LONGBRANCH N04MK1 1941

This is actually a continuation of an old thread I posted awhile ago about my Longbranch 1941. On the left side of the receiver it is etched as follows .....................
/51 0L_ _ _ _ No4MK1/2(F) FTR. Underneath the /51 there is a sizeable C-broad arrow stamp, does this mean it saw Canadian service after the FTR? If you go to "What's your Lee Enfield Holy Grail" on the 09-18-2016 JimbobRVA has a post involving also a 1941 No4MK1/2 F(FTR) that Brian Dick did some work to...there is a thumbnail picture of the etchings on the receiver but there is no C-broadarrow stamp. Any thoughts??????
My barrel is cut and the stock has been sporterized so I've got my work cut out.....the barrel is stamped F49 so I will be looking for a similar year Faz barrel. I guess a beech wood stock is what i should be looking for? Rear sight has been replaced during the FTR as well as it is F stamped.
Final question.....the bolt is etched with the same serial # as the gun but not stamped as the normal case so I'm assuming the bolt was replaced during the FTR, would this be what is called a forced match?
I think it is a fairly rare Longbranch and worth the time and $ to put it back to a respectable state. Too bad we have a border between us Brian, I'd send it down to you for the make-over...it seems just too complicated now!!!
I'd love to post pictures but it's a bit out of my computer skills. I'm certainly not knowledgeable in the field of Enfields so hopefully my questions don't seem too boring for the experts....thanks for your input

You have a rare rifle. I have one as well. I did an analysis the number of 1941 LB's made, the number of /2's and /3's made, and did a percentage adjustment of how many of each model and make could be expected to have been converted. It's all loosey goosey, but it's all I've got. Based on the numbers made, I speculate that less than 1,000-1,200 Long Branch /2's made. It's been a few years since I did that, so my memory may be off. I'll try to find that work I did.

So to your rifle. Since it was a rebarrel, you can find a donor rifle of the correct make and year, (hopefully a non metal cut sporter) to make yours right. The /2 wood will be some easier to find. It's out there, you have to hunt every gun show.

I'd spend the time and money to get it restored. It's a rare piece.

But surely, the mere fact that it is a FTR Mk1/2 makes it almost certain that it will NEVER ever be 'factory' again............. By replacing the barrel to make it look something like factory is just fakery..... or no? Or am I missing the point somewhere along the line?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

But surely, the mere fact that it is a FTR Mk1/2 makes it almost certain that it will NEVER ever be 'factory' again............. By replacing the barrel to make it look something like factory is just fakery..... or no? Or am I missing the point somewhere along the line?

---

I totally agree with Peter on this, some things are what they are!

bros, you say that the barrel has been cut and does this mean that you have a non original foresight with no bayonet lugs on the muzzle? Is your main motivation of replacing the barrel so that you can fit a standard foresight, have a standard length barrel and have bayonet lugs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bros

I'd love to post pictures but it's a bit out of my computer skills.

---

If you send me pics I'll post them. Check PMs for my Email addy...

I certainly understand your point Peter and couldn't agree with you more!!!
I will replace the barrel as it has been cut behind the front sight so when they did the original FTR in 51 maybe they only used barrels manufactured by Faz....., same with the wood it has been chopped.... is it possible at that time period during the FTR maybe only beech was used???? That's all I'm trying to accomplish or am I completely wrong?
I will try to get some pictures sent to Browningauto rifle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

But surely, the mere fact that it is a FTR Mk1/2 makes it almost certain that it will NEVER ever be 'factory' again............. By replacing the barrel to make it look something like factory is just fakery..... or no? Or am I missing the point somewhere along the line?

---

The FTR programme was achieved, where possible by using existing components removed gauged to new specification and reused. If not to new standard, then the spec was to be within 80% of new. Quite how they calculated this 80% norm with some components is anyones guess. But components such as trigger guards and fore-ends were modified to suit. So generally speaking, used woodwork would be the norm. Fabricated trigger guards were not re-used but other fabricated/cheapened stuff certainly was

Thanks to clarify that Peter!! I get the picture, used parts had to be met within a certain spec then more less a free-for-all as far as who manufactured the parts whether the repairs were done within a FTR program or merely an armorer repairing rifles behind the front lines!!! I though things would be more specific within a FTR repair program.

