Un-serialed LB Mk I

I found the other post about the un-serialed LB Mk I* interesting, so will post photos of this un-serialed early Long Branch Mk I I have just picked up. It is complete, original, fully inspected with all cartouches, has all early Mk I parts (waisted ft sight protector, button cocking piece, early Singer type sight, low wood for cutoff, hinged front swivel), but interestingly has no date stamp on the barrel, although it has the same inspection mark seen on the barrel on Doug's Mk in the MKL. The story on this rifle is that it was in a display case at Long Branch, and was taken down from there by the Managing Director, an Al Sweeting, when the factory closed. There is no documentation of that of course. As they say, buy the rifle, not the story--I find the story interesting, and while I am sure many would say this is a "lunchbox special" I do find the story plausible. Having seen the photos posted online of Long Branch factory during the war, I know that these were assembled, and then serialed at the end of the line in batches. It is possible I suppose that someone managed to lift a complete early Mk I, or maybe it was indeed put in a display case as one of the first ones. Who knows, and at this late date, who would ever know? Story or no, display case rifle or lunchbox special, I bought the rifle because aside from having no serial number, it is flat out the nicest Mk I LB I've ever seen. Not that I've seen many, but this one is a beauty.

Ed

Attachment 30464Attachment 30465Attachment 30466Attachment 30467Attachment 30468Attachment 30469Attachment 30470Attachment 30471Attachment 30472Attachment 30473Attachment 30474Attachment 30475Attachment 30476Attachment 30477Attachment 30478Attachment 30479Attachment 30480Attachment 30481Attachment 30482Attachment 30483Attachment 30484Attachment 30485Attachment 30486Attachment 30487Attachment 30488Attachment 30489Attachment 30490Attachment 30491Attachment 30492Attachment 30493Attachment 30494Attachment 30495Attachment 30496Attachment 30497Attachment 30498Attachment 30499Attachment 30500Attachment 30501Attachment 30502Attachment 30503Attachment 30504Attachment 30505Attachment 30506Attachment 30507Attachment 30508Attachment 30509

Had to do a second post to fit the photos on......... :madsmile:

I am looking forward to taking it to the range for a tryout at some point.

Ed

Attachment 30510Attachment 30511Attachment 30512Attachment 30513Attachment 30514Attachment 30515Attachment 30516Attachment 30517Attachment 30518Attachment 30519Attachment 30520Attachment 30521Attachment 30522Attachment 30523Attachment 30524Attachment 30525Attachment 30526Attachment 30527Attachment 30528Attachment 30529Attachment 30530Attachment 30531Attachment 30532Attachment 30533

Ed

OMG your rifle looks magnificent.

Great photos.

Regardless of the origin....wow.

Very jealous.

Have fun at the range.

Paul

Now the strangest thing, on another forum is a 1943 Long Branch that doesn't have a serial number (unless I am really blind). It is a 1* but the odds of another no serial number gun must be pretty big.

OP, if you know where the rifle's owners are, you might ask them for a letter which discribes the circumstance of that rifle. Very nice piece. Plausable story, but buy the rifle. :)

I thought I recognised it. I chatted with the prior owner a while ago and tried to explain the importance of provenance, but I am not sure he got the idea. I know he was expecting to sell the rifle for a pretty penny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by enfield303t

Now the strangest thing, on another forum is a 1943 Long Branch that doesn't have a serial number (unless I am really blind). It is a 1* but the odds of another no serial number gun must be pretty big.

---

Yes, it is odd. That one is on Gunnutz. Asking 950, which seems high for a rifle which is pictured without the front topwood and front sight "ears".

Ed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boltaction

Yes, it is odd. That one is on Gunnutz. Asking 950, which seems high for a rifle which is pictured without the front topwood and front sight "ears".

Ed

---

Yes, it is odd it is missing the front topwood and ears. The price is high but no serial number makes a person wonder how many are out there? Two show up in a couple of days and yet have never seen one before? Do you think they left via the backdoor of the plant?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinecracker

I thought I recognised it. I chatted with the prior owner a while ago and tried to explain the importance of provenance, but I am not sure he got the idea. I know he was expecting to sell the rifle for a pretty penny.

---

It's possible. It wasn't cheap, but then, no nice LB Mk I is. However, it was part of a package deal with a couple of sniper rifles and an REL observers scope with accessories, so it will come out in the wash. In any case, it is a rifle I'm planning on being buried with (so to speak) so the resale value is not of great relevance.

Ed

@ Boltaction, Don't get me wrong, I was seriously considering buying the LB, but I didn't have the cash and importing the rifle into the US would have meant it being marked, and I couldn't do it to that rifle. As it is, I ended up having to sell some Long Branches anyway to cover medical bills, and later found out I didn't have to (oh, the inhumanity!).

According to our friends at trhe canadiangunnutz forum, "lunchbox" LBS may not be that uncommon in Canada.

