EAL Type Longbranch Experts Weigh In

'02' serial number prefaced by two 1's laid short-short over each other. Marked Long Branch No4 Mk1 1941, no other serial markings, all metal I have seen on rifle is stamped Long Branch.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...sav2B004-1.jpg

Broad arrow/LB stamp on wrist of EAL-style butt with Jostam pad, forend also EAL style, none of the 'snug' marks usual on old rifles like this that have been pulled apart 87 times.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...sav2B009-1.jpg

Full rifle shows EAL style 200-400 sight inset, front sight as per EAL specs, a bit buggered. Barrel pristine.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...sav2B005-1.jpg

So what do we have here? If it's a Bitsa rifle, then it's a very good bitsa rifle. The serial number doesn't add up, and it looks like they spot annealed it so it would take a stamp, and it has no trace of serial number anywhere else on the action. Barrel is Longbranch. It has every styling of the EAL rifle, front to back, except the charger bridge is intact. Further, it has the Longbranch stamp on EAL wood. And it's marked -02.

No need to spot anneal or anything there as it's just plain old mild steel. In fact the butt socket is the place where Armourers are TOLD to mark the rifle

Do you have a picture of the left side of the body?

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...sav2B033-1.jpg

Thanks!

That's not an EAL body. It could possibly be assembled at LB by a factory worker and taken home or by someone in the civvie world from surplus parts. Interesting, especially with a 1941 body. Lots of parts were sold at the auction in the 1970's so it's anyone's guess.

Thanks Brian. I'm wondering, though -- and it's reasonable -- whether this is an EAL body before being ground down? What about the stock stamp where it has 130 over broad arrow over what looks like MK 1?

-- No proof marks or .303 stamp
-- No4 Mk1 but no normal serial number
-- Serial of -02
-- Inside butt socket unknown mark, circular, looks like machining but could be writing.
-- Stock stamp of 130>MK1?
-- All Longbranch parts
-- Every single part is consistent with EAL, except for the stamp and unmilled receiver, but the myth behind the legend is that EAL used surplus Longbranch receivers.

I recognize that there are no tolerance differences consistent with letters being ground out of the action at EAL. But would it make financial sense to manufacture new No4 receivers for a few thousand rifles, in a world where rifles built on surplus receivers were almost literally a dime a dozen?

Can we see a picture of the top of the action looking down?

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ZH12qD8N-1.jpg

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

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...sR8kClxA-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...pSfsIUs4-1.jpg

Bolt is electro penciled 2, bolt head 3, with 2 properly stamped opposite the head. Had/has a Mk111 LB ladder sight on it. Noticed just now that there's an absence of machining on the back of the charger bridge. In the interests of this bit of archaeology, someone busted out the hacksaw at one point and very lightly scored the barrel in the knox form underneath the wood, as if they were planning a relief cut to remove the barrel. Let me know if the pics work as I didn't know the url went to the smaller version.

Clearer shots of first two pictures above would be helpful.

Maybe with a flash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

That's not an EAL body. It could possibly be assembled at LB by a factory worker and taken home or by someone in the civvie world from surplus parts. Interesting, especially with a 1941 body. Lots of parts were sold at the auction in the 1970's so it's anyone's guess.

---

I think you're right on the money. Some learner screwed up the grinding of the charger bridge and the action went in the spares box. No serial number and original finish seals it IMHO.

Whatyadoin' with that Ross by the way?;)

Awful lot of matching stamps if it's a shop run. Ross is on CGN Surpmil, taking offers lol.

So, to recap:

Matching stamps forestock and receiver.
Matching numbers bolt and receiver.
Broad arrow barrel with correct sights.
Buttstock marked 130/Broadarrow/MK1 -- an official marking.
All pieces, including magazine, Longbranch.
All woodwork EAL, but stamped with Longbranch marks.

I also have visual proof of a Longbranch serialed EAL mapping rifle, and visual proof of a mapping rifle issued with an identical '2' stamp; if die steel is as hard as I think it is, would it be likely to have many laying around?

My point is that if this is a Longbranch built civvy bitsa, where did they get EAL wood manufactured post Longbranch, and stamped with Longbranch marks, esp. MK1? There is a multi year gap.


https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...sav2B038-1.jpg

SS and proofs -- sold from service?

