight is LB 1300 yards. Buttplate and flash hider appear to be British. (not worth gearing up to make 10 pieces). Wood is the normal gorgeous Canadian walnut. Receiver was machined and then case hardened I was told.

The forend is not cut for the lockout block, is not low cut, and is not cut for the British bolt head release.

We compared the machining side by side with a British Jungle Carbine. The lightening cuts and profiles are definitely different. It is not a clone of the Brit rifles.

A gent who was there has seen it disassembled. He is 100% convinced it is totally genuine. He saw the lightening cuts in the forend and on the barrel, very nicely done and obviously not No 4 parts.

s/n is a contract number and is on the receiver and bolt.

---

As I mentioned in the other thread, I can't find any reference to an official Long Branch No.5 Mk1 Jungle Carbine, any No.4 Mk1* marked variant ever being produced, although I can find a reference to an experimental one being produced using a No.4 Mk1* receiver.

According to Skennerton's newest publication The Lee Enfield on page 319 ..

"At least one prototype .303 N0.5 jungle carbine was produced at the Long Branch factory, the illustrated specimen is from the Canadian War Museum collection. This example utilized a 1943 vintage No.4 Mk1* 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*.

So, that's about all the information I have on this old girl displayed in the pics below. I'd like to thank member Cantom for his keen interest in wanting to research this piece, as well as granting his permission to use his photographs displayed in this thread. :clap:

So, what do you all think now? ;)

Time to add another page to the many Lee Enfield research books that have been published, just an over active imagination on the part of some talented home basement gunsmith? :lol:

Regards,
Doug

Cantom reports that according to the owner, the lightening cut in the forend is not in the same palce as on a No. 4 forend. That is harder to fake than the metal work.
I have not inspected the rifle.
It could be the real deal.
And if someone wanted to make a fake, it would look very much like this. I've been studying the lightening cuts in the receiver from the standpoint of how they were made. I have inspected one of the late LB halfstocked light weight experiementals, as illustrated in Skennerton, and the milling for the receiver lightening is more professionally done than on the No. 5.
The provenance of the piece is very important.

Definitely worth a KING'S RANSOM or should I say a QUEEN'S. :super:

It would be nice if the version supposed to be in the hands of the Canadian War Museum matches this one. Hoping for a positive on that. If I hear anything I'll update this space.

doubtful.

As I commented to Cantom in private correspondence, given the current knowledge we have and just the pics above, in my opinion the piece has marginal value at best in the collector market …

As they say, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", but with no provenance, pedigree or official documentation published by authors, or accompanying the piece, I wouldn't assign it much more then novelty value for the collector who has everything and money to burn.

In any event, there sure has been a lot of these strange pieces surfacing lately. I had one individual who approached me with a 1941 No.4 Mk1 with no serial numbers on it anywhere, but looked like it was fresh from the production line. He said it was the front office's display piece and he wanted thousands of dollars for it. I told him that to me it was simply worth the price of a regular 1941 LB and possibly less, because there was no serial number to validate it's year of manufacture. I think I insulted him and I never heard back… :lol:

To get this new genre into the Enfield validated "book of records", or consider it to be authentic, I'd want to start by seeing some very good pics (close-ups) of the one said to be in the War Museum in Ottawa, comparing it to the pics of the one presented in this thread. I'd also want to see real closeups of the serial (contract) numbers marked on both.

Anything is possible, but I find it hard to believe that there's no Long Branch (or government) documentation anywhere supporting the prototyping of possibly up to 10 of these 1944 Long Branch No.4 Mk1* "Jungle Carbines", such as the one shown above.

I say that because there was plenty of Long Branch and other government documentation located and published by our Advisory Panel member Clive "service pub" Law, in his book Without Warning" (pages 56 thru 64) - ISBN: 1-894581-16-4, regarding the 1943-44 Enfield No.4 Mk1* Experimental Long Branch 'Scout' Sniper Rifle (click here), where Long Branch only manufactured 20 of those prototypes.