It will be interesting to see if more LB's like this surface after the Long Gun Registry ends in Canada. I believe there are tens of thousands of unregistered guns "hiding" all over the country. We can always hope as they make a great conversation piece.

Generally a firearm like this probably was liberated out the back door just like grey market products are today.

Registering this gun could prove to be very interesting. I think of the "discussions" I had with someone trying to tell me my Lee Enfield "must have a letter prefix" before the serial number...well it didn't and it went downhill from there. With the LG Registry about to take its last breath why bother trying to register it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boltaction

Yes, it is odd. That one is on Gunnutz. Asking 950, which seems high for a rifle which is pictured without the front topwood and front sight "ears".

Ed

---

Actually, looking at the rifle again, it is also missing the end of the barrel and bayonet lugs. Most bizarre.

Ed

---------- Post added at 08:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 AM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by enfield303t

It will be interesting to see if more LB's like this surface after the Long Gun Registry ends in Canada. I believe there are tens of thousands of unregistered guns "hiding" all over the country. We can always hope as they make a great conversation piece.

Generally a firearm like probably was liberated out the back door just like grey market products are today.

Registering this gun could prove to be very interesting. I think of the "discussions" I had with someone trying to tell me my Lee Enfield "must have a letter prefix" before the serial number...well it didn't and it went downhill from there. With the LG Registry about to take its last breath why bother trying to register it.

---

It's already registered--just uses a FIN sticker. No different than a Ross. It certainly is possible it was a back door liberated piece--it would seem that if that was the case, the security at Long Branch must have been lax. I can see pistols and pistol parts leaving the Inglis factory, because the parts are small and easily concealed. However, a fully assembled rifle is a tougher proposition I would think. This rifle certianly didn't leave the factory as "parts"..............

I see you're in the Okanagan--so am I. Whereabouts?

Ed

Ed

The trouble, if there are so many un-numbered mint LB No4 rifles is in a few years, EVERY one could be a highly prized and valuable 'presentation piece' to........., well, anyone famous really! Just like my fictitious, recently engraved .38"revolver belonging to Montgomery! It's also a dubious double edged sword too for someone with a REAL famous and highly prized presentation piece.......

You have been warned.............. No paperwork of other documentation and you could very well be up the proverbial gum tree.
It also reminds me of the WW2 Jeep that started its life off as a gash hack used by the Guard room staff at an old RAF camp near to where I lived as a boy. Now it's the first one ashore on DDay carrying Ike and his staff no less, complete with flags and siren!

The Long Branch with the missing front top wood and sight ears, appears to be missing a piece of the barrel which includes the bayonet lugs.
A Long Branch without a serial number isn't uncommon I have run across them over the years. I liked the pictures of the earlier Long Branch stock which the wood removed for a magazine cut off. The front sight assembly looks similar to a P14 & P17s.
That is a leeper.

It would be nice to have one without a serial number and how many exist will never be known.

The reasoning about it being liberated out the back door goes from years ago being able to get almost anything reasonable if I had the item the guy wanted in trade. I lived where there was a very active RCAF base and was involved in many trades.

Horse trading was part of the culture. I ended up with a USAF flight jacket (cold weather) for a fishing reel. The guy that had the jacket was in crash rescue. While stationed in Germany a Yank approached him needing red paint, the Canadians had lots the Yanks none and couldn't get it. Five gallons of red got the guy a case of flight jackets, said he thought he was only getting one.

Got a RCAF one in a similar trade, of course unissued. Life was simpler then.

I believe this gun, because of it's late 'liberation' from Long Branch could probably be provenance-d through other means than through the family. I think there would likely be some note of disposition on this rifle somewhere, if indeed it came from a place so prominent as a lobby display case at LB. I found a reference to A.Sweeting in some production meeting minutes from August '64, and while not one of the 7 men physically present, he was the first of 15 or so to be cc'd on the minutes. The closing of the Arsenal was a big deal, and there should be something reflected somewhere in official documents. (my $0.02)
But all that speaks only to provenance and value...
What about the led slinger itself?

I have an unnumbered LB No. 4 Mark 1*, 1944, absolutely new and unfired. Wood and metal finish both are to the highest standard I have seen on any military-type rifle, wood is carefuly matched (obviously from the same blank). Odd thing is that it has the late "British" type safety, original to this rifle.

I was thinking possibly a display rifle for all those War Bonds drives. It certainly wasn't Andy McNaughton's rifle, carried ashore by his cute secretary at Juno Beach! You know: the one that took the breechblock out of the 88 just before it could land a round on Monty's half-track......

All joking aside, I DO have the rifle and it is absolutely the prettiest LE I have ever encountered.

I'm not a dealer of any kind, but I have seen and handled a lot of rifles. In just-short-of-50 years at this, I have encountered TWO LB Number 4s without numbers....... and the other was somewhat ratty (I am being polite).