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...sav2B042-1.jpg

Replicated on forestock

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...sav2B045-1.jpg

Broad arrow on barrel

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...sav2B043-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...sav2B044-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dogfish858

Awful lot of matching stamps if it's a shop run. Ross is on CGN Surpmil, taking offers lol.

So, to recap:

Matching stamps forestock and receiver.
Matching numbers bolt and receiver.
Broad arrow barrel with correct sights.
Buttstock marked 130/Broadarrow/MK1 -- an official marking.
All pieces, including magazine, Longbranch.
All woodwork EAL, but stamped with Longbranch marks.

I also have visual proof of a Longbranch serialed EAL mapping rifle, and visual proof of a mapping rifle issued with an identical '2' stamp; if die steel is as hard as I think it is, would it be likely to have many laying around?

My point is that if this is a Longbranch built civvy bitsa, where did they get EAL wood manufactured post Longbranch, and stamped with Longbranch marks, esp. MK1? There is a multi year gap.

...snip...
SS and proofs -- sold from service?
...snip...
Replicated on forestock
...snip...
Broad arrow on barrel
...snip...

---

It's just a case of EAL wood and barrel assembled onto an available No4MkI receiver, by "joe sixpack", not a/the factory...especially as the receiver isn't complete.

Not a big deal, one friend of mine has sold at least 2 1941 dated Long Branch receivers which were un-serial numbered...and never were...much like yours, in fact it might have come from the same source.

In my junk, I have spare complete stock sets for EAL "military" and EAL "commercial" varients...

I have an EAL with a destroyed receiver which I am just waiting for the right moment to transfer it's parts to an EAL receiver which came assembled (no not by the factory, I know who assembled it, and he is extremely active on CGNs Milsurp sales section and shows up here too) as a .22


If we want to continue playing fantasy games, I could assemble my EAL parts onto a Long Branch No4MkI*(T) receiver....hey it would be 100% Long Branch SAL/CAL and therefore correct right? It certainly would have military and factory inspectors stamped markings...

I was half sort-of following this thread and it took me back a few days/threads ago when something started to go round and around contrary to common sense or what my mum used to call 'the bleedin obvious'. Thanks for a bit of common sense - and straight talking Lee Enfield

With due and honest respect, the EAL rifles were always and ever NOTHING MORE THAN EAL WOOD AND BARRELS STUCK ON LONGBRANCH RECEIVER. That point is moot. I can't emphasize though that I do mean that entirely respectfully.

Fact 1: No4 Mk1 receiver manufactured Longbranch after July, 1941.

Fact 2: Serial Number 02 and matching bolt.

Conclusion: A) The receiver serial is a fake (in which case, why, considering it was worth $10 in its time and faking serial numbers is fraud); B) this is the second receiver built at Longbranch, ever (which would be a big, big deal); C) that the receiver is actually 02, second of a series, supported by other matching two-digit serial numbers on other EAL rifles.

Fact 3: Almost all tooling was disposed of at the Longbranch factory in 1946 and the remainder was not used for Lee Enfield.

Fact 4: The EAL run was about 4000, worth about $280,000 if we cost the guns at $10 each and transfer to today's money ($1 in 1958 being worth approx. $8 now). Small potatoes.

Fact 5: Typical EAL receivers have the bridges milled, but

Fact 6: New tooling jigs cost money, as do mills; the work shown here could be done with simple tools

Conclusion: prototypes or early rifles would be built on unmodified used parts, because the tooling for metallic parts would not be economical for a small sporting goods store and shop prior to winning a contract, supported by

Fact 7: Actual machining upon winning the contract being farmed out to another shop, S.T. Francis and Sons, Toronto

Fact 8: Visual proof of Longbranch serialed EAL, 1943 series, with Longbranch serial plainly evident.

Conclusion: the presence of Longbranch markings on receiver, or absence of EAL markings, indicates nothing, especially in early series. This is contrary to popular wisdom, but true.

Fact 9: All parts used conform to EAL norms, including

Fact 10: Furniture built in new and far less complicated manner, supporting Fact 3, which shows that the original No4 furniture was in my limited experience the most complicated and costly furniture ever produced, economical only in large quantities with expensive now-sold machines, in this case, enormous copy routers using steel models on graduated reducing styluses.

Fact 11: Markings on receiver and woodwork correspond, including MK1 stamp on buttstock.

Conclusion: All parts assembled at same time and new rifle had yet to be renamed, using new furniture.

