Printable View
Well this is a bit of an odd-ball that I need some insight on. A 1955 dated LongBranch with a 0Lxxxx serial #. Isn't that odd!!!! Do you think it's something somebody put together? Your thoughts always appreciated.
browningautorifle was so kind to post some pictures...thanks jim
Here's the pics...
ALL of the 1954/1955/1956 dated Long Branch actions were "replacement" receivers of which many were "liberated" and assembled as target rifles (.303 & 7.62 Nato), both within the system and out in the cold DCRA world.Quote:
Originally Posted by bros
Some receivers were actually used for their "legitimate" purpose.
I have 3, one built as a hunting rifle, one a DCRA 7.62 and one a .303 service rifle.
Your rifle has the serial number of a 1941 Long Branch No4MkI, so it was probably originally assembled with whatever parts they were able to salvage from that original rifle, and whatever new replacement parts were needed.
Is it still a .303? If so please check the barrel for a manufacture date.
Lee Enfield....it's still in 303brit. Ok had a look at the barrel, it is stamped as follows...CMK4, then underneath the Canadian Arsenals stamp, then 58 (so 1958), then the later Long Branch proof mark which is found on the butt-socket on the left as well as the upper right side. I knew that was a 1941 serial #.....don't really understand why that was used though other than the fact that maybe it was one that was put together by who knows who and they just decided to put a early serial # on for whatever reason....don't know???
bros: My '58 dated CMK4 barrel is a 6 groove- I'll bet yours is, as well. Mine has a '43 dated receiver with scrubbed serial and re-stamped number dating to '42. If mine was done in-service (which is questionable) it wasn't done to re-number a body to match surviving barrel/ bolt as they were also replacements! Mine is my most accurate Lee Enfield- former owner had done some tinkering but left it with standard military bedding.
Ridolpho
As Lee Enfield pointed out the 1954, 1955 and 1956 were replacement receivers. It was assembled by SAL (Small Arms Limited)re purposing the bolt and other salvageable parts hence stamped with the 1941 serial number.It also received a 1958 barrel - 6 groove and set up for DCRA (303 Caliber. Very nice Enfield and quite collectible. Ron (Canada)
Just wondering how it possibly could be a 1941 serial #????? I understand all 41's started with 0L...... but as you see in the picture of the butt socket it's 0L23xxx, (it's a 5 digit number following the "L"). I thought production at LB in 1941 was about 13-14,000 units, how does it make sense that this is possible to be in the 23,000 range???Quote:
Originally Posted by rgg_7
By the way, yes a 6 groove barrel and it is one of my more accurate Enfields.
They would continue the 0L serial until they Hit 0L99999, so your receiver was made into a rifle in '42.
I have never seen a Longbranch other than the one I'm holding (same as in the picture) with a 5 digit number following the "L" only a maximum of 4 digits after the "L". Did they not go from 0L9999, then to 1Lx, 1Lxx, 1Lxxx, 1L9999 then 2Lx, 2Lxx and so on. It's a mystery.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.e moose
Sorry in my original post I put the serial # as 0Lxxxx where as it should have read 0Lxxxxx.
We can't see your complete serial number, so:Quote:
Originally Posted by bros
Several possibilities:
1. Extra digit added accidently or on purpose
2. Miss interpreted serial number, eg) Lxxxxx would be a BSA series serial number that someone "corrected" by adding the "0" prefix
3. A totally made up serial number
Yeah Lee Enfield I'm wondering why I get stuck with all these anomalies? Anyhow ....that's were I'm at with it, either 1 or 3.....I guess we have to leave it at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Enfield
By the way the bolt is numbered the same way!!
Can you post a picture of the number on the bolt. It will give us another clue to what you have. Ron (Canada)
I'm more academically interested in whether it's a 1950's CAL marked bolt. Being solid knob it's not an original 1941 LB bolt.Quote:
Originally Posted by rgg_7
but really it won't tell us anything that we don't already know:
It is a .303 Caliber match rifle set up for DCRA/PRA/UK NRA Service Rifle "B" (non factory sights) competitions sometime between 1958 (barrel date) & approx. 1964 (when 7.62 really took off).
Before you even call it a match rifle (other than it is sporting the sight and a trigger guard swivel) is there ANY evidence of bedding?
The NORMAL lateral hardwood pegs are not in the forend and what is the barrel lift?
Can you see any evidence of accurizing through the magazine well.
Take the handguards off and you should be able to see some accurizing under the barrel behind the front sight as well as the chamber region on the forend.
Many such rifles were made up for guys shooting at military bases with unnumbered receivers which were plentiful in the 50's and 60's up to mid 70's.
Warren: I did as you had mentioned. Took the hand-guards off, no evidence of bedding anywhere including mag well. I did the same with another to compare...a properly marked DCRA 7.62 Canadian Arsenals Conversion that sports the conversion # as well in the various places...no evidence of bedding anywhere. I did happen to read later that CA did not bed the rifles they converted......that info came off the Net though.......Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
rgg 7 .....browningautorifle helped me out with pictures.....I will see if he would be so kind as to help me out again and try and get the serial #'s on the butt-socket and bolt posted
The earlier the target rifle, the less allowable alterations from standard service were allowable.Quote:
Originally Posted by bros
Here's the pics as requested...Quote:
Originally Posted by bros
In my opinion the bolt has been scrubbed and re-numbered.
