Long Branch Mk I*: refurbed or original?

Need some help figuring out if this rifle is a post war LB refurb. From reading a lot of old threads on the forum it seems the metal finish is key with original wartime rifles being "blued" and post war refurbs parkerized. Description of the wartime bluing is quite variable with some suggestions LB used the same "Du-lite" process as Savage. The attached photos were taken outdoors on a heavily overcast day with no flash or filters. The surface does appear "bluish" and doesn't seem to resemble the "parkerizing" I'm familiar with. But, while moderately reflective, it also doesn't look like the bluing I'm familiar with on, for example, pre-WW1 Smle's.

Other observations about the rifle: '42 dated 2-groove barrel with bore in new condition. All small parts with markings are LB (inc size zero bolt-head) with possible exception of rear sight. Forend stamped with serial.

I'd appreciate the thoughts of LB collectors- is this a post-war refurb? Photos of genuine original LB bluing would also be helpful. Regards.

Ridolpho

Looks way to new to be original. That doesn't appear to be blued though. Might be the picture, but it looks like regular phosphating. Never seen one that was blued. All of 'em on my MIU long ago were black phosphated. Same thing as manganese based Parkerizing. Parkerizing is a brand name. Manganese based Parkerizing is black. Zinc based is shades of grey depending on the metal it went on.
Mind you, the S/N is very early.
http://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=53153

Sunray: Comments I recall from the various LB threads include mention of some "as new" (ie original, not freshly refurbed) '43's kicking around and that there appears to be no doubt that all wartime LB's were originally "blued". Very few photos, unfortunately. Prior to photographing this one I was pretty sure it had some sort of phosphate finish but it also resembles pretty closely a muzzleloader barrel I browned many years ago. My various original phosphate finished rifles (light green to grey to nearly black) also have quite a different surface texture from typical bluing or browning. In any case, my motive for this thread is that, if as seems likely, this is a refurbed gun I'm probably going to sell it on to someone looking for a mechanically excellent range gun. I already have another '43 LB for that purpose.

Ridolpho

Looks like a black parkerizing to me. I just know that we did all kinds of them and they turned out like that. I just don't think it's an as issued...

What is it with you blokes a 43 rifle went to war got used abused then sent for repair came back looking as new that is reissued. There is no such thing as factory issue after a war unless it is very late production or it is stamped NZ where they were not issued.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bindi2

What is it with you blokes a 43 rifle went to war got used abused then sent for repair came back looking as new that is reissued. There is no such thing as factory issue after a war unless it is very late production or it is stamped NZ where they were not issued.

---

Bindi: I have postwar refurb SVT 40's, Mosin's, Finn Mosins, 03A3, P14, M1, G98, No. 1's and 4's, etc. but most of those clearly show signs of prior use even after full overhaul. This particular rifle is every bit as perfect as my recently unwrapped No. 4 Mk 2 with not a hint of a pit or blemish anywhere and, specific to the Mk I*, a bolt cutout that is perfect- all in keeping with the new appearing bore. There are instances where new production (during wartime) went straight to storage and survived in truly original condition. There are also instances where stored and unused rifles were subjected to some degree of cosmetic refurbishment for reasons unknown. I am not inclined to think this rifle is in original factory condition but I still would like to see some good photos of this wartime Longbranch bluing. Perhaps the real answer lies in specific markings on parts that would indicate they were replacements used during the 50's by Long Branch. In any case, I explained my motives- if it is clearly a refurb I'll be passing it on to someone who wants a postwar refurb LB for their collection or an excellent condition rifle for the range. Regards.

Ridolpho

That looks like bluing to me. Very possibly the original Dulite. I look at the screw heads and condition of the matching serial number woodwork and it reminds me of a '42 Long Branch I have that's in newish condition with nary a mark on it. The rear sight has been changed on yours to a Mk.1. Guessing British manufacture? LB rifles in that serial number range would have had the Mk.2 300-600 yard sight installed at the factory. It's a beauty Ridolfo. I like the birch woodwork too. Both my '42 an '43 which are NZ owned rifles are stocked in birch too. I have another '42 with the post 1955 Parkerized finish that's got Canadian ownership marks present on both the metal and wood. It's lovely manganese phosphate as Canadian rifles built new or refinished after that time frame are. It's distinctive and doesn't look anything like yours. It has a fabricated C Mk.3 replacement rear sight fitted too.