Replace the barrel with the same marked barrel. And correct wood. Yes, it'd be a restoration, and a better looking one than the condition it's in now. But, as I said, not at the cost of tearing down a complete, good rifle. Use a bubba'd rifle to do that. No, I'd not call that fakery at all. The forestock would not match, as these were serialed to the rifle. It would be what it is. A restoration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

But surely, the mere fact that it is a FTR Mk1/2 makes it almost certain that it will NEVER ever be 'factory' again............. By replacing the barrel to make it look something like factory is just fakery..... or no? Or am I missing the point somewhere along the line?

---

Here are pics of Bros rifle...

I did see an Ordnance instruction to Regimental Quartermasters dated immediately post-war that stated words to the effect that all equipment including arms and accoutrements with the Canadian Forces acceptance or ownership marking of the arrow within a distinct letter C blah blah should be clearly marked and returned to Central Ordnance for return to the Canadian Army. I wonder if it really happened to any real meaningful degree. Clearly

Does anyone know who did the conversion because it looks like a professional job?

The conversion was done to /2 specs by Fazakerly. The conversion to "chopped" was done by "Bubba".

Many thanks to browningautorifle for posting the pictures. I took them with my new (first) smart phone. Now the dumby, me has to figure that thing out!!!!!
Anyhow back to one of my original questions. I assume that the bolt had been changed in the FTR because the serial# has been electro penciled on the bolt as opposed to being factory stamped, would this be considered a forced match?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limpetmine

The conversion to "chopped" was done by "Bubba"

---

These were done at a number of sources, Parker Hale and others... They were done for Sears, Eatons, Marshall Wells, on and on. The mags are special made like that and marked "Made in England", I have a couple here. They were done for the hunters after a war that left millions of these in store. They're a good hunting rifle.

I've had four MkI Long Branches and seen a few more, have never seen one with a C Broad Arrow though. The rifles were supplied to the UK MoD and doled out to whoever from there, so Canadians did not necessarily get Canadian rifles at all, at least that what the evidence I have seen indicates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bros

Many thanks to browningautorifle for posting the pictures. I took them with my new (first) smart phone. Now the dumby, me has to figure that thing out!!!!!
Anyhow back to one of my original questions. I assume that the bolt had been changed in the FTR because the serial# has been electro penciled on the bolt as opposed to being factory stamped, would this be considered a forced match?

---

What Peter and others have said is there is no such thing or they don't use the term "forced match". If a bolt was changed, it was properly fitted and then numbered to the gun.

Rob, thread 17. We can assume that Canadian soldiers arriving in the UK on the troopers came armed with their own issued-in-Canada No4 rifles - can we? I have seen a few marked on the receiver ring and this one is clearly marked on the body. We were not permitted to stamp the body.

I do question if this rifle was professionally converted by a commercial organisation rather than a private individual, if it would not be better to leave it as it is. A professionally converted service rifle that has been changed into a sporting rifle is an interesting item in it's own right. It appears to be in excellent condition and I do wonder about the merits of altering it from it's present state?

I question your interpretation of professionally converted F-10. The conversion to Mk1/2 sp3c was professional as it was done at ROF6 to a laid down spec. But as for the 'conversion' to a sporter................, you amaze me. It is what the shop floor at our workshops would call a total sack of cxxx! The finish of the wood under that slathered-on varnish looks like it was done with a hacksaw blade (all photos) while the fitting of the butt (last photos) leave the average joe speechless. I pass no further comment but I'm sure others will come in and comment on the finger imprints and stupidity of varnish on a rifle....... Nope........, poor workmanship by a local bubba I'd say. Just my opinion as a bit part amateur I'd say

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

These were done at a number of sources, Parker Hale and others... They were done for Sears, Eatons, Marshall Wells, on and on. The mags are special made like that and marked "Made in England", I have a couple here. They were done for the hunters after a war that left millions of these in store. They're a good hunting rifle.

---

True, but the ones that I've seen were so marked, like the various grades of the Santa Fe rifle series. I've got one that the PH ramp is well done on, but no provenance as to by whom. It's going back to stock one day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limpetmine

the ones that I've seen were so marked

---

Are there NO markings on it? It looks like one of the grade one types...