Anyway, it would be fantastic and rewarding to discover something new in our hobby of collecting Enfields, but until more empirical data becomes available, I'd still place this piece in the category of a "unknown origin" and would value it accordingly.

Just my two cents … :D

Regards,
Doug

The acid test so far as I am concerned would be to metallurgy on the barrel. I think that it'd be simple to convert a No4 body to No5 spec (conversions is alll they were by the way..........) but machining the breech end of a barrel is more difficult and a faker would just insert a standard but cleaned-off factory barrel. So I'd look at barrel metallurgy as to whether it's British made or Canadian made steel.

For a prototype, I don't think that they'd cast flash eliminators either but machine from scratch OR import from the UK - as happened with Bren legs etc etc

Just my two pence worth

The flash hider has to be British. There is no sight blade tension screw on the front as Long Branch did them.

Yes, I'm really interested to see what the Canadian War Museum comes up with.

To offer an authoratative opinion one would need to examine the rifle alongside a contempory Long Branch rifle and British No.5 to examine each component for the machining, cuts and finish. Wood and metal alike. Unless it were a tool-room one-of, there would have to be 10, 12 or 20 produced so we would need to compare the only known sample (not saying that is kosher either) at the CWM. Special parts like the flash hider, barrel, rearsight (would have been graduated to 800 years, surely), &c.
Also consider the requirement of the Canadian war machine at that time. Would they have needed a jungle carbine? With two factories churning them out in England, I doubt that England would have considered an order on same from Long Branch.
CWM sample has the action body made in 1943, another point for consideration. And a folded sheet metal rearsight rather than the machined Mk I Singer type. At least it is marked to 800.
We really need to see some documentation from Long Branch to certify either/both. Other projects had drawing numbers such as the J-5550 series. Would there have been any point in fabricating a jungle carbine type for comparison with the Lightweight rifle? And if so, it does not appear in any of the extensive reports on the Lightweight, duplicated at Aberdeen, England and even Australia, where some Lightweights have showed up.
Bear in mind that people tend to believe what they want to believe so there should be some scepticism applied.
What of the alleged paperwork some member claims to have but not have enough time to dig it out?
Ian Skennerton

P.S. Doug's thread with quote from p.319 L.-E. book (Skennerton) should read 'No.4 Mk I*' rather then 'No.4 Mk II*'.

Enfield variants are surfacing from collections that were assembled decades ago. Recently I 've had the opportunity to examine 3 rare Long Branch No4's.....a CNo67, a light weight and this "Jungle Carbine". Shortly after after acquisition the Collector arranged for me to visit with the intention of examining the rifle. Here's what I observed;

Barrel - '44 marked on the right side of the knox form. 4 symetrical lighting cuts on the knox similar in size to the British No5. Barrel was lathe turned to meet the diameter of the flash hider. Flash hider appeared to be British. It also had a lathe turned finish and no markings. Finish was Long Branch bluing.

Bolt - Numbered to receiver.The bolt was identical to the forged Light Weight profile. Handle was swept forward and hole drilled in knob for ligthening. It was compared to a light weight bolt and was identical except the numbering.

Receiver - 1944 Long Branch marked. No evidence of serial number ever being removed from butt socket. Contact number stamped on sn location with rifle number. Right side below had the reinforcement block just behind the receiver milled off. Above the stock line there was a lighting cut at the rear lug similar however smaller than the British No5. Left side had the dish cut just ahaed of the safety identical to the Light Weight. The under side was more interesting......the draws and the flat section forward the draws was milled for weight reduction identical to the Light Weight. The receiver had be case hardened due to amount of material removed and was showing the "purplish" hue that you only get over time.

Stock - Jungle carbine profile in Canadian Long Branch walnut. The forend was one of a kind. Two lighting cuts in forend ...one long and one short...do not line up with standard No4 cuts. Receiver inletting was tight, no fillers. No evidence of a British rework. The tie plate was Long Branch. The machine cut was idectical to what we see on LB stocks...special tool needed for this. Butt similar to a Brit. No evidence of a rear swivel in fill...very unique. Pad metal housing was not marked, components were phosphated. Inspectors mark on wrist as shown in Cantom's pic's.