"...a 43 rifle went to war..." By far most rifles made by anybody did not get used for anything but training.
"...no such thing as factory issue after a war..." Canadian Arsenals - Long Branch Plant was churning out BNIB No. 4 rifles well after W.W. II ended. The very best No. 4 Lee-Enfields were made there until the FN C1 contract was started. Little tiny factory it was too. Grew up about 5 miles from it and shot in one of its converted magazines. Actually got into the building after Trudeau the Elder closed the place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

I have another '42 with the post 1955 Parkerized finish that's got Canadian ownership marks present on both the metal and wood. It's lovely manganese phosphate as Canadian rifles built new or refinished after that time frame are. It's distinctive and doesn't look anything like yours. It has a fabricated C Mk.3 replacement rear sight fitted too.

---

Brian: Thanks for the comments. I pulled out my '42 Savage to have a look at the metal finish and can see the similarity although the Savage definitely looks bluer in indoor lighting. Surface texture is similar. Certainly has a different appearance than conventional rust bluing. Regards.

Ridolpho

Looks right as rain to me. Would be proud to have that one on the rack.

Yep, it looks like a beauty to me. The bluing can be inconsistent with color much the same as phosphate depending on the weakness of the bath and a few other chemistry related factors.

The Long Branch body is nice and smooth. Many look at Savage bodies and think they're phosphated because the bodies were sandblasted prior to finishing. It gives the Dulite an almost grayish tint. The durability of the phosphate finish is much better though.

There are really only two types of phosphate as mentioned before. Zinc, which is light grey and manganese which is a bit darker to almost black depending on the hardness and quality of the steel.

Probably been said already, but that is not the finish normally seen on 1942 dated Long Branch rifles. Nor would one expect a 1942 dated rifle to be in such pristine condition unless it was one of the New Zealand "time capsules". Looks to me like it was probably a Canadian arsenal refurb. Nothing wrong with that of course.

That being said, it is known what finishes Long Branch used, and at least one of them is still commercially available.

This '42 LB is a Canadian FTR for comparison. Note the Canadian ownership mark on the right front of the receiver/body. The markings look slightly sand blasted over unlike Ridolpho's rifle which was the normal pre-phosphate prep. You can really see the contrast between bluing and the phosphate finish if you look at the C Mk.III rear sight leaf.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

You can really see the contrast between bluing and the phosphate finish if you look at the C Mk.III rear sight leaf.

---

Well...I know we did lots of Parkerizing that came out clean and smooth and black...and looks like Ridolpho's rifle. Without in hand it's hard to see. Doesn't matter, still don't believe it to be original. Also doesn't matter. Looks like new and would love to have it.

Maybe it's my eyes Jim but the OP rifle looks blue to me, not black. The minty and correctly serial numbered forend is another indicator of an original rifle. It's in the correct font, size and exactly like a pair of unaltered LB No.4's, '42 and '43 date, i still have here. Forends weren't numbered at the LB factory after 1943 that I'm aware of. They didn't stamp serial numbers on the forends throughout the remainder of production, '49-55 at CAL either. Like you say, it doesn't matter. Just observations of mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

the OP rifle looks blue to me, not black

---

I meant as opposed to grey...ish. Nice rifle...

Well, as usual, no easy answers when it comes to questions regarding originality. But very useful comments. I went back and reviewed a number of threads displaying NZ owned Mk I* rifles and am somewhat surprised to see finishes that in some cases look a lot like my rifle. None seem to display a bright, typical rust blued surface that some threads seem to suggest as characteristic of Long Branch bluing. In the NZ rifle threads I also see the characteristic forend numbering mentioned by Brian D. I also then stumbled into interesting older threads with some controversy about the actual existence of absolutely original No. 4 rifles- a debate that will likely never be resolved. In another great older thread about "originality" Peter Laidler mentions a minor modification done to No. 4 Mk I* rifles in service and which would likely be done to a LB refurbed in the fifties and I'm going to have to dig the rifle out of the safe again to look for that. Surprisingly and based mainly on Brian's opinion I'm now inclined to think there is a chance this rifle is "factory original". Does it matter? Well, to a collector absolutely. I'll post a few additional photos as time permits. Regards.