Because of the rare nature of this rifle, I or somebody else will de-sporterize it and return it back to a level of respectable appearance and usability. Actually "I " will not being doing the work so I will try to find someone local to help me out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

I do question if this rifle was professionally converted by a commercial organisation rather than a private individual, if it would not be better to leave it as it is. A professionally converted service rifle that has been changed into a sporting rifle is an interesting item in it's own right. It appears to be in excellent condition and I do wonder about the merits of altering it from it's present state?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

I question your interpretation of professionally converted F-10. The conversion to Mk1/2 sp3c was professional as it was done at ROF6 to a laid down spec. But as for the 'conversion' to a sporter................, you amaze me.

---

I am only looking at the pictures via a lap top, Peter, perhaps you are viewing them from a larger screen and have a better perspective of the condition because of this. Perhaps you have better eyesight than me.

The point which I made previously was that if it was converted by a commercial organisation it may be worth saving in it's present configuration. No-doubt it has been messed about with since being converted, in the intervening years, but this can always be rectified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Rob, thread 17. We can assume that Canadian soldiers arriving in the UK on the troopers came armed with their own issued-in-Canada No4 rifles - can we? I have seen a few marked on the receiver ring and this one is clearly marked on the body. We were not permitted to stamp the body.

---

Peter I have never seen any photos of Canadian troops arriving in the UK with No.4 Rifles. SMLE's are shown as still being on issue in Italy until early 1944 in some formations, others seem to have got No.4s by mid 1943. It's quite possible some Long Branch rifles were issued to Canadian troops either deliberately or accidentally. Someone better ask our remaining vets while there is still time.

Did you ever see any UK made No.4s with the C Broad Arrow mark?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Someone better ask our remaining vets while there is still time.

---

The few I've spoken to over the years were unaware that No.4's were made anywhere but Enfield!!!

Yep, seen quite a few Mk1*'s with the C/Arrow mark, usually on the breeching up ring. Not many that I remember though. Always assumed that it was because it indicated Canadian Army/Govt ownership and were returned post war as per the QM's instructions I'd seen

But not on any UK-made rifles? So it sounds like the C Broad Arrow didn't ensure rifles were returned anymore than the lend lease "U.S. PROPERTY" mark did? Not surprising since they were probably scattered all over the world by the end of the war. Or did the US waive the return of rifles and other small arms?

Rob, you're confusing the issue a bit. Thread 12 tells what the instructions to Quartermasters stated and referred to. Presumably to ensure that Canada got it's own weapons back - albeit eventually. Or at least, got proportionately the same quantity back for return to Canada and the new post-war Army. Just my guess

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Are there NO markings on it? It looks like one of the grade one types...

---

I really checked out the rifle today for any markings as who did the conversion. The front sight ramp is marked Parker Hale England. The magazine is marked, "Made in UaPa?, Expressly for Parker Hale Limited". Other than that no other details....I'm guessing it's a Parker Hale conversion.

That would follow without absolute proof. The mags are interchangeable and the sights are available...but it sure looks like one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Rob, you're confusing the issue a bit. Thread 12 tells what the instructions to Quartermasters stated and referred to. Presumably to ensure that Canada got it's own weapons back - albeit eventually. Or at least, got proportionately the same quantity back for return to Canada and the new post-war Army. Just my guess

---

What I was getting at Peter, and what I thought you were getting at, was whether there was any policy of returning Canadian-made rifles to Canada? If the C Broad Arrow mark was put on whatever rifles were issued to the Canadian Army in the UK, wherever they were made, then as you say, from the instructions you quoted, those would presumably be the rifles returned to Canadian possession. Not much point in Canada taking back thousands of British made rifles of course, so maybe they were never issued, but passed on to NATO allies?

I've heard reports that Canada standardized (logically enough) on the No.4 MkI* after WWII and an ex-armourer here told John R. (RIP) that any Mk.I rifles which came through post-war were stripped and either scrapped or the receiver replaced with a Mk.I* from stores.

Maybe this would explain the manufacture of new MkI* rifles at Long Branch after WWII, when logically with our greatly reduced military, we should not have needed any new rifles for a long, long time to come, IF we got back what had been made in WWII.

More info on this here: https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=59988&page=1