I'm with Warren on this. Who every put this together chose to apply a serial number to both the bolt and receiver of their choice. I can see the LB on the bolt near the firing pin and the file marks going in the opposite direction of the original milling marks. It has the CA on the receiver with the SAL mark, both of which are correct. It's unique...don't see many 1955 receivers. Ron (Canada)
Thanks for all the info guys...so it seems like since the bolt was scrubbed, the barrel receiver were new, there really were no parts to carry over from a 1941 rifle for this build....so it kinda remains a mystery why and whoever did this chose to use a early serial #......heck it's not even really a LB serial # given that it's 5 digits after the prefix L. Safe to say then it was more than likely not built by Canadian Arsenals?
I think that there is a misunderstanding here, while CAL manufactured the parts, the likelihood is that a rebuilt gun was accomplished at Depot level, ie) Montreal or Edmonton ect. rather than sending it back to CAL.Quote:
Originally Posted by bros
Also looking at your receiver serial number, the last "0" doesn't necessarily appear to be the same as the first one.
To add to the anomaly, I have a 1956 dated rifle that also has the extra digit on the end of the serial number. Mine is 90L44220. The bolt is not scrubbed, nor is the receiver...the serial looks perfectly normal and is of the more conventional size for a LongBranch. It has a target swivel, and the barrel is above the bedding area so I assume it's center bedded.
I also have a 55 dated receiver with 30-06 uncontoured barrel blank, but it is very unconventional and was used as a test bed for ballistics testing. No serial numbers on that one.
Maybe that extra "0" is how the armourer accounted for the receiver, by "rebuilding" a rifle, and then getting rid of the "extra" gun with the same serial number...Quote:
Originally Posted by stencollector
"...well sir that serial number is close, but not actually the same..."
What is it PL is so fond of saying? along the lines of: "...the Old Boy network was similar to the Lend Lease program, the main difference being that the Old Boy network was bigger..."
Warren in a conversation yesterday said the extra digit in the serial # in all probability was to ensure the person doing the build did not re-use a existing serial number.....makes total sense to me!!!
I thought the same thing, only it does not explain why they would use such a random number. I would understand it if they were re-cycling an orphaned bolt, so they did not have the serial number of a rifle that could possibly be on DND inventory. But when stamping a brand new bolt and receiver, what would make a guy want to use a 90L serial number, or even put the L in the serial number in the first place?Quote:
Originally Posted by bros
I hear you...or for that mater use a OL serial # based on first year production!!!!! Don't know, nor do I think we will ever find out the real answer!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by stencollector
Was it possible at the time for units to purchase target rifles through official chanels? Could these rifles be ones that were purchased for things like regimental shooting teams?
I know DCRA provided a source for private purchase. I should think it would be possible for a unit too...Quote:
Originally Posted by harry mac
It could be possible, then, that the extra serial number digit was to differentiate it from normal, service contract production. Just an idea, but it may be worth looking into.
I knew a chap who purchased a brand new rifle direct from Montreal COD for target competition. $45. I think it was a 1950. That was in 1962.Quote:
Originally Posted by harry mac
The late John Robertson told me a number of times that he was told by a senior armourer he knew that at one time after WWII the Canadian stores system policy was to scrap MkI rifles when they came through workshops and replace the receiver with what was then the Canadian Army standard, the MkI*. A policy in reverse of that would have been a much better idea IMHO, but nevertheless that was John's statement. It could be that this was just the policy at one workshop, or even of one OIC (Non-commissioned or otherwise) perhaps, but there it is. He never claimed that statement was confirmed by any other armourer of that vintage, and the one or two I have spoken to did not know of it. However, in this large country of ours with different military districts etc. I would not be surprised if different policies prevailed, or if those in command of workshops made their own policies at times.
Since you have there a nice MkI trigger guard, you might have what is left of the rifle after a receiver swap was done, but those numbers are not stamped in the font I have seen used to renumber rifles in the post-war period. Like many others, I dislike the fabricated trigger guards and whoever built this rifle might well have preferred the solid forged type. We know there were plenty of spares at SAL and that building up rifles was not uncommon at all. As I've recounted before I was told by a former Lt. Cmdr. of WWII vintage who was an technical inspector for DND postwar, that he had a rifle built up as a gift for a retiring colleague and there was nothing uncommon about doing so. The rifle even came with the tag on the barrel he said, and it was built up, not removed from stores, he was quite specific about that.
As has been mentioned, there were lots of un-numbered 1955 receivers floating around, and lots without even the last digit, which you will see is probably separately stamped(?)
If I had to guess I'd say it is a made up rifle. No.4 parts were so plentiful even in to the 60s and 70s that many of the DCRA and ex-servicemen shooters had large stocks of the stuff. The maple forend was considered preferable for target rifles, but not liked by soldiers or armourers, so I have been told by some who were such at that time.
The safety has been reshaped to better clear the PH sight which of course was not designed to clear the Canadian "lady slipper" safety.
Didn't read the whole thread, but did just see your post about the five digit number: definitely an out-of-service build then IMHO.