1942 Long Branch No 4 mk 1*/3 barrel ID

I'm new here and this is my first post. I hope the pics attach ok.

I have a newly aquired 1942 Long Branch No.4 Mk1*/3. I'm trying to ID the barrel on it. I had assumed it was re-barreled during the upgrade, but there is no date on the barrel, and the rifle has no FTR marks. The proof marks on the barrel look as though the barrel was made in the UK and not Canada (as it should be because of the upgrade), and in 2 places it has the letter "I" stamped. The rifle looks like it has never been fired since the upgrade. The barrel has 5 lands/grooves, looks shiney and crisp with excelant depth. The feed ramp is still painted from the rifle refinish process with no scratches from cartridge feeding. The bolt head is a "0" whose face looks blued with no evidence of firing. The bolt body also looks new. The crown is great with the new finish from the upgrade still undisturbed. With no FTR marks and no date on the barrel, it's difficult to figure out what year it went through upgrade to Mk 2 specs.

By the way, I've looked around the internet and have not yet found a pic of a receiver like mine with a nice anvil stamped /3. If anyone has one or knows where one is I'd like to see it.

Attachment 103260Attachment 103261Attachment 103262Attachment 103263Attachment 103264Attachment 103265Attachment 103266Attachment 103267

The /3 is the FTR marking.
Odd that there is no '54 or such date on the barrel. Nice rifle. Please PM me the serial # so I can include it in the data base. (Let me know when you're ready to move it)!!!!

Yes, I know it was test fired after upgrade. I ment that it it appears not to have been fired as an issued rifle. I fitted a new bolt assembly on an older No4 Mk1 action, and after 20 rounds of test firing, that bolt face also looked unused.

If you notice, the crossed flags proof mark has no crown or letters included. Its just crossed flags. One of the inspection marks includes a crown, a Z1 or 21, and the letter E on it's side. I assume that the E is for Enfield, the Z1/21 is the inspector ID, and the version of the crown image consistant with inspection marks from Great Briton.

On the subject of the FTR mark, during my intial search for pictures of /3 versions, the examples I found show a date like 49 and the letters FTR. I admit that I've only been searching for a few days, but i was hoping someone here has exaples of the "/3" mark being the only mark.

With out a date on the barrel, and a marked FTR date, it's difficult to figure out when it was upgraded. The barrel looks like what Stratton's book referred to as a "First Variation" barrel, which he states would have been available on British made Mk 1s and found on some Fazakerly and P.O.F. No 4 Mk 2s. So I assume that type of barrel was available for the 49 thru early 50s Mk 2 upgrades.

I don't recall seeing a Mk1/2 opr 1/3 rifle that has hasn't been marked with the FTR marking. How do you know that it is in fact a Mk1/3 and not a Mk1/1 with a Mk2 fore-end?

If you look at one of the pictures at the begining of this thread you can see the cut for simplified bolt removal as all No 4 Mk 1* rifles have. One picture shows the markings on the left side of the receiver. It's stamped No 4 Mk 1*/3, Long Branch, 1942. When I took her apart, you can see the block that was added for the new trigger location. You can tell it's a modification, nicely done, but not a Mk II receiver.

Here are some pictures of the /3 modification. These were taken the other day when I took her apart for quick acceptance inspection. I had only a few days to accept the rifle or return it and get a refund. I happily accepted the rifle. Soon I will take her apart for proper cleaning and lube. You can see by the pictures that there is a light dusting on the sear. The picture makes it look like surface rust, but at the time with the naked eye, I didn't see any rust.

An FTR is "factory through repair". It is a repair. Not an "upgrade". As in "upgrade in mark", which is what the /3 is. It is the upgrade to the hung trigger from the receiver, as your pictures show. An FTR is parts replacement/wood, but not a change of mark.
FTR's have (usually) the year stamped on it, change of marks don't always have the year.
But some do. Here is an example of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jstr303

If you notice, the crossed flags proof mark has no crown or letters included. Its just crossed flags. One of the inspection marks includes a crown, a Z1 or 21, and the letter E on it's side. I assume that the E is for Enfield, the Z1/21 is the inspector ID, and the version of the crown image consistant with inspection marks from Great Briton.

On the subject of the FTR mark, during my intial search for pictures of /3 versions, the examples I found show a date like 49 and the letters FTR. I admit that I've only been searching for a few days, but i was hoping someone here has exaples of the "/3" mark being the only mark.

