Printable View
I have a question about a 1942 Longbranch I picked up today. It has a mix of parts but the numbers look like they match. Did rifles get parts changed without getting marked with FTR? The only LB marked parts I can see besides the receiver are the front sight base, protector, bolt head and trigger guard. No LB on the wood or the bands. Rear sight marked B, front sight F, cocking piece N67MKII, and don't see any mark on the bolt body. I haven't stripped it down yet. Thanks in advance.
Armourers like me the world over just took the next part off the shelf, carefully fitted it, tested it and sent it on its way. We didn't give a fig whether the part was made in Canada, the USA or Cardiff. Others who live in another orbitory planet who are more experienced in the ways of the real world that Armourers live think we did search for all X or Y or Z made parts but I can assure you we didn't
There is no FTR markings or any other marks stamped or written on the rifle. The internal parts are LB, the safety is not, has what looks like an arrow mark. Is it OK not to have any markings added?
It probably got worked on to fix a specific problem and didn't necessarily see a full blown FTR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
Peter and Brian probably nailed it and will probably amplify or qualify what I'm venturing here. The FTR process was a full Factory Thorough Repair to bring the rifle up to full service standards. But there were field armourers behind the battle lines that would do a field repair* -- a quick fix, so to speak , often right on the spot, like a tune-up -- then send the soldier back to the lines. If it was a race car, we'd call it the "pit crew," with tool kits. Most battlefield rifles are made for field stripping, cleaning, and easy parts replacement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
--------------------------
* Question: Does FR stamped on a stock mean "Field Repair?" One of my Savage Enfields has this stamp and it was obviously repaired with a replacement butt stock.
Thanks for the help. The only thing that worried me was the bolt, the number matches but I don't see a LB stamp. The only marks I see are a punch mark on the front of the handle and what looks like a small arrow pointing at a 3 under the handle. Didn't know if a bolt would be fit to the rifle without FTR marks. There is no LB on the mag but the serial number matches rifle. The stock is strange also, it has no LB or Canadian acceptance marks but has the serial number and what looks like the same serial number above it but you can tell it is older. There are F's stamped in the barrel channels on all three front stock parts. My main concern though was the bolt but it sounds OK to shoot. Thanks again.
If the serial numbers all match, and the third digit in the sequence is L, then it is a Long Branch (such as 41L1234)
Thread Long Branch - Linking Serial Numbers to Month of Production will tell you the month of production
If the stock is either birch or maple, then it is probably an original stock. Some early models were in walnut, but the Canadian stock of walnut ran out early in production, and walnut was reserved strictly for snipers.
It's a 1942 serial number 4L I think 7832. I guess April 42.
Yooper....... please stop getting bogged down in makers marks. They have absolutely no bearing on the serviceability or reliability of your rifle and certainly had no bearing on how the REAL world of REAL Armourers worked, believe me. If you want a pro eye to give your rifle the all clear get a specialist Armourer to give it the once over.
Bolts could be replaced by Armourers at Field Workshop level and guess what......... We would do it day in and out. But it'd be fitted properly, all gauged up and all of the inter-retaled items set to their tolerances. That done, it'd be numbered and range tested. End of story.
Let me elaborate a bit, bang up to date to explain exactly what I mean. I am, at this very moment, stripping and rebuilding a well and truly, totally worn out, well used and abused L1A1 telescopic sight. No doubt it is in the same dire state as its equivalent L42 rifle. The OG lens has been carefully scoured with a scotchbrite pad. The following parts are missing...... Don't ask......, they're missing. The anti rotation screw in the OG lens housing, the focal point adjustin ring ahead of the inner ocular lens plus some other bits and screws. The ocular lens housing bears the number 26803 while the erector cell has yet another number, neither of which relate to this telescope indicating to me that in its life it has been cobbled together from parts in the workshop. Plus, one of the erector lenses is back to front causing a bit of 'fish-eye' but nothing to worry about unless you really need to hit the target - which most snipers appear to want to do. The lead screws are virtually devoid of thread and........... You get my drift........
Oh yes, I almost forgot........ The graticle and post is missing and guess what.....? It's been got-at internally too!
So I rebuild it and replace everything that cannot be reasonably repaired. I replace the 4x springs and the OG lens with new made modern replacements. The lead screws with old but new parts 'liberated' when they were available. Correct all of the internal faults and by this time tomorrow it'll be perfect. But it will contain modern repro parts, old parts, new screws and the old housings from other telescopes that have been scrapped or cannibalised ready for another 70 years service. But you can bet your bottom dollar that none of them will have come from Taylor Hobson!
