Different 44' Longbranch

I just picked this up, I'm kind of curious to see what you folks can make of it. The seller told me it had a target site on it at one time (duh), it looks like it was a central judging by the front sight. It doesn't look like it was ever numbered at the factory, the serial number v1 being applied at a later date. I thought it was quite interesting. Opinions?


https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...kh5hcy9o-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...v5sdcj97-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...6y55fj7d-1.jpg

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

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...247cwdnr-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...n6kpbteb-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...zll0ehda-1.jpg

Yes the rocket scientist left the building with his astute observations about the rear sight plate, it has the removable post set up on the front so you could probably get the post suit to your ammo without having to raise the rear sight or different thicknesses. All the other stuff on the serial I do not know enough about them you could try fishing among the threads but I am sure someone will chime in with more answers for you. Or try Skennertons book or Strattons

I have seen a Lane sight plate attached using a hole in a very simmilar spot.Central made sight plate to suit the No.4 mk1/2 but I think Lane,Austral,Rawson were only made for No.1mk III and adapted to fit.(some one will prove me wrong ) I will try to dig up a pic. of the Lane on a No.4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sean6.555

I have seen a Lane sight plate attached using a hole in a very simmilar spot.Central made sight plate to suit the No.4 mk1/2 but I think Lane,Austral,Rawson were only made for No.1mk III and adapted to fit.(some one will prove me wrong ) I will try to dig up a pic. of the Lane on a No.4.

---

Ive seen a few No4s in NZ with that threaded hole, I suspect the local owners to tight to buy a no4 central bracket just used their no2 mk3 bracket.

And the PH as well.I thought of that after I typed the post.

I've owned several No4's which have been modified to use PH and Central sight bases originally intended for SMLE rifles.

I have a PH 5 A which has been modified for use on a No4...

This extra hole was a 'problem' on School Cadet Corps rifles. They didn't take much notice of EMER's and Equipment Regs so they'd get local dealers (and occasionally, butchers) to fit their old SMLE sights to plates fitted to their Army issue No4's. Once at workshops the hole would be tig welded up and the rifle returned to service spec................. followed by a letter from the school asking what the xxxx was going on!

Looks like a rifle assembled from parts, of which there use to be reams in the hands of DCRA people. Most of them didn't care what a rifle looked like as long as it shot well. Take the forend off and you may well find non-standard bedding, or signs of it.

In my set of DCRA rules from the late 1940s, there is an allowance to add one drilled and tapped hole on the left side of the action body socket, so as to allow the use of older SMLE sights. This was right about the time there were no longer allowing use of the SMLE and the supply of 4/47 and PH5C sights was short. In my set of 1953 DCRA regulations, the authorization is written as follows:

"DME Department Instruction No. 137 (Index Sec H.) authorizes R.C.E.M.E. workshops to modify No 4 rifles, when requested, to attach the B.S.A. 9, and parker Hale models 5, 5a, 5b, backsight, by drilling and tapping one hole (size No4 BA) in the body of the rifle in a similar position to that in the body of the Rifle No. 1, for the screw, spring, bolt locking."


The DCRA rules required the use of front barrel bedding for 303 rifles for around 20 years. One year they made a deviation for the visiting UK team around 1956 if my memory serves me correctly. The allowance for center bedding was not approved for the 7.62 conversion until 1963 and the .303 in 1964. So the only center bedded .303 No 4 rifles would be those used between 1964 and 1969, though a few folks used the .303 No4 a few years longer , say until around 1971. By that time it was not competitive with the target rifles

I am fairly impressed with the trigger on this rifle, I would put it around 2 pounds, single stage. It was bedded at some point, the stock was cut out and filled at the trigger guard screw, so no need to worry about overtightening. I'm fairly happy with it, once I know how it shoots I will find out whether I am REALLY happy with it.

I would suggest that the rifle was assembled from bits and pieces for target shooting, a SMLE sight or sight base being fitted. One of the isse No. 7 rifles held by the local Cadet Corps had the butt socket hole.

Regardless of the other EMER suggestions, a 2lb pull-off is definately NOT one of them.

The only hole the UK MIlitary were permitted to drill was on the left side of the body, on the bridge charger guide, to allow the fitting of one of the various P-H sights to No8 rifles and later amended to allow same for those units wishing to utilise their existing scale of commercial sights obtained using military funds. In other words, using sights purchased by the unit. But NO holoe on the butt socket and definately NOT a 2lb pull off. Sorry..... an absolute taboo. The absolute minimum will be 5lbs

Let us know how it shoots.