Common sense, which we all love, dictates that this is actually #02 of the EAL rifle. Essential Agencies was a civilian supplier of psuedo-civilian rifles for the Canadian government, and they used whatever was expedient: simple furniture, sporting recoil pads (Jostam recoil company was sold in 1955 and moved from Illinois to Texas; I would bet EAL bought their stock), sporting sights, and surplus parts. Common sense dictates that it is unlikely that this is the second receiver ever built at Longbranch; common sense dictates that forgery was pointless, penalized by the gov't and worthless in practice. Common sense also dictates that much of the information available on these rifles is incomplete and or incorrect, and can be proven as such.

The more research I do, the more I am convinced this is EAL #02 -- second of the last run manufactured of the No4 Mk1. For the record I bought it as a bitsa.

It's not an EAL. Pics of EAL receivers are easily available.

Pics of EAL receivers with no EAL stamps are also easily available.

---------- Post added at 02:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:20 PM ----------

To be precise: EAL mapping rifles with Longbranch serial 1943 series, low two digit serial on stock matching font as the two digit serial on mine.

Umm, I'm not sure where you're getting your facts. I don't think the tooling was disposed of at LB/CAL in 1946 considering they built another 50,000+ rifles in 1949-1950 and rebuilt rifles well into the 1960's there too. They also did DCRA conversions to 7.62 into the 1970's if memory serves. There were tons of surplus parts sold off at auction in the mid 70's when they were finally closed down. I guess you're convinced but I still think it's a rifle assembled with surplus parts on a No.4Mk.1 body. The EAL design called for a lightened body so it doesn't make sense that one would be built on a standard No.4 receiver. Just my 2 cents.

"The post-war arsenal scheme recommended by the Joint Arsenals Planning Board was approved by the
government to incorporate Canadian Arsenals Limited to deal exclusively with small arms (Secretary of
State of Canada, 1958). The machinery and equipment not required by Canadian Arsenals Limited were
transferred to War Assets Corporation for disposal. Canadian Arsenals Limited employed 200 people who
continued to supply arms to the Canadian Army (Weeks, 1990). These included components for the C1
submachine gun, the Browning HP pistol, the Canadian Army standard FN rifle and Bren DMG’s
(Mississauga News, 1970). Additionally they also produced crank shafts and connecting rods for the
Koehler engine for high RPM snowmobiles (Weeks, 1990)."

Heritage Mississauga.

C.A.L. was a separate company from Long Branch and employed 200 vs 5500, turning out over 30,000 units per month.

I get you, but regards lightened design -- which would make sense for air crews -- it wouldn't make sense to go to the expense to mill out a unit if it was a one-off to win a minor gov't bid. If they had a mill on hand, wouldn't they have used it instead of farming out the work?

If it was a surplus bitsa, then there's still the 02 serial, which would indicate the second No4 ever made at Long Branch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dogfish858

I am convinced this is EAL #02

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dogfish858

the second No4 ever made at Long Branch.

---

You're grasping at straws with both hands now

No I'm not.

Look: I said "Either this is 02, EAL, OR it's #2 ever made at Longbranch -- highly unlikely -- or it's a forgery, which would have been pointless.

The 2 stamp precisely, exactly, without deviance or trace of slant, slander, or cant, is exactly the same as another two-digit EAL serial number I have a photo of -- a rifle that isn't supposed to exist but does.

Nobody can prove that I am wrong, they only say that I am wrong. I have offered proof repeatedly, and the only reason I don't show the photo is by request of the lender. Nobody has been able to refute me, and the evidence used to refute me I can prove to be usually correct, but sometimes wrong, and in the context of early series rifles, often wrong.

Honestly, by all of your logic, if what I have is not EAL, then it is Longbranch (which is isn't, because Longbranch started with EX) or a forgery, and it's highly unlikely to be either of those.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Lee Enfield and Brian dick have pretty much nailed it.

Where are Cantom & Wheaty?

First off Longbranch would not have used a Mk 1 receiver to assemble anything after the war.

You do not even have the bolt catch that would be used with the Mk 1 and the stock was not relieved to accept one.

The EAL furniture barrel sights etc. came from a military EAL.

This stuff did not even show up till around serial # 5000 so would not be found on an early rifle.

There is no way this is an EAL or a LB prototype.

Well, I've looked at it and all the posts and in the absence of more documentation - not that history always agrees with the documentation, don't we know - I couldn't definitely say it is NOT a prototype. Can anyone else?

Saying it MIGHT BE is not the same as saying IT IS.

I don't see anything illogical about the suggestion that a few rifles would be made up for evaluation or as samples for end-user inspection, with the machining understood to be done if production went ahead. That can't be ruled out without some evidence.

"Look: I said "Either this is 02, EAL, OR it's #2 ever made at Longbranch -- highly unlikely -- or it's a forgery, which would have been pointless."

There is another option that is quite logical and previously demonstrated: a rifle made up for a staff member, or as a gift or favour for someone associated with CAL. As I've mentioned before I was told by a former Eng. Lt. Cmdr. RCN who became an inspector for the Department of Supply, that he had a rifle made up at Long Branch for a colleague who was retiring, he knew very little about rifles, but as he described it, "...it came with the tag on the muzzle..." He was quite clear, because I made sure to ask, that it was made up for him, not just taken from stock somewhere. His friend was a hunter and the Lt. Cmdr. knew people at CAL because he visited sometimes in the course of his work. He just asked and they provided. This probably happened hundreds of times over 20 +/- years. And when the writing was on the wall for Long Branch, there was probably a flurry of rifles made up and "lunch-boxed" out of the place.

First off Longbranch would not have used a Mk 1 receiver to assemble anything after the war. -- Longbranch shut down, according to records, the day the war ended. Feeding, housing, and paying 5500 people costs money.

You do not even have the bolt catch that would be used with the Mk 1 and the stock was not relieved to accept one. -- bolt catches missing are not uncommon in my experience. The last three No4s I've handled had them missing. Inletting for a bolt catch is there.

The EAL furniture barrel sights etc. came from a military EAL. -- so the stamp matching on the receiver and the forestock is coincidence?

This stuff did not even show up till around serial # 5000 so would not be found on an early rifle. -- the serial numbers seem arbitrary and this fact is not constant; buckhorn, L-style, and express style like this are evident in various models.

There is no way this is an EAL or a LB prototype. -- inconclusive. What about the matching cartouche and barrel stamp showing later manufacture than Longbranch?

Regards Surp.mil's third, refreshing, option: it could be, but still doesn't account for the matching bolt and receiver serial numbers.

Surpmil it looks like we posted at the same time.

I`ve seen this rifle before and the stock was not inletted.

I may still have the pics somwhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dogfish858

First off Longbranch would not have used a Mk 1 receiver to assemble anything after the war. -- Longbranch shut down, according to records, the day the war ended. Feeding, housing, and paying 5500 people costs money.

You do not even have the bolt catch that would be used with the Mk 1 and the stock was not relieved to accept one. -- bolt catches missing are not uncommon in my experience. The last three No4s I've handled had them missing. Inletting for a bolt catch is there.

The EAL furniture barrel sights etc. came from a military EAL. -- so the stamp matching on the receiver and the forestock is coincidence?

This stuff did not even show up till around serial # 5000 so would not be found on an early rifle. -- the serial numbers seem arbitrary and this fact is not constant; buckhorn, L-style, and express style like this are evident in various models.

There is no way this is an EAL or a LB prototype. -- inconclusive. What about the matching cartouche and barrel stamp showing later manufacture than Longbranch?

Regards Surp.mil's third, refreshing, option: it could be, but still doesn't account for the matching bolt and receiver serial numbers.

---

I can't put my finger on it now, but I seem to recall a MkI receiver used for another rifle believed to be assembled post-war - can anyone remember the thread?

Your blanket statement about "would not have used a MkI receiver to assemble anything after the war" cannot be proven, nor does it make sense IMHO. The MkI* modification was a foolish idea that the UK factories pointedly avoided. That should have been enough to convince LB and Savage not to proceed, but further research needs to be done on why they did. If I were having a rifle built there, or building one for someone I knew, you can be damn sure it would have a MkI receiver, if one was available.

Now, finding a Long Branch bolt head retaining catch is not an easy thing at all, but you can bet they had some at Long Branch in the drawers and boxes, and if this rifle was assembled there without one, that suggests to me that it was just a "looker", not a "user".

Alternatively, if some industrious person was assembling a rifle some time in the not-too-distant past, a Long Branch bolt head retaining catch would be a very hard thing to find, and if they were 'trying to put one over', using a British made catch would be shall we say, "unconvincing"! Better perhaps to have no catch at all??

Or maybe someone was restoring a Long Branch MkI and needed a bolt head retaining catch and 'this here rifle' just happened to provide one?! ;)


As I said, the only possible conclusion is that there can be no conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Your blanket statement about "would not have used a MkI receiver to assemble anything after the war" cannot be proven,

---

You are quite right, I`d like to change that to would not likely have been used.

Sometimes 'the bleedin obvious' can be interpreted as '.....the wisdom of the crowd....'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dogfish858

...snip...

Heritage Mississauga.

C.A.L. was a separate company from Long Branch and employed 200 vs 5500, turning out over 30,000 units per month.

I get you, but regards lightened design -- which would make sense for air crews -- it wouldn't make sense to go to the expense to mill out a unit if it was a one-off to win a minor gov't bid. If they had a mill on hand, wouldn't they have used it instead of farming out the work?

If it was a surplus bitsa, then there's still the 02 serial, which would indicate the second No4 ever made at Long Branch.

---

"Long Branch" was never a company, "Long Branch" was a facility OPERATED by "Small Arms Limited" (a wartime Crown Corporation), on Dec 31, 1945 "Small Arms Limited" passed control of the Long Branch facility to Canadian Arsenals Limited (a post war Crown Corporation) on January 1, 1946 which then operated the Long Branch facility as "Canadian Arsenals Limited, Small Arms Division", a sister division to the Canadian Arsenals Limited, Explosives Division and apparently few others.

Small Arms Limited didn't cease to exist on Dec 31, 1945, it continued to tie up its operations until mid 1946.

Oh yeah, Long Branch, and EAL serial numbers are on the LEFT side of their receivers.

It's all good. Look, frankly Peter, Lee, Brian, Vintage, Ax: you're all wrong. Gov't docs state that the Longbranch facility closed upon armistice to avoid paying, feeding, and housing 5500 people 24 hours a day. The charter was surrendered end of 1945, and in 1946, C.A.L. took what it needed from the S.A.L. factory to use in its own separate factory of 200 people, and the gov't disposed of the rest. Just the facts, man. Newspaper articles based on gov't docs and in person interviews. Unless you're willing to believe a factory made for thousands of workers producing thousands of pieces per month stayed open to produce hundreds of pieces per year with a fraction of the workers. Imagine the heating bill on a structure hundreds of meters across.

Regards your serial numbers, yes, you're right, most of the time. But the fact remains that I have in my possession a photograph from a reputable source of an early series EAL rifle with no EAL stamp, a Longbranch serial still on it, and a low two digit serial number identical to mine, and not placed on wrist or receiver.

I lifted the cartouche on the stock today; it reads 130 Broad Arrow EXAM. Whatever that could mean. The unknown K stamp evident on wood, bolt, and receiver appears to be a proof stamp of some sort, as I've found another on another North American No4. But it's clear that, in spite of some of your braggadocio, you actually don't know what you're talking about with regards EAL rifles. It's the great risk of asking advice, though, so in the end it's my fault.

You'll notice, actually, that nobody except Surp.mil has come even close to answering my questions: where and why the 02? Why does it match the bolt? Why is the butt stamped 130>EXAM? Why does the 02 match another two digit serial number on an EAL rifle? Why the strange, rare proof marks?

Was it aliens? Or factory gnomes? Some believe in them.

When you can offer some sort of answer or even mild speculation, I'll believe you actually know what you're talking about, because, frankly, your guess is as good as mine -- and it seems my guess is better.

Respectfully, ish. Thank you for your useful posts.

Ah...... While I readily admit that I know diddly squat about these EAL rifles I do understand the well used phrases like '....the bleedin obvious' and the wisdom of the crowd. Additionally, there are some VERY learned historians on this site. Nope....., not me I hasten to add as I am just a mechanical engineering type.

I notice that in para 2, you have uncovered all manner of irrefutable or hard evidence by way of photos. Same in Para 3 too. BUT THOSE THAT KNOW AIN'T SEEN IT!

As for your 'my guess is better that yours' notion, then yes, it IS better than mine. But I'll tell you something else. It ain't better that some of the others who have waded in with answers. It also raises the question of '........er..... if you are right and do indeed know more than the respondents on the forum, why are you asking us in the first place?. Just a point to ponder!

Some of those you have ribbed aren't quite as diplomatic as me. But, like I used to say to my son while I was helping him with his Physics and Technology homework at School, when he was always right. 'Robert....... if it makes you feel better I'll say you're right. You're not of course, everyone can see it, but in spite of the glaringly obvious I'll say you are right. Can't say fairer than that can I?