The question is this. Would you or anyone else give a toss that it ain't original? After all, it ain't original so far as we know since it was converted to L1A1 spec at 27 Command Workshop in 1971.
The next question is a bit like your rifle. Are you really interested in the fact that the rifle you have is in perfect working and serviceable condition?
YOOPER,
You've got a very early Long Branch. Cherish it with pride. Now think as a historian first, not a collector. As you hold the rifle in your hands, use your imagination -- think of the soldier that held that rifle over seventy years ago and what he was going through. Your rifle probably made its way across the Atlantic, and did service in North Africa in 1943, then crossed into Sicily and then into Italy by 1944. By 1945 your rifle was probably in Germany. Imagine how much abuse that gun must have taken and how many times the soldier carrying that gun, which had served him well, went to the Field Armourer for a check-up and tune-up. Any little glitch in that gun could mean the difference between life and death -- so the Field Armourer was to rifles as the Field Medic was to humans.Quote:
Originally Posted by yoopercollector
This is why Capt. Laidler's remarks are so appropriate.
All those changes are signs of character, of the gun doing its duty every day, giving service for the purpose it was intended -- enabling a courageous soldier to help win the war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Recently I purchased the "skeleton" remains of a 1944 Long Branch -- cut down sporterized barrel, stripped receiver, and a messed up walnut butt stock. Some vulture had plucked nearly every piece of the meat off this poor gal. It was cheap -- $40 on GB. I was going to use it for parts. Lo and behold, upon delivery, I found it was originally a sniper - very rare. The antiquarian in me would not allow further desecration of this once-glorious artifact. I sent it to our resident Long Branch ace Armourer/gunsmith, Brian Dick, who has it now. When he returns it, only the receiver will be original. It will have a MkII barrel, and an assortment of parts, some from LB, but many others from whatever he has in his parts bin, as Capt. Laidler describes. I will have a truly battle worn sniper, worn from war, worn from post-war sport shooters, worn from strippers and abusers, and rebuilt by a professional. Will this sniper be an "authentic" gun? Sure, authentic from the standpoint of having the equivalent of an FTR rebuild. Will it ever be as valuable as a pristine sniper. No. Will I value it more than its pristine cousin -- yes! Because Brian and I saved a glorious gun from the rubbish heap -- we did not buy the value, we created the value by putting something into the gun. Value is all in the eye of the beholder.
I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment of the supply of wood used during Long Branch production Seaspriter although I'm sure you're correct about occasional shortages of one wood vs the other as that just makes sense. Walnut and birch were used extensively throughout wartime production. I've had all manner of wartime dates in both, 1941 -1945. They used whatever was in the pile for factory production. Some maple was used but it's much less common than birch and walnut.
You might be surprised when you get your LB "T" back. It's going to be restored back to it's former glory add it last appeared in BRITISH service and finished as such. Sincere thanks to DRP because without the excellent front pad and cheekpiece, I would have been at a loss.
"as it last appeared"
Thanks Brian, and I stand corrected on the wood selection, based on your handling so many Long Branch rifles. We all know how the whole history of Enfields is filled with mysteries, anomalies, and contradictions. In 1943, according to an article (below) in the Toronto newspaper, the factory ran out of the stocks of walnut. (Walnut only grows in a very narrow band of land just north of Lake Ontario (IIRC). So, if walnut reappeared in LB production in 1944-5, where did it come from? I'll speculate that it came from the U.S. where there were (and still are) ample walnut forests. Could it be that Savage was supplying walnut blanks or finished stocks to Canada -- we know they sent a lot of finished walnut to Great Britain for use for repairs.
Read the next to the last paragraph in the last column.
http://www.pbase.com/mrclark/image/93385408
I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to unscramble another set of contradictory pieces of evidence -- like Sherlock Holmes.
Well, my favorite 1943 LB No.4 rifle which was New Zealand owned is stocked in birch so there may be some truth to the article. Additional supplies of walnut may well have come from the USA. I'm not sure about Savage-Stevens. I've never seen a Savage No.4 stocked from the factory in walnut. Some say they exist but I've had quite a few of both early and late production in the past 25 years and all were stocked in birch if factory original.
Thanks Brian, so the mystery continues. While I am only speculating here (no concrete evidence), we know a lot of Savage-Stevens walnut stocks went to the UK for use in repair. Here is a walnut repair stock on a Savage-Stevens I own (with the same initials on it as yours Brian!)https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...5&d=1441062502Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
It's certainly possible (but still speculation) that some walnut blanks or formed stocks went to Long Branch. We know the New York Central Railroad went from Boston, passed Chicopee/Springfield, on to Buffalo then connected to Toronto. But speculation and evidence are two different things, so ...... is there any evidence from the day?
I'd have to dispute the walnut wood from Savage theory. There again: I've had a lot of Savage wood through here both new and used and I've never seen one that wasn't birch. Is that buttstock marked with a Savage square or round "S" under the wrist?
Yes Brian it has a rounded "S" on the wrist (see pic -- faint but distinguishable) The walnut butt stock apparently was a replacement, placed on the rifle "12 1944," as a repair (probably D-Day invasion). The walnut is "full figured," which is typical of American Black Walnut, distinctively different from English "straight grained" walnut. The fore-stock (stamped with the last 4 digits of the receiver serial number) and handguards are original Savage-Stevens birch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...7&d=1441064939
A Savage round "S" manufacturer mark should be under the wrist close to the butt socket and stamped vertically. They were inside of a circle if memory serves. They also used a small square "S" without a box and one inside a box. I'm guessing the different marks were from different contractors who made the wood. Sorry Robert, but I don't see any of those on the bottom of that buttstock. It looks like a Long Branch or British butt to me with inspector's marks present. What is the marking closest to the butt socket stamped vertically? That's the manufacturer's mark, whatever it is. I'm not trying to be argumentative either by the way. This has all been discussed before at length. Can anyone show me a cut and dried piece of wood with a Savage "S" of any description on it that's made from walnut? I'll become a believer when I see it.
Hi Brian,Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
I took a new photo with the vertical "S" located just below the butt socket.
https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...4&d=1444666412
I've seen that "S" mark stamped on many SMLE and No.4 butts. I'm not sure what it is but it isn't a Savage manufacture mark. The manufacture mark is further up but I can't tell what it is.
Here's a better pic of the stamps just under the butt socket. Can't be sure if it's an S or B -- so small and imbedded in the grain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
https://www.milsurps.com/vbpgimage.p...5&d=1444668485
Long Branch walnut butt. B/66 me thinks.
Can one of you fellas make out what this wood is ? It has a odd color to it....not like normal Savage wood I run across.
Attachment 66466Attachment 66467Attachment 66468
David, it looks different because, I think, the previous owner sanded and bleached the wood to lighten the color before applying what appears to be a varnish or polyurethane. To me it looks like birch that has retains some of its original red stain in places and is lighter in others where the sandpaper and bleach removed the stain. The very light tiger-striping in the second pic is indicative of birch.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeDD
(I have an Enfield that was stripped and sanded and had urethane applied that looks very much like yours -- someday I will take off that urethane and bring the wood back to it's rightful color and finish.)
Did they mark the butts with S-M-L to denote the sizes on the 4's as on the MkIII's and could that be the "S" LB-66 pretty good call I would say
I'd guess birch too.
On the heel of the butt.Quote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS
I don't think that medium was marked though. Just S&L
Because Medium was standard...or, common.
Yep, M was the norm. Same as L1A1 butts
Long Branch butts are marked "N" for normal on the heel. They marked them, "B" = Bantam, "S" = Short, "N" = Normal, "L" = Long.
Canadian FN C1/C1A1 rifles even had "XL" butts for real tall fellers!
I can't see any ref to Bantam butts on our No4 parts list. Maybe it was a US/Can requirement
That's right, All those markings on the FN butts too. I liked the XL for shooting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
Could be Peter. How many do you want? I still have a case left. All new in the wrappers.
I've seen bags of them.
I imported a large number of Long Branch No.4's in 2001 that were former Greek Army issue and out of just short of 200 there was only one fitted with a Bantam length buttstock so they obviously weren't used much unless the shooter was 5' tall or shorter! I've sold many to guys who wanted to use them to make book ends for their gun room library. They are beautiful black walnut.
The mass of them would be still in the wrap in the armorer's shop. New, walnut and way short. I used to hang out there...
I was once told that the main purpose for the bantam stocks was for cadet rifles, anybody ever hear anything to this effect?