---

So the question here is, did the FTR happen after the /3 conversion, or part of the conversion process?

Myself, I would have not referred to it as an FTR, but then I have very little experience with the Enfields. Many others on this forum and other forums I've read keep wanting to refer to the upgrade to Mk 2 specs as an FTR. I've read a few books and checked out websites or blogs over the past year that indicate that rifles in for the upgrade were treated the same as if they were in for FTR. They say rifles would would come in by the crates in all sorts of condition from rusted/muddied/bloodied to top of the line. They indicate that rifles were still stripped down to barreled receivers.

Parts went one way and the barreld receivers went to the proper technicians to be examined. If they were determined to have at least 80% life left, they kept their original barrels and went on for cleaning, prep, upgrade, refinished. From that point they were rebuilt with refinished or new parts, restocked, tested then processed for final distribution to where ever. Is this true? I have no idea.

We all like to think that rifles in fantastic shape were sent in specifically for upgrade. To imagine that they were treated differently. We want to believe that they got most of their original parts back, restocked, tested, then sent back home to their units. Is this true? I have no idea.

The receiver of my new rifle looks too good to be true. There looks to be very few anomalies or artifacts lurking under the refinish job. I'd like to believe that this was an original unissued rifle that was sent in for just an upgrade (that it really didn't need.) Then it ended up not being issued again. It's fun to dream and fantisize, but the reality will be quite different. It's a service rifle that was upgraded and refinished. I didn't look for, or pay for, something that was suppose to be unique. I just wanted a factory serviced and refinshed shooter with an excellent barrel.

Once I learn more about this rifle, I'll start a new thread to show it and to report on the possible history that everyone can chime in on. Right now I need everyone to chime in on their opinions and facts on what really happend on this rifle's upgrade. Did she get to keep her oringinal barrel? or who made her replacement barrel? In fact who knows how many barrels she had had over the years or how many times she has been refinished.

Let the chimming continue. Please continue with the facts, photos, and opinions. Help me figure out this barrel.

I don't want to get off the barrel subject, but I thought I should mention that I am researching the distinct possibility that this rifle is a South African Enfield. I found a few marks on the stock after I received it on Tuesday. There is nothing marked on the metal, but the fore stock definitely has some South African marks. I've had a private discussion with limpetmine starting with the serial number. He mentioned it looked like a South African. I could not find the possible import marks he suggested I look for, but I was going to take a closer look when I tear it down for cleaning and lube. I thought if I could prove it's South African, then it would validate why its in such great condition after all these years. That topic is for another thread later.

Now back on topic. Still looking for barrel information, and no, the barrel does not look to be South African made.

Sorry for the spelling on that previous post. That is chiming not chimming

Yes, I see all of that BUT..... actually stamping on the bodyside was definitely NOT allowed (the small T excepted and that was actually sanctioned in writing!) I'm sure that the factory wouldn't stamp the rifle as Fazakerley were already geared up to engrave zillions more to boot. There's something strange there that I can already see............ I say that it is a home comverted Mk1* to Mk1/3. Not bad...... but no cigar!

Peter,

Anything is possible. /2 and /3 Enfields are a little more rare, but no premium is paid for them. There is no reason for someone to go to the trouble of not only marking it, but installing the mod, then duplicating the Fazakerly finish.

This thread is not about claiming anything. It's about barrel identification. Please stay on topic.

I only paid for a nice looking rifle with an excellent barrel so I can put her to work shooting. The seller made no claims other than she had a great barrel, a nice stock, and metal finish, and that she doesn't appear to have been used alot. He's happy, I'm happy, why don't you be happy. After all, we all love to own and shoot enfield rifles.

Sorry about that jstr. You'll have to forgive me going off at a tangent. I'm a bit of a novice on the forum and Enfields generally, not having seen many. I just assumed that even being off topic slightly, it'd be worth mentioning something. Sort of like showing your new car and someone notices that it's got bald tyres. I'll consider my wrist well and truly smacked

"...stamped No 4 Mk 1*/3, Long Branch, 1942..." Means the receiver was made in 1942(an early LB at that. Highly likely it has been reblued by somebody not government too). It could have been FTR'd by anybody doing that at any time. Without the BNP stamps means it was very likely done here vs anywhere that sent stuff through England. However, it's also possible that no government arsenal had anything to do with it.
It doesn't seem to have any broad arrows either.