Ridolpho

It's nonsense to state that completely original rifles don't exist. I think yours is one of them but that's only my opinion having seen hundreds of Long Branch rifles in all states of repair. I still have a few. Original Savage and Long Branch rifles are way more common than their British counterparts. They made more than the British did so it just stems to reason. The Dulite bluing process is a hot blue process and not rust blue. It can be a dull blue color to almost grey like on Savages that were sand blasted first, (only the body). If you have an original Savage, compare the body to the barrel finish. The barrels weren't blasted and the Dulite is there too so you can see the difference. As far as Canadian FTR manganese phosphate, look at the photos in thread #15. I can pull out a 1950 LB manufacture rifle, (yes, it's as new), and it's the exact same color but the surface of the steel wasn't blasted first. It's simply apples and oranges compared to bluing. Anyhow, I'll stick to my guns, (pardon the pun), on Ridolpho's rifle.

If you sell it let me know as I would love to own that. I'm in BC so an easy ship....

Ed

1942 Long Branch No4 Mk1*

A 5L & a 15L 1942 Long Branch, couple of recent NZ finds, imo the finish is different to this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5thBatt

1942 Long Branch No4 Mk1*

A 5L & a 15L 1942 Long Branch, couple of recent NZ finds, imo the finish is different to this one.

---

5th Batt, your link isn't working ?? anyone else got the same?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigduke6

5th Batt, your link isn't working ?? anyone else got the same?

---

It works but its a link to a Gunboards thread & that was down a short while ago

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5thBatt

1942 Long Branch No4 Mk1*

A 5L & a 15L 1942 Long Branch, couple of recent NZ finds, imo the finish is different to this one.

---

5thbatt: Thanks for the link. Very subjective and dependant upon lighting and different levels of wear and tear on the surfaces but one of those, to my eye, looks quite similar to my rifle. I think Brians comment that Du-lite is a dip-blue is the key to this. Regards.

Ridolpho

If memory serves, the SN's at LB were put on after the rifle was finished/"blued", and here the finish clearly went on after the SN was struck as it is in all the characters evenly and without any sign of disturbance, displacement or wear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

If memory serves, the SN's at LB were put on after the rifle was finished/"blued", and here the finish clearly went on after the SN was struck as it is in all the characters evenly and without any sign of disturbance, displacement or wear.

---

Surpmil: I'll take clearer pictures of the serial but displacement of metal around the numbers is present- just not made obvious by wear. Whatever the origin of this finish, lack of wear post finish is a given. Glancing at photos of the NZ rifles, they show uniform bluing within the numbers but significant wear on the deformed areas around them as the rifles have obviously seen some use during or post service. I should have time to dig this rifle out today as we have about 7" of fresh snow this morning. Winter has come early!

Ridolpho

The OP's rifle is a lovely thing in any event. Mine not so much. LOL

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MJ1

Mine not so much

---

Yours is fine, I don't even have a full wood...

Jim that is a looker. Well done.

Just a plain LB

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../3vPM4Qu-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Yours is fine, I don't even have a full wood...

---

You need a No1 for that & if it still doesn't work, try the blue one! :lol:

Attachment 96295

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5thBatt

try the blue one!

---

Lovely...would be my drill instructor's rifle.

Brian Dick told me about the finish on the Longbranch FTR rifles many years ago. Shortly after I found an example that fit his description to the letter. It may have been at the York, PA show I joined him at, I honestly can't remember.

I broke the rifle down and took photos for this thread as further comparison.
Interestingly, It had been FTR'd once before at Fazakerley.

Attachment 96341Attachment 96353Attachment 96352Attachment 96351Attachment 96350Attachment 96349Attachment 96348Attachment 96347Attachment 96346Attachment 96345Attachment 96344Attachment 96343Attachment 96342Attachment 96329Attachment 96340Attachment 96339Attachment 96338Attachment 96337Attachment 96336Attachment 96335Attachment 96334Attachment 96333Attachment 96332Attachment 96331Attachment 96330

Draw lapped barrel...during workshop. Also remarked from Savage to Long Branch during a LB rebuild. I would guess Long Branch rebuild as it's mostly LB parts.