As far as SAL/CAL is concerned, what was disposed of, apart from employees, was probably just excess machinery and office equipment, and IRRC what I think I read, the machinery was mostly moth-balled. This was the Cold War after all. ;)

The parts, jigs, tooling, drawings etc. etc. all stayed, naturally, since they continued to manufacture No4s at a slower rate, as well as various other things like the Canadian EM2 etc. There were hundreds of NOS 1955 Long Branch receivers around a few decades ago, albeit with the last digit struck separately, so work continued.

It would have made no sense to dispose of No4 parts; it was still to be our service rifle for over a decade. We've seen evidence in other made-up rifles that parts that were slightly defective and no doubt 'written off' as a result were put aside for possible use later. Same thing happened in other factories: about ten years back Sarco or one of those places had a run of original No5 flash hiders: not repros, originals. Perfect in all respects except the bores of the cones were slightly misaligned. Some sensible person decided there was no point throwing them away after public money had been spent on them, when they might be useable or repairable later.

It's 60 odd years ago, but there might be a few SAL/CAL people still around who could confirm these things.

Your rifle does appear to have the maple leaf proof mark on the barrel and what other rifles does that show up on? Definitely the 7.62mm 'DCRA conversions'.

If there are other markings you have found please post photos of them.

Instinctive scepticism is not a bad thing! ;)

Not an expert like some who have chimed in here. But I see a 'lunch-box special', not a prototype, or number 2 on the production line.

All of the oldest EALs that I've seen have modified military buttstocks do they not? It was a while I to the production run that the sporter butt stock came into use.

Nope, you've got a nice home built copy. Probably made by an employee who liberated most of what he needed from the factory. With the average EAL is that condition worth roughly $450 to $500 dollars I wouldn't consider more than $350-400 for this rifle.

I'll stick with my original opinion in post #5. I'm not an expert by a long shot but I did import hundreds of rifles from Ontario back in the 90's and early 2000's and I had several examples that were obviously built from legit parts that originated in the Toronto, Mississauga area. This includes No.4's, C No.7's and Browning pistols. Many were obvious "lunch box" examples. Others were assembled post CAL auction by Armourers properly and some were not assembled properly by whoever. I had several of the C No.7 trainers built from parts and it was easy to tell they weren't done by an Armourer because I had to refit the rear sight on every one of them before I could add them to inventory. I cannibalized a few of these parts rifles for my own projects too and was glad to get them for the sum of the parts at the time.

---------- Post added at 12:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:46 PM ----------

Oh yeah: I'd love to see those pictures too.

So Dogfish, what IS an expert then? Did you have anyone in mind? We've been waiting for Warren Wheatfield to come to surface but he won't...when we need him...but I doubt you know his so he may not suffice for you. I don't think anyone cares enough about this particular model to only study it, the LE family however...well these men above are the ones that have the most knowledge there. I think it's a parts gun too, I've built lots of them.

We've seen lot of these type of posts, a question is asked, then insisted on, and then when we don't come to your way of thinking we get this exact result. Then it turns condescending and acrimonious...we have no reason to steer anyone wrong. And, it doesn't mater in the long run.

I don't know jack $#!t about EAL rifles but I feel honored to be grouped in with a crowd the does. Thanks.

Hi all:
I've run across what seems to be a correct EAL RCAF issue piece--5 shot mag, flip rear sight etc. Does anyone know what the approximate value of one would be in Canada?

Thx

Ed

Hey, Dogfish......., where are you - just when we need a real subject matter expert?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boltaction

Does anyone know what the approximate value of one would be in Canada?

---

You'd probably be best watching CanadianGunNutz and see what they go for. They only come up once in a while and they go higher than I'd pay. At least that's what's asked... You might want to post some pics here and the guys might be more help too. At least a few quotes from various area can give you a starting place... I wouldn't even want to start without seeing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dogfish858

It's all good. Look, frankly Peter, Lee, Brian, Vintage, Ax: you're all wrong.

---

Dogfish, do yourself a favour. Set the rifle down and step back a few feet and take a good look at it.

If your lucky you will see what most of us see. And you can move on.

It just does not look like a rifle that would be let out the door by a reputable shop. Whether it be Canadian Arsenals, EAL, or anyone else.

I have a EAL marked Longbranch 1943 with a E25 serial