I'd be very interested to see the marks on the wood that you think may be South African.
Rob

In the interest of Enfield truths (fun, debate, historical learning, and education), in a day or so I will start a new thread with more pictures of the receiver body. It will be an opportunity for everyone to do battle or have a few laughs. I will state my updated theory about this receiver, but I have no intentions of participating because to me, for a rifle made to shoot, it does not really matter.

If from that point someone needs more pictures or has questions, you guys and girls can draw straws as to who will private message me to get what is needed for your discussion. If you come up with the answer, have some one put it in an Enfield book.

For now I will be safety checking and preparing "Nora" for an up and coming day at the range. Yes, from day one, I named her Nora. I've heard stories of men that carried their rifles into battle named them. I have never named (yet) any of my rifles or pistols. Not even my cherished M1 or 1903/A3. Darn, another /3 thing. She was named that because of something that came up the day I brought her home. The name was a perfect fit.

I'm not mad and I'm not being sarcastic. I just can't figure out how a forum on Enfield collecting has such expertise on receiver markings (that I did not ask about), but nobody knows what an Enfield barrel even looks like (what I did ask about.) Surely some one has seen these barrel markings before, or has pictures of their own barrels that may be similar

RobD,

Thanks for not asking about the receiver. The markings on the stock that I previously had never seen before, at first glance, looked like alien marks from a crashed UFO. I'll attach pictures.

Zoom in and look close at the first string. It first looks like OW, but there is a very faint D infront of the O. I believe it is DOW, which I have seen marked on South African made Enfield parts.

The second character down looks like a South African inspection mark I've seen in pictures of of South African Enfield receivers, metal parts, and stocks.

The third character down is the U with and arrow inside pointing down, which I've also seen in pictures of South African Enfields. Although, sometimes the arrow points up. The last one I can't make out for sure.

The receiver and barrel have no such marks. If the stock is South African, then it may have been replaced after it the rifle was brought into the United States from somewhere. I've heard that at one time South African Enfield stock sets were available in the US. I did not want to claim that this is a South African Enfield for sure.

The marks are on the fore stock near the bore end. That stock has an "M' stamp on it near the middle band. I have not looked into that yet, but my first thought it might refer to Maltby.

I hope you can help me with that part of the rifle. I understand that South Africa's war reserves back in the day had a number of /2, /3, and Mark II Enfields stored.

Is it true that some were issued to police, security forces, and rangers?

Take note of the squared "S" mark on the ring. I thought it was a Savage made part, not S.A.

The band itself is Long Branch marked.

Mixed refinished parts that I thought was consistant with (not proof of) an official upgrade or FTR.

The U with broad arrow certainly would fit with a SA acceptance mark... though I am used to seeing such markings on the metal rather than the wood.
I can't comment on the significance of DOW.
As far as I am aware, SA did not manufacture wood for .303s, so even if the rifle saw service in SA, the woodwork and metalwork would have been made elsewhere.
I think your front sling swivel is made by Savage [the square S mark].
.303s in SA were used by various uniformed services, incl. the police, into the 1980s. But without specific stamps on the rifle, I can't say which service.
TerryLee, a regular forummer, is the world expert on British rifles in SA, so it may be worth sending him a PM in case he hasn't seen this thread.
Rob

Browningautorifle,

No, that's not far. The question is the barrels that were used on your builds. If you did not rebarrel, then I assume you were using barreled receivers and rifles that needed restoration or a stock set. You would have seen several different barrels during your work.

Like I said, It doesn't matter to me if an individual rebuilt it or a factory did. The question is the barrel's origins compared to the origins of the receiver. If this barrel is not original to the receiver (which I don't think it is), and not the type that was used on factory upgrades or FTRs, then someone else did it. Someone else who may have used a defective or rejected barrel.

As a shooter and small time collector, thats a big problem. Now maybe you see the why and what in my research.

Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jstr303

I will state my updated theory about this receiver, but I have no intentions of participating because to me, for a rifle made to shoot, it does not really matter.

If from that point someone needs more pictures or has questions, you guys and girls can draw straws as to who will private message me to get what is needed for your discussion. If you come up with the answer, have some one put it in an Enfield book.

---

:bow:

Browningautorifle

Thanks for taking the time to provide information. That sounds interesting. Wish I could hear more about your work, procedures, and some of the technical problems you ran into.

I would have loved to watch and take part. I'd have made a good gofer or shop cleanup boy.