My advice to the Owner ....."contact the Canadian War Museum for a description of their JC including its serial number. Also any document that they may have"

Do any of our members have the serial number of Ottawa's JC?

These are my observations and intended to answer some of the questions put foth by folks.

Ron

It's interesting what turns up. Not too long ago I got the book, "In Search of Pegasus, The Canadian Airborne Experience 1942-1999". It has a lot of good photos, incl one on page 73 of four troopers armed with a PIAT, a STEN, a BREN, and what is clearly a No5 JC! AFAIK the No5 was never adopted by the Cdn Army and I wondered if this might have been an experimental/prototype Longbranch model. The photo has a DND credit and is captioned, "Four paratroopers at Stevenson Field Ipperwash, Ontario during a rehersal for an RCAF airshow, July 1946". One thing that made me wonder was the identification of "Stevenson Field" at Ipperwash as this was the historic name for the RCAF airfield at Winnipeg, MB.

On a somewhat related topic I recently confirmed that a vertical laminate No4 stock and 2 matching handguards, which I have had for a number of yrs, are actually Longbranch production. These were owned by a known Bisley shooter and the forend has been center bedded. I always assumed that they were made by Fazakerly because of a large "F" stamped on the forestock. I cleaned them up and found the distinctive Cdn "CCM" stamp on the metal forend tip as well as a 3 digit number stamped inside both the front and rear handguards.

If the machining of the butt around the cap appears regular and done by machine, rather than by hand that would be a good sign. If the butt is at least as long as an N or L butt, that would make it difficult to have faked out of a L No.4 butt.

If the forend was never relieved for the mag cutoff block and also bears appropriate stamps and tool marks, that would be another good sign.

The flash hider does appear a bit different from UK examples: the flat for the bayonet ring is shorter, and the pins are a bit farther apart I believe. The overall machining/finishing is a bit better than the UK examples I recall.

The "wobbles" in the machining of the bolt handle side of the sight block are worth a better photo. The electro-pencilled broad arrow doesn't look out of place.

The butt pad is plainly very different from the UK examples and projects far enough to actually keep the butt cap from hitting your shoulder when firing. Not a bad idea that. The edges are sharper, which may not be a better idea from a damage point of view, but does increase the surface area and therefore the distribution of recoil forces to the shoulder.

The handguard does not project as far past the band as the UK examples, although the grain of the walnut in this one looks more like UK manufacture than LB.

The apparently standard backsight is a detraction, but not a fatal one.

The finish looks exactly as it should, except possibly in the area of the lightening cuts, but it's hard to tell from the photos.

The bent bolt knob is interestingly reminiscent of the Lee Enfield Carbines, and of course if someone was trying to produce a fake, unless they had a particularly devious mind, they would probably not include any variation like that from the UK pattern.

The hole in the bolt knob looks a little bigger than that found in the knobs of the LB MkI rifles; is it?

When I see pristine woodwork on a 70+ year old firearm without even a wear or scuff mark or usual handling marks, my immediate reaction is in the negative.
When that sort of timber is mated to metalwork with a high reflective/polished finish,(everything a service rifle doesn't have) I'm even more dubious.
Convince me.

Since this rifle would have been a prototype, not an issued rifle...perhaps we'd expect it to be in a bit better condition than average?

I see your point Canton but these prototypes weren't made to sit in an Armoury or on someones desk. They were USED and abused in the same way that standard rifles are. That's the reason for a) making them and b) trials (that we do here at Warminster).

While we accept that the flash eliminator might have been sent from the UK (or individually made from drawings sent over), can anyone imagine that LB or whoever else might have tooled up to make a small amount of butts or fore-ends or handguards required? As I have mentioned several times, when we were rebuilding/refurbishing many, many hundreds of No5 rifles in Malaya/Singapore, when woodwork was in short supply, some of the spares we got through the Ordnance system were just converted No4 butts and fore-ends (but new handguards as I recall) On the basis that if it wasn't worth the UK Military contractors (P-H and Westley Richards) tooling up for a few thousand, I can't see LB tooling up for a dozen. Proototypes and early trials stuff just isn't like that unlike late trials and pre-production phases generally are.

And these things are always/inevitably followed by paperwork, even if you find it 40 years later on microfische as in the case of some 'lost' L1A1 trials like the prong changed flash eliminator and bayonet grips saga

Just my idle thoughts

Got nothing to add about the rifle in question but this is an experimental rifle and it's close to 70 years old. Wood looks new.

Exactly my point Homer.......... they were actually making that woodwork on site and while it differs slightly in configuration, they didn't have to tool up afresh. And you've forgotted one VERY important point too................ There is paperwork to support/qualify your rifle too - or is there?

What exactly is that rifle Homer? A shortie SMLE with an aperture sight on the charger bridge? Someone did a (inconclusive.....) paper on these short rifles a year/18 months or so ago

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homer

Got nothing to add about the rifle in question but this is an experimental rifle and it's close to 70 years old. Wood looks new.

---

The timber has all the rough tool marks as one would expect, as does the metalwork.
A prototype is exactly that , a rough mockup of the proposed firearm, not a highly polished pristine piece that looks like it was destined to be presented to some dignitory.
Have a look at the finish on the receiver of the OP, certainly not the rough machining standard of the manufacturers other lines.

This pic was just posted on Canadian Gunnutz by 6167. It's of a Dutch Royal Visit to Long Branch Arsenals during the war. Note the second rifle in line, between the Long Branch Training Rifle and the Lightweight Rifle.

Note the recoil pad...same as in my pics. It sticks out almost as far as the steel part. Not at all like the Brit version.

Also note on the LB Jungle Carbine, the mid band is the milled early round profile band, while on the Brit versions it looks to be the later flat band.
Note that in 6167's pic you can clearly see that the band is milled/round!


https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...lVisitLB-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Exactly my point Homer.......... they were actually making that woodwork on site and while it differs slightly in configuration, they didn't have to tool up afresh. And you've forgotted one VERY important point too................ There is paperwork to support/qualify your rifle too - or is there?

What exactly is that rifle Homer? A shortie SMLE with an aperture sight on the charger bridge? Someone did a (inconclusive.....) paper on these short rifles a year/18 months or so ago

---

Homers rifle is an Australian Short and Lightened. Serial Nos XP1 to XP100. Thats not the only one i have seen in that condition.
Do you have the bayonet for it Homer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

What exactly is that rifle Homer? A shortie SMLE with an aperture sight on the charger bridge? Someone did a (inconclusive.....) paper on these short rifles a year/18 months or so ago

---

There's an excellent article in the MKL along with a 138 pic photo montage of Homer's rifle.

1944 No.1 Intermediate Shortened Lightened Rifle (Mfg by SAF Lithgow)

They only made 100 of these experimental rifles ...

There's also an excellent artticle by Terry Hawker... :thup:

Shortened No. 1 Mk III* Rifle

Regards,
Doug

That woman in the middle with the hat looks like she could beat the Nazis with just one good stare even before she starts berating them! She scares me already............

What is that just behind the No5 rifle........., is it a bayonet? Someone will come up with a LB No5 bayonet soon if it is!

Can anyone identify the whole row?

Great picture from SAL's Toolroom. Was it dated? My best guess on the line up;

1) Shoulder Holster Inglis (Browning) HP
2) Swift Trainer
3) LB Jungle Carbine
4) Bayonet { may be for JC }
5) LB No4 Light weight rifle (up to 50 produced...only a few in existance)
6) LB No4T MK2 REL scope
7) LB TP (Lyman Scope) with prototpye butt that was later used on the CNo67
8) LB CNo67 ( a scrace few in collections today)
9) No4 LB presentation rifle. Exhibition fiddleback walnut stock ( have only seen 2 of these. both sold for large $'s)

Tom....thanks for posting the picture.

Merry Christmas one and all,

Ron

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bindi2

Homers rifle is an Australian Short and Lightened. Serial Nos XP1 to XP100. Thats not the only one i have seen in that condition.
Do you have the bayonet for it Homer.

---

Bindi you've seen this gun before. It belongs to your old mate Demo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cantom

This pic was just posted on Canadian Gunnutz by 6167. It's of a Dutch Royal Visit to Long Branch Arsenals during the war. Note the second rifle in line, between the Long Branch Training Rifle and the Lightweight Rifle.

Note the recoil pad...same as in my pics. It sticks out almost as far as the steel part. Not at all like the Brit version.

Also note on the LB Jungle Carbine, the mid band is the milled early round profile band, while on the Brit versions it looks to be the later flat band.
Note that in 6167's pic you can clearly see that the band is milled/round!


https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...lVisitLB-1.jpg

---

Well, that settles that!

And the bayonet on the table under the butt can only be for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homer

Bindi you've seen this gun before. It belongs to your old mate Demo.

---

That greedy bugger owns just about all the lithgows left in Australia...... Chuckle chuckle

Re the photo at:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impor...lVisitLB-1.jpg

The cool Canadian J5550 carbine (one-piece stock) has yet another odd feature: TWO grooves on the left side of the fore-end.

Pity they got carried away with the lightening and buggered up the recoil transfer on that little carbine.

The British were reluctant to even trial the Canadian lightened rifle because of its flimsy one piece stock. The small arms school considered the small of the butt so marginal in strength that it would/could not possibly survive its first bout of bayonet fighting at the gallows.

It was this very same weak and flimsy wrist problem (with the first Remington Lee that DID break..... - now housed at Warminster together with one of the J-5550's) that ensured the retention of the large diameter stock bolt in the first place.

I have seen two (2) of the Canadian lightweights with stocks broken at the wrist........One in a private collection and the other in a museum. One was simply glued (from what I could see) back together and the other had a large round head bolt installed as part of the repair.

Any reason for the breaking of the two you know about Warren? I wouldn't mind adding a note in the paperwork relating to ours of the fact that '.......two others known do have broken stocks by reason of...............' Thanks Warren

I am wading into this late and am relying on a memory that is poor to begin and files that are in deep, although unintended, storage following my office renovations with so please bear with me.

Both the UK and Canada embarked on a rifle suitable for use in the Pacific theatre. Designs were shared and on-going discussions were maintained between London and Ottawa. The chosen model would be known as the No. 5. Canada's design was basically a No 4 that had been reduced in weight. I believe that Skennerton shows this but a photo is reproduced below.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...file3502-1.jpg

Although Canadian tests looked positive the Brits found that the butt was prone to breakage when dropped and didn't like it's length. They decided to go ahead with the British design, now known as the Jungle Carbine, although there was also talk of issues to the army in Northwest Europe.

Taking into account the wonderful photo at SAL I don't come to conclusions based on a single photo of materiel which I cannot personally examine. In researching "Without Warning" it was evident that any development work was heavily documented. LB was supplied wood and metal - both in short supply as war materiel - and had to account to the Department of Munitions and Supply for its use. Further, LB had to pay for labour, etc.. and this would also be documented. In the case of the 20 experimental sniper rifles both money and resources had to be approved. Further, these designs were the responsibility of the Army Technical Development Branch who oversaw the design, manufacture and testing and their records still exist at both Archives and DND, yet there is no mention of a Jungle Carbine.

Based on my studies at Archives and DND I would discount any "Canadian" made Jungle Carbine.

Clive

Interesting, but that photo is hard ignore. That carbine was either made at Long Branch or in the UK. The date of the visit is recorded of course.

Could the documentation have been lost or mislaid in the Archives? Could the project have been initiated without following the usual procedures in the interest of speed and then when discarded, any documents were also discarded due to the project being "unauthorized"?

All the documentation for REL was "lost" after all.

I don't believe that LB manufactured a No5 variant either BUT here's a spanner in the works....... If you look at every edition of Small Arms of the World from 1961 onwards (I've just checked in our technical library.......), there, for all to see is a right hand side view Mk1* variation of the No5 AND it is identified as such AND a No5Mk1* is identified as a minor variant. If you're inclined to copy and enlarge the picture to verify what you're seeing, then don't concentrate on the slot, but the lack of bolt head catch.

The only other variation I can see, although it's nit picking a bit, is the fact that of the hundreds of No5's I've ever handled, the end of the fore-end on the rifle shown seems very squared off and a bit 'different' from the No5's I've repaired/used/shot/gauged/examined in the past.

Comments

Here's another relavent tidbit. I have a copy of Cdn Army EMEI dated October 1946 which provides an illustrated parts list for the No4 rifle.

Para 13 of this document reads as follows; " It is intended that this instruction should identify all components and assemblies, as nearly as possible, of the equipment dealt with, in such a manner that parts lists of other similar equipments (Rifles, C No 7 .22in., Mk. 1, Rifles No 5 and other equipments in the service using No.4 Rifle parts ) can refer to this instruction for identification information where items are identical, and thus prevent an unneccesary duplication of information in the various parts lists."

This, of course, says nothing about the provenance of No 5 Rifles or parts, but it is interesting that it does refer to the No. 5 Rifle when today's consensus is that these were never standardized for Cdn service. Some folks speculate that the No. 5 may have been considered for issue to the Cdn Army Pacific Force for plannied operations against Japan in 1945. This isn't the case as the Cdn Army decision was to equip the Pacific Force with standard US Army small arms to facilitate interoperability and logistics support when operating under US Command for operations against Japan.

I think that the EMER you're referring to is just a good example of good housekeeping/management of Armourers. It might well be that for the Pacific, the Canadian Army were going to be equipped with US equipment but elsewhere in the world at war, and afterwards there were pooled Ordnance stockpiles and even into the 60's Canadian and British Armourers worked together at the big joint workshops at Soest and Wetter. I wouldn't mind betting that somewhere in the Canadian Sterling EMER there was a similar note to say words to the effect that '.......this gun is very similar to the UK commercial gun and many parts are fully interchangeable.

But back to the nub of the matter...................... what about the picture of the No5 Mk1* picture in SAOTW

Pages 320-322 of Skennertons TLE shows photos of a Longbranch No5 prototype.

SAL (Small Arms limited) Long Branch operated a Toolroom for durable and perishable tooling as well as prototype work. We know that the Brit's had their inspectors in this facilty however it was a Canadian run Plant with local employees. A few employees still survived today and have shared shared their experiences with many of us over the years at gun shows, ranges, military functions, and so one. For example...the SAL photo(posted by Cantom) is from a private collection. It was part of a chaps grand father memories past on to him. His grandfather was at a high level position at SAL so we know the provenace of the photo. It clearly shows a number of prototype rifles.

The light rifle program (J-5550 drawing) is well documented in M P Jolley's "Bullletin On Long Branch Light Rifle" date november 25th, 1943. A few examples exist in collections so it's authentisity is not in question. It does beg the question...what else came out of this program? Ian skennerton's book "The Lee Enfield Story 1993" has a photo on p 298 showing for LB Enfield. First is the standard configuration followed by the J- 5550. Here's were it gets interesting. Two "Jungle Carbine's" are pictured below, one in light rifle design and the other in the commonly know Brit design. The both references the light one piece "JC" as from drawing J- 4067-1 p 303. It would be of great interest to the readers if Ian could go into some detail on his reasearch of this rifle. Where is it located? Any documentation on J-4067-1?

The bottom rifle is listed as "Prototype No. 5 Rifle". As mentioned in Ian's book componets from the "light rifle" were taken for these variants. The "JC" picture does exist and is in the CWM (Canadian War Museum). It's built on a 1943 receiver....experimental number appears to be 4062-7 from the photo. If Ian could confirm it would direct us to another bulletin that outlines the its specifications. The CWM has been contacted however I don't know what they have on file.

I've read Clive Law's comments...just wondering if he's aware of the CWM's "Prototype No. 5 Rifle"?

The Long Branch light no5 is out there...it's just a question of how many?

Quote:

---

Pages 320-322 of Skennertons TLE shows photos of a Longbranch No5 prototype.

---

Indeed it does! There's it's been under our noses...that's the one. Right from the War Museum collection.

Pages 320-322 of Skennerton's "TLE" shows photos of a Longbranch No5 prototype.

Indeed! And another interesting thing about the photo on P320 of "TLE" is that all of the three Canadian jobs have their bolt handles bent FORWARD to varying degrees. The lower photo on P 322, ex Aberdeen Proving Ground, clearly shows the distinct forward bend in the Canadian "No5" bolt handle.

The Canadian prototype "No5" also seems to have a typically Canadian "el cheapo" Mk IV, pressed steel rear sight. The "Lightweight:" and J5550 above it have Mk1 type rear sights.

A few years ago, there was a MINT, J5550 action (never fitted with a barrel) floating around in Oz. It came with a very used-looking stock. The interesting thing was that the action was not exactly a good fit into the stock. Yet more variations?

Well, the photo would appear to clinch the discussion! Are there records in storage somewhere detailing everything that LB did and made, or are most of them missing? Can we expect more interesting variations in the future? This is very cool.

Ed

There exists the possibility that the UK sent a few examples of their JC to Canada so that LB could determine if Canadian manufacture was feasible. LB then 'played' with these. This may have been ad hoc and no significant expenditure was forecast so no paperwork for this non-project was created. However, even as I write this, I feel that I am trying to shoe-horn the few facts available into a conclusion that members seem to be pre-disposed to.
Clive

re: Comments about 'lost' REL files. My research uncovered some files extant at the National Research Canada (NRC) and, in speaking with the folks at NRC, many of these documents were destroyed long after their legal retention period. No conspiracy. No international pressure. Just the simple fact that document storage is expensive and the Archives Act focuses on the need to retain policy documents and not production documents.

All this conjecture and discussion about if Long Branch made No. 5 rifles or not parallels the FAL/SLR production, design and development with the UK, Canada, FN and Australia. Ideas were thought of, discussed, designed, developed, built and trialed. Even one-offs were built of proposed design changes to evaluate possible production and what would need to be altered or changed in standard production. I see it as very feasible that Canada would produce a small quantity of No. 5 rifles with the view of possible production for the Pacific theater if required. In doing so they would then know what alterations in production would be required and more importantly how much it would cost.

just my .05c

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by servicepub

There exists the possibility that the UK sent a few examples of their JC to Canada so that LB could determine if Canadian manufacture was feasible. LB then 'played' with these. This may have been ad hoc and no significant expenditure was forecast so no paperwork for this non-project was created. However, even as I write this, I feel that I am trying to shoe-horn the few facts available into a conclusion that members seem to be pre-disposed to.
Clive

re: Comments about 'lost' REL files. My research uncovered some files extant at the National Research Canada (NRC) and, in speaking with the folks at NRC, many of these documents were destroyed long after their legal retention period. No conspiracy. No international pressure. Just the simple fact that document storage is expensive and the Archives Act focuses on the need to retain policy documents and not production documents.

---

Will have to beg to differ with you there. The subtle differences between the No.5s photographed at Long Branch in 1944/45 we have discussed. They are typical of the innovative approach at Long Branch in my opinion. The camera lied much less then than it does now.

A considerable amount of history will not be found in the surviving records for various reasons. It is the current fashion in historiography to believe that no reliance can be placed on anything but the written records, and that nothing happened which is not contained in them; this must amuse official "weeders" no end! Future historians may therefore conclude that "accidentally" shredded NAFTA records never really existed, or that the Official History of WWI is an entirely true depiction of events. Sadly, the man who wrote it, Gen. Edmonds, made light of such an idea in his correspondence.

"Conspiracy" is a pointless and over-used term. I won't bother to debate the geopolitics of the Western Hemisphere here, but the way in which both the UK and the USA, among most other great powers, have used various strategic resources and policy means to further their industrial interests is matter of public record.

Of course one should never ascribe to malintention what can be explained by mere stupidity, so it is quite possible that the REL records were disposed of without microfilming for "space reasons", just as the Canadian War Museum sent to the dumpster most of the papers from the Ross Rifle Company, along with various artifacts from that company which they felt did not "fit" their collection.