But we will wait until the Registry goes. The unregistered firearms in Canada number in the millions, not in the thousands; of this I am certain.

As to mine, it is registered; they sent me one of those stupid little stickers for the thing, along with stickers for a dozen or so others..... and no way to tell which sticker goes on which rifle...... and 10 years in the old slammer if you get it wrong. Typical Canada: coddle the criminals and walk on the law-abiding suckers who won't shoot back.... and then they wonder why so many Canadians no longer feel any patriotism or loyalty. You can't beat people into loving their country.

But the rifles exist. I just don't think they are as common as some folks would like to think.

And the rifle shown in this thread is just SO perfect for a very-early rifle....
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smellie

I have an unnumbered LB No. 4 Mark 1*, 1944, absolutely new and unfired. Wood and metal finish both are to the highest standard I have seen on any military-type rifle, wood is carefuly matched (obviously from the same blank). Odd thing is that it has the late "British" type safety, original to this rifle.

I was thinking possibly a display rifle for all those War Bonds drives. It certainly wasn't Andy McNaughton's rifle, carried ashore by his cute secretary at Juno Beach! You know: the one that took the breechblock out of the 88 just before it could land a round on Monty's half-track......

All joking aside, I DO have the rifle and it is absolutely the prettiest LE I have ever encountered.

I'm not a dealer of any kind, but I have seen and handled a lot of rifles. In just-short-of-50 years at this, I have encountered TWO LB Number 4s without numbers....... and the other was somewhat ratty (I am being polite).

But we will wait until the Registry goes. The unregistered firearms in Canada number in the millions, not in the thousands; of this I am certain.

As to mine, it is registered; they sent me one of those stupid little stickers for the thing, along with stickers for a dozen or so others..... and no way to tell which sticker goes on which rifle...... and 10 years in the old slammer if you get it wrong. Typical Canada: coddle the criminals and walk on the law-abiding suckers who won't shoot back.... and then they wonder why so many Canadians no longer feel any patriotism or loyalty. You can't beat people into loving their country.

But the rifles exist. I just don't think they are as common as some folks would like to think.

And the rifle shown in this thread is just SO perfect for a very-early rifle....
.

---

Yes, it is a lovely example with all the nice early features. Pinning down the provenance would be nice, and I agree with PEter Laidler about the importance of that, but that is only if the inherent value of the item is the provenance. In this case, I don't really care about the provenance, although knowing its story would I think be interesting, and likely more than just a back door walk out. I really like the rifle, and if I ever find an equally nice serial numbered Mk I I'll certainly let this one go.........

As for faking up Monty's revolver, if I was going to do that, I'd choose someone more competent. Never thought much of Monty. Must be the Canadian in me.

Agree that the number of unreg'd firearms in Canada is in the millions. Back when Rock et al were planning C-68, my brother and I formed, along with 4 others, the Saskatchewan Responsible Firearms Owners, or SRFO. We lobbied against the bill, and did get the SK gov't on side. Canadian gun owners then were still too fragmented though, with the shotgunners saying who cares about the pistols, etc. Anyway, my brother and I did a cost estimate, which we presented in person to Rock and also did a billboard campaign about. The gov't at the time, along with Wendy Cukier of the Coalition for Gun Control were saying there were only a million or so long guns in Canada (I don't remember the exact number but it was ludicrous) and said the registry would cost 97 million. We estimated about 20 million guns, based on import numbers, production numbers of cooeys, etc, and costed it out based on the cost of registering a pistol at the time. We came up with a cost of 2 Billion, and Rock laughed in our faces. Now, several years later we've spent 2 1/2 billion and only maybe 40% of guns registered. GREAT system.

Ed

I remember Rock stating the registry would cost 2 million however know someone he confided to it would probably cost 20 million.

The best part of the registry is the Gov't kept lowering the estimate of firearms in Canada trying to convice the public there was a high percentage of compliance which we all know was incorrect.

I said tens of thousands not wanting to exaggerate however from the small circle I travel in dozens have been offered and when you multiply that by the number of gun owners in Canada the unregistered number is staggering.

I can hardly wait 'till it is gone as I expect closets will be emptied all over this country and hopefully some of the Lee Enfields I want will be available.

Had a call from the CPC looking for a donation, asked about the registry and was told it should be given third reading sometime in the next two weeks.:thup:

For the benefit of us foreigners, what is the Canadian long gun registry that uis the subject of so much dispute? Or is it toooooooo political for the forum.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

For the benefit of us foreigners, what is the Canadian long gun registry that uis the subject of so much dispute? Or is it toooooooo political for the forum.....

---

Peter:

Essentially, the long gun registry is a database set up to track all firearms classed as 'non-restricted' in Canada. A non-restricted firearm's basic legal definition is one which is not restricted or prohibited; you can find the RCMP's interpretation of the regulations at List of Restricted and Prohibited Firearms.

All non-restricted firearms have been required to be registered since 2003, although there has been an amnesty in place to the present date.

The basic complaints with it are:
1. It's ineffective. Estimates are that less than 40% of the non-restricted firearms in Canada are registered.
2. It's costly. So far, about $2.5billion has been spent on the program. It was sold to the public as costing at most $2million. That would be a 1000X cost overrun.
3. It's insecure. A report came out a few years showing that the database has had many unauthorized accesses over the years, and there are rumors that copies are floating around.
4. It's inaccurate. People routinely find firearms registered to them that they have never heard of, or sold and transferred away years previous. Note that these people would be criminally liable to produce these firearms if demanded by police.
5. It doesn't apply to criminals. Since they don't register their firearms anyways. In fact, it only applies to firearms owners who are the statistically safest and most law abiding demographic in Canadian society.
6. It's useless for police anyways. After all, with all the above, if the registry says there are no guns in a house, do you believe it? Or if the registry says there are 6 guns in the house, can you trust all 6 are there, and no more? Or that all 6 entries are legitimate and correct? One officer (Daniel Tessier) already died because he believed the registry when it said there were no guns in a house.

That's just skimming the surface of the issues surrounding the long gun registry. The biggest injustice is that it's pushed forward by the left wing anti-gun establishment as fixing a variety of ills from women's rights, to suicide prevention, to lowering crime rates, despite there being absolutely no scientific / statistical evidence to prove that it's had a measurable effect on any of these statistics.

Our current conservative government has committed to scrapping the long gun registry, and has a bill to do so in progress, hopefully to be passed this spring. In the meantime, the beaurocracy (RCMP and Canadian Firearms Program) is working hard to reclassify as many non-restricted firearms as possible to restricted and prohibited status while they still have a convenient list of owners. And these owners of reclassified firearms are getting notices that they must turn in their firearms for destruction if they do not have the appropriate license class.

That's the really short version that covers some of the major issues; for more details, you can join the Canadian Gun Nutz forum, and quickly hear more about the issue than you would ever care to know!

Not trying to be political here but I think one aspect needs to be exposed. The legislation has driven a wide gap between legitimate firearms owners and the police. This is undisputed by most and whether the distrust will ever be repaired is doubtful.

I honestly am not trying to be political, just pointing out something that has occured with a law that is unjust and should never have been introduced. There have been too many "witch hunts" by the police on honest citizens who have made minor mistakes in ownership. Prime examples are elderly owners some in their 80's who were unaware their license to posess expired and have had their firearms seized. Some of these people were Military Veterans and have not and would not every be a problem in Canada.

If this is too political I apologize and hope Badger will remove my post.

It's pretty much been succinctly said, the Long Gun Registry was created in an effort to combat gun crime. However the execution of getting the criminal element to register their (illegal?!)firearms was never really thought out....

A good example, as presented by Law Enforcement would be; When responding to a domestic disturbance call, they could cross check the registry and know if there were (registered) firearms at the call address, thus giving them more intel to accurately assess the situation....

Now this is only one example, but one oft repeated. It is so filled with flaws.....
It's only really political on a broader Gun/No-Gun debate level. Lawful gun owners don't really have a problem with their firearms being documented, why would they?! But this registry as it stands, is monolithic, blind, undefined and open to abuse...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bullseye4mkI*

Lawful gun owners don't really have a problem with their firearms being documented, why would they?!

---

I realize this is going O/T fast, but I wanted to address the above really briefly.

I'm not a fan of the 'why do you need privacy if you have nothing to hide?' line of thought, which the above is an extension of. I mean, if you have nothing to hide, would you object to cameras throughout your house so police could monitor you as a firearms owner? I realize that is an extreme example, but it's along the same logic. Once again, legal firearms owners are the safest demographic in Canadian society. However, we are essentially persecuted for having a hobby against which a segment of the population has a emotionally charged misunderstanding and phobia of based in very little fact.

I would have no problem with my firearms being registered if it was provable that the benefits provided outweigh the cost paid, both in monetary and societal terms and in terms of my personal privacy. However, for all the money paid and abuse of the registry, there has been no provable benefits. The only end goal I see of the registry is it provides a starting list for eventual confiscation, though that line of thought leads into a political discussion of the policies of future governments.

Any solution to address firearms in crime need to revolve around criminals. Not the law abiding.

Anyways, I will leave it at that. As a relatively new user, I don't want to get myself banned after my third post for talking politics where it is discouraged.

I've seen quite a few "lunch box" rifles and pistols over the years. I still have a Savage here that has a mysterious serial number stamped on "after the fact". I've had several of the late build C No.7Mk.1* rifles with linished serial numbers too . My favorite is an Inglis No.2Mk.1* pistol. It's absolutely brand new, proofed and never numbered. I don't think these type firearms from the WWII era are as uncommon as some may think. I'm with Peter. If there's no documentation, it's more or less just a common firearm that managed to escape the factory by whatever method.

Agree with you, Brian. An unserialed number is an oddity, but not special in and of itself. Without some proof of where it came from, it is just another gun. I bought mine (the one which started this thread) because I have only rarely seen Mk I's, and the ones I have seen have been through rebuilds or whatever. This makes them perhaps more collectible, because they've "been there" but I just love this one. It's in awesome condition, complete and original. While the story with it was interesting, I definitely bought the gun. If it had been a 1943 Mk I*, I wouldn't have bothered and certainly wouldn't pay a premium for it. I think the inherent value in this rifle is that it is what it is.

As for the registry, the rationale behind it was to register ALL firearms in Canada, to reduce crime, violence, etc etc. It was brought in despite a wealth of data, some from groups like the Ontario Provincial Police, showing that the vast vst majority of "gun" crime in Canada is committed using firearms smuggled in from the US, often in exchange for Canadian grown Marijhuana. The OPP's Operation Gun Runner showed that quite nicely. The debate has largely pitted urban firearm-o-phobes against rural folks, and has effectively lumped legitimate firearms owners into the same category as gang-bangers. The politicians, ever in quest of cheap votes, have touted it as a crime reduction process and sold it to people in large centres like Toronto where the bulk of the countries voters live and where gang crime is rampant. The line police officers do not support it, but the Association of Police Chiefs (a bunch of largely political appointees) supports it, as it is seen to be "doing something" about crime. It has resulted in the creation of a large number of government jobs and a massive bureaucracy, much like the war on drugs in the US has created the monolithic DEA. However, several massive mis-steps, a lack of reduction in crime, and massive cost overruns have soured a lot of the public on it, and it is probably on its way out. There have also been at least two, and possibly three, mainframe failures resulting in the loss of large numbers of records. The security and the accuracty of the information has been very questionable. I have recently been asked by the Registry to account for three pistols which I have not owned for 15 years now, and it turns out were reported as stolen subsequent to my ownership. I also used to be involved in a museum in Saskatoon, and was recently contacted about a number of firearms which teh Registry wished to account for. One has been owned by my brother since 1990, and is still registered to him and in his basement. Yet the Registry lists the firearm as unaccounted for..............

Ed

I agree with you Brian, I was guilty of simplifying things.
But I was trying to point out like you said, it's just a runaway vehicle for the
overall gun debate, and if lawful gun owners did everything the government requested even to the
absurd point of in-home surveillance, the underlying issue of gun crime is still not being addressed.

Seeing as we are a little off topic... Here is a scenario that my brother-in-law (Sniper, Tactical Team Municipal Police) and I have discussed. Police are called to a domestic incident and check the registry to see if there is a firearm in the house. Comes back negative so no worries...here is the problem, if the person in the house has a PAL he/she can have a firearm that legally belongs to someone else which he/she has been loaned. Perfectly legal, however as he has said numerous time "Anyone who uses the registry as gospel is a IDIOT and should not be in law enforcement", I agree..

The registry is so full of fail it is to the point of being completely usless.

When they physically moved the office they lost the records of IIRC over 350,000 (It might have been 450,000) registered firearms, I have a friend who was selling a Sharps Rifle and when he went to transfer it he was told he didn't have any firearms registered. He was holding the registration form in his hand, along with the others he owned. Just said thanks, hung up and sold the gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boltaction

https://www.milsurps.com/attachment....2&d=1327985368

---

strange that it would have a 1956 dated barrel when everything else is early

Ed,

Awesome...and well done ! Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boltaction

It's possible. It wasn't cheap, but then, no nice LB Mk I is. However, it was part of a package deal with a couple of sniper rifles and an REL observers scope with accessories, so it will come out in the wash. In any case, it is a rifle I'm planning on being buried with (so to speak) so the resale value is not of great relevance.

Ed

---

".....it is a rifle I'm planning on being buried with....".......Ed, think that you've just set yourself up for the largest funeral in canadian history......LOL.

Here's a point to ponder............ In the UK and seemingly everywhere else, the body of the rifle is what we call the master component and NEVER available from Ordnance. In fact, never available outside the factory and even there, it's strictly controlled. In fact the body is the rifle.

However, in Canada, as I have been told on several occasions, the rifle body was available as a spare part. (I wonder of Bren or Sten bodies or Sterling bodies were too......) In fact, you could make up a rifle fron 'spare' parts. The question is this........

By what serial number batch were these 'spare part' bodies identified? How were they controlled?> How were the controlled stores registers audited? By which serial number?

I have a zillion other questions to ask if any RCEME Armourer of the era out there can answer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Here's a point to ponder............ In the UK and seemingly everywhere else, the body of the rifle is what we call the master component and NEVER available from Ordnance. In fact, never available outside the factory and even there, it's strictly controlled. In fact the body is the rifle.

However, in Canada, as I have been told on several occasions, the rifle body was available as a spare part. (I wonder of Bren or Sten bodies or Sterling bodies were too......) In fact, you could make up a rifle fron 'spare' parts. The question is this........

By what serial number batch were these 'spare part' bodies identified? How were they controlled?> How were the controlled stores registers audited? By which serial number?

I have a zillion other questions to ask if any RCEME Armourer of the era out there can answer

---

I've seen plenty of "new old stock" LB Sten MkII "body tubes" on the loose in Canada- especially as it is the mag housing which is controlled.

Most registered LB sten MkII have new tubes with older (registered) mag housings

I'm told that unserialed Inglis Bren bodies were common at one point- but I've never seen one myself.

Never heard of an unnumbered C1 sterling, though I have seen several un-numbered C1 rifle bodies.

I have saved pictures of Long Branch C.No7 receiver packaging (dated 1959) which sold last week on CGN, I asked the seller for permission to post them (and if he had any more).
Attachment 34233Attachment 34234

I got the OK to post the pics. I'm told the buyer reported them to both be .22 - Long Branch -1944 marked

It is my understanding that quite some time ago a Cdn collector obtained a lot of about 400 of these stripped .22" receivers. As far as I know, the ones seen floating around are from this batch.
I, too, remember the LB Mk. II Sten main casings being sold. Might even have an old surplus store catalogue listing Sten parts. They had the casings, butts, mechanical parts, but no bolts, barrels or magazine housings. Then the CF cut their remaining Stens, and there was a flood of demilled guns, in varying stages of demilitarization. That solved the problem of magazine housing availability. The registered LB guns Lee Enfield mentionned were probably assembled during this period. At the time, assembling and registering one of these was not a problem.
Never saw a Bren receiver.
It was possible to purchase C1/C2 rifles, C1 smgs directly from LB. Wouldn't have believed it until I saw brand new in the packaging guns, and the paperwork. Chap just thought to ask, and found out they could be purchased.

Superb looking rifle I must say. Two comments: it appears the receiver was refinished after the markings on the left wall were engraved, which suggests some contact with Long Branch post-WWII. The "56" date on the barrel, if that is what that represents, must indicate either the year the barrel was made or the year the rifle was assembled.

My guess would be this was a presentation or someone's retirement gift to themselves or something along those lines. What is interesting is that either these MkI parts were still in stock at Long Branch as late as 1956, or else someone had squirrelled them away gradually over time and assembled this from those parts somewhere else: a LB worker, a military armourer, or anyone who had access to stocks of these parts in the 50s or 60s.

I haven't read the whole thread so if someone has made those points already no plagiarism intended!

Jeeeees........ Canada must have been awash with 'liberated' Stens and suchlike. But I'm sure that I'm not the only one who'd like to know what serial number batch was allocated to Ordnance replacement bodies - if any. Maybe they just diverted a few hundred every so often. Have you got any idea Surpmil?

But that we all lived in Canada during the 60s/70's........

Canada in the '60s and early '70s was a very different place than it is now.
Another item that I saw in that period was one of the RCAF wooden Mk. II Sten buttstocks. Only one I ever saw.
At the same time that the Sten main casings could be had for $15, Inglis Browning frames were $10 without the stock slot, $15 with.
A lot of vet bring backs were surfacing, and there was no problem getting on the right side of the law.
In addition, the obsolete stuff was starting to flood onto the market.
I saw brand new M1A1 Thompsons and MP44s for $135 retail. Saw the invoice, they were US$35 each from Interarmco, FOB Alexandria.

Peter, even a comparative stripling like myself can remember Vickers receivers and casings, boxes of Bren mags and welded (IIRC) Stens for sale in the 70s and even early 80s in these parts. There was a whack of un-numbered LB No4 MkI* receivers out here in BC a few years back I was told, dated 1955 and 56. Since the FN C1 was coming in then, there wasn't much call for No4 "bodies" so they were never used and who knows by what means they were sold off or otherwise liberated. There were some huge surplus sales around here in the 70s and before, and the average public servant :laugh: wouldn't know or care what a No.4 body was, just more stuff to be sold off and cleared out ASAP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Superb looking rifle I must say. Two comments: it appears the receiver was refinished after the markings on the left wall were engraved, which suggests some contact with Long Branch post-WWII. The "56" date on the barrel, if that is what that represents, must indicate either the year the barrel was made or the year the rifle was assembled.

My guess would be this was a presentation or someone's retirement gift to themselves or something along those lines. What is interesting is that either these MkI parts were still in stock at Long Branch as late as 1956, or else someone had squirrelled them away gradually over time and assembled this from those parts somewhere else: a LB worker, a military armourer, or anyone who had access to stocks of these parts in the 50s or 60s.

I haven't read the whole thread so if someone has made those points already no plagiarism intended!

---

I've seen the "56" mark on other barrels, and it appears to be a proof mark, not a date stamp. I have another rifle with that stamp and a standard date stamp on it. Also, in the Knowledge Library there is another #4 Mk I LB and in photos 130, 131, 132 and 137 the same stamping can be seen, with the normal date stamp adjacent to it. This link might work (or might not)......
1941 No.4 Mk1 Long Branch Rifle


Ed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boltaction

I've seen the "56" mark on other barrels, and it appears to be a proof mark, not a date stamp. I have another rifle with that stamp and a standard date stamp on it. Also, in the Knowledge Library there is another #4 Mk I LB and in photos 130, 131, 132 and 137 the same stamping can be seen, with the normal date stamp adjacent to it. This link might work (or might not)......
1941 No.4 Mk1 Long Branch Rifle

Ed

---

I have a LB rebarreled No1MkIII which has a similar inspection marking- I'll have to dig it out and look at it...

You can be rest assured Bolt Action that the 56 will NOT be a proof mark or, in my honest opinion, even an examiners mark. It's exactly what it says on the tin

Tin? I don't follow.......

Ed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boltaction

I've seen the "56" mark on other barrels, and it appears to be a proof mark, not a date stamp. I have another rifle with that stamp and a standard date stamp on it. Also, in the Knowledge Library there is another #4 Mk I LB and in photos 130, 131, 132 and 137 the same stamping can be seen, with the normal date stamp adjacent to it. This link might work (or might not)......
1941 No.4 Mk1 Long Branch Rifle

Ed

---

I see what you mean. Does this mean you have a very early production barrel and in that case, probably a rifle assembled in 1941? There must have been pre-production rifles without serial numbers, at least without numbers in the normal run of them.

Ah, yes........ what it says on the tin......... It's a phrase that says that a thing is exactly what it is! I mean if it says 56 on the barrel, then in my limited experience of seeing these things, then it's a date!

It's like seeing the Enfield DE mark on parts, such as DE72 on, say an L7 trigger. It indicates Enfield 1972 and to an Armourer, seeing F55 on a No4 would be Fazakerley 1955 and likewise LB56 is Long Branch, 1956. Just my experience as an Armourer

So, my question is. If it was re-barrelled in 1956, how did it retain all its early parts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If it was rebarrelled in or after 1956 why WOULDN'T it retain all, most or even some of its original parts. If they weren't broke, why fix (or change) em'. Or am I missing something?

I thought when a rifle went through a workshop it was disassembled and parts not necessarily kept together, except the numbered ones. Or do I have it wrong? I guess I don't really understand how the system works.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gsimmons

So, my question is. If it was re-barrelled in 1956, how did it retain all its early parts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

The real question would be if the barrel was replaced in 1956 why does it have very early inspection markings which were no longer in use past @1947?

The glib answer is this........, believe me, based on my very limited experience, if SM41= Singer 1941, DE72 = Enfield 1972, F56= Fazakerley 1956, P60= Poole 1960 then surely, LB56= Long Branch 1956.

I'm not going to re-read the thread but regardless of when the 1947 mark was stamped, it is still marked Long Branch 1956

My car was made in July 1968. But it wasn't registered until March 1969. Mk2 Fazakerley bodies were made in 1955 but not used or numbered until 1972. You just believe what you want to, or what it's convenient to believe............... But sometimes, you just have to be pragmatic

I'm not sure, and since there seems to be little information on some of the LB markings, we'll never know. My rifle is a mystery, but given the exigiencies of wartime production, especially at the beginning when we were losing quite handily and the push would have been on to get as many rifles out there as possible, it seems unlikely that there would have been a separate "stash" of early Mk I parts, fully proofed and inspected, just lying around for someone to assemble in the 1950's. That makes zero sense. Also, it seems unlikely that Badger's rifle in the MKL, which has a 1941 date stamped on the barrel and also has the 56 stamp, would have also been rebarreled in 1956, and in any case, then it wouldn't still have the '41 date. If both rifles were FTR'd in 1956, then they both would not still be retaining all their early parts. Also, I have a 1942 date LB with the little flip 2 way rearsight etc which also has this stamp on the barrel. So, "56" has to stand for something other than the year. :confused:

Ed

Fantastic rifle, DROOL!

Replacing barrels was only second line repair, it may well have been done at Field Workshop level.
FTR's which were a total rebuild , were done at a Base Workshop.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that this barrel change was not a stand alone repair, common place within the system.
The other alternative is that the barrel was replaced by a civilian Armourer for target or general use.
Despite what ideas on this stamps originality are, it is a date stamp.

No unmarked receiver would have been returned from any Military establishment without a No. stamped on it, therefore, Civilian repair is the obvious conclusion.

Thanks for the explanation. That makes perfect sense!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muffett.2008

Replacing barrels was only second line repair, it may well have been done at Field Workshop level.
FTR's which were a total rebuild , were done at a Base Workshop.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that this barrel change was not a stand alone repair, common place within the system.
The other alternative is that the barrel was replaced by a civilian Armourer for target or general use.
Despite what ideas on this stamps originality are, it is a date stamp.

No unmarked receiver would have been returned from any Military establishment without a No. stamped on it, therefore, Civilian repair is the obvious conclusion.

---

Makes sense. What, however, is the explanation for Badger's MKL which has both the '41 date stamp and the 56 mark? Shouldn't it be either one or the other? Also, why is there no "hash mark" in front of the 56 as there is in front of the '41? Did they change their method of marking the dates?

Ed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boltaction

Makes sense. What, however, is the explanation for Badger's MKL which has both the '41 date stamp and the 56 mark? Shouldn't it be either one or the other? Also, why is there no "hash mark" in front of the 56 as there is in front of the '41? Did they change their method of marking the dates?

Ed

---

I believe that your barrel was inspected by an internal LB inspector who used LB over 56 in 1941. The marking looks like the wood inspectors marking: LB over a horizontal line above 66 in this case.

My '41 dated barrel LB no4mk1 is also marked LB over 56, but it appears that the stamp was too big for the location and it was double stamped slightly offset.
Serial number is 0L26xx

I pulled my canadian owned no1mk3* Long Branch made barrel and it is marked LB over 0 and dated '42

Bolt action and Lee Enfield......... I'm sitting here with a 1972 DE marked, genuine Army L39 in my grubby little mitts and the body of which AND most of the parts are marked, large as life for the whole world to see and in no uncertain terms with marks that relate to that wonder of small arms manufacturing, Fazakerley in 1955. But there's a rub........ The rifle also bears the markings of Enfield in 1972. And to confuse matters even more, it carries a serial number that relates to 1972 too

Are you thinking what I'm thinking or have we flogged a dead horse for long enough................. Just personally speaking, it just looks like a case of what we call in Army technical terms '......the bleedin' obvious'.

Could be, could be. However, in my line of work, it is not considered wise to assume that the "bleedin' obvious" is the truth. Personally speaking, I find it quite interesting that we have 3 (three) 1941 LB No 4 Mk I's all with a 56 stamp on the barrel, two of which also have a '41 stamp on the barrel. I also have a '42 receiver date LB with a '41 date barrel which ALSO has the 56 stamp on it. I have 11 other Long Branches 1943 - 1950, 3 of which are RCMP issue; just for fun I peeled them apart this evening and none of them have a 56 on the barrel, or anywhere else for that matter.

So, it is a minor point, but I think it would be rather odd to just assume that all 4 of these rifles which are either 1941 dated or made with 1941 parts just happened to end up with 1956 barrels, and still retain their 1941 date, or were reworked in 1956 for some reason but retained all their early parts. I have often considered military brass decisions to be inexplicable in the extreme, but the armourers are generally a very thorough, logical lot. Any Canadian/British rifles I've seen which have gone through some sort of official repair or had major parts officially replaced are usually so marked, or else they're refinished, or what-have-you.

It would be neat to get a poll of other folks who own Long Branch No 4 Mk I 1941s and see if their barrels are stamped with 56 as well or not. However, in the end, the discussion is probably moot, and clearly boring. Since we seem to have no official records of what inspection marks were used at Long Branch besides the LB mark, I doubt we'll resolve this one way or the other, and at the end of the day, who really gives a ****?

Cheers

Ed

I've just pm'd another member who has a 41 LB in the 0L serial range, and he confirms his barrel also has an LB over 56 marking, as well as the '41 barrel date. Another member with a 41 Mk I notes his barrel doesn't have that mark, but it is a '42 date barrel. So, we now have several '41 dated LB barrels with a mystery 56 mark on them, which must be some sort of proof or inspector mark used only in .41 by LB. Either that, or all these Mk I '41 LB's went back to LB in 1956 and had a 56 stamped on their barrels, but retained their '41 barrels. That seems most completely highly unlikely.

Not a date stamp.

Ed

Just checked my 41 0L60xx
41 date barrel and the LB 56 is stamped above the serial # on the left side of barrel.
Must be some kind of proof mark for 41 barrels only.

Both of these pics are of the same barrel on my early '41 LB.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...IMG_4057-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...IMG_4056-1.jpg

Ian

Here is my 0L3350 1941, with the self same /56 stamp.

I know what you're all saying - and I was going to go into one of my '....well how do you account for this' sagas with another example..... but I won't. Like I always say, I'm not a historian, just an Armourer. So instead of going into bleedin' obvious mode I'll ask this. Does anyone have an examiners stand-alone mark with any other numbers UP TO 56 under the LB logo. Just a thought. What about LB47 or 23 or.......... anything? Or even above 56. Of course, I'm being silly now but might it be that a barrel examiner just gave himself the LB-56 mark like someone at BSA gave himself the UB61 mark. There's a LOT of them about too, and they're all on 1961 rifle barrels