Best regards

The research into these things lives, travels, rebuilds, service history and everything else would probably fill a city library twice over just because a person has had upteen 1000 303 rifles of all descriptions through their hands does not mean they can pin point some of the markings present on these weapons.
Granted there are some very clever and knowledgeable personnel here who kindly donate their time and knowledge for nought reward except to be passing that hard earned knowledge on to a dip stick like me so we may all learn.

I posed a question on a certain mark on my 5MD 1916 Mk III Lithgow that had a very odd stamp now 6 - 7 years later after waiting it appears the answer is close if muffet is as good as his word as he has a rifle with the same mark. I have all of Ians books & The broad Arrow, The Enfield By E.B Reynolds and Stratton's the two volume set on Lithgow and its People no the mark is not mentioned or seen!
So who knows what where and how with the rifle you have, I did spy one picture shot through the mag well the wood seems dry as chips she could do with a drink but have fun with the rifle.:thup:

The armourers were not fussed what they grabbed out of the parts tray with the bands etc as the only thing they were tasked with was to get the weapon out there again in a safe serviceable condition to "Do the business."
Good luck in your next competition. P.S never change that name you gave to the rifle, even if you sell it as like a ship its bad ju ju to change names my Repsol 1000RR Honda was named Jennifer by the previous owner so Jennifer it is.........!

For heavens sake, someone just tell him that novice Pete says that it's a Fazakerley made barrel

The most prevalent factory No.4 replacement wood on the commercial market for the past several years has been South African contract beech. I had a stock pile years ago for both No.4 Mk.1 and Mk.2 as did many others. Mine's all long gone now except for handguards but someone is still selling it, (possibly on Ebay?), as I've fitted a few sets sent here in the past year or two on ground up, box of parts to rifle No.4T restorations for clients. I took interest in this thread because i just serviced a Mk.III SMLE, (BSA Co.) marked contract body with mixed South African and British metal and wood parts including a beech DOW buttstock. It was a really lovely rifle at a glimpse but when I disassembled it to inspect and clean/preserve, I found it was a mess. The matched number stamps used on body, barrel and nose cap, (SAF marked without a stacking swivel boss), are distinctly European looking and I'm also convinced if it was assembled from surplus parts outside of military service. Someone told me the owner of a long gone shop, (Victoria Trading Co.), may have assembled some rifles from parts he imported years ago but I don't know for sure. Maybe these are examples of his work? Just an uneducated guess in the case of your rifle but this SMLE was definitely NOT assembled and fitted in military service. Even the bolt was assembled incorrectly with a bolt head that wouldn't pass the .064 GO so I was back to the drawing board. Anyhow, it's done now and as close to perfect as i could get it.

---------- Post added at 04:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:22 PM ----------

Typo: "that it was assembled"

Brian Dick,

Thanks for the input. I had assumed that someone replaced the wood, but was curious if it had been a complete set or pieces. I was also curous as to what they ment.

I've seen modern SA Enfield parts marked DOW, and SA stocks marked with DOW, and general purpose pocket knives being sold marked DOW. I wasn't sure if they are related to the same company.

Thanks again

Peter Laidler

Thanks for the barrel information. If you care to take the time, I would appreciate info on the markings in the photo I posted.

I also owe you a big big thanks for helping me fit a replacement bolt assembly to an old mistreated BSA made No 4 mk 1. I had to replace the enire bolt to get system in into spec.

Your documents on CHS and fitting a bolt I read through months ago paid off. it was a bit of a pain doing it, but it was fun to. I'd rather get my feet wet working on a previously modified screwed up oldy than a more valuable rifle. My wife thought it was silly seeing me working on the bolt head at the breakfast counter. She couldn't understand why I had a cup of water, fine grit paper and a piece of glass. Sitting there for long periods (with coffee) making fine circular motions with my hand. Checking with my dial calipers, then back again. Tried to do it by the book. Hardest part was squaring it up gently against a NOGO gauge. I had no marking paint so I was using ultra thin layer of red auto grease. It worked. All assembled out of NOS parts I gathered together over a months shopping.

Works and feels nice, trigger pull is excellent, with nice take up then a crisp release. Safety now works (original problem of falling to half cock.) I also had to replace the sear. Struck primers look nice and normal, and spent cases look normal. Cocked bolt nolonger flips up when you shaked the gun or lightly tap the bolt handle.

Thanks :thup::bow: