No4 MK1 T

Good day to you all.

Being new to this forum and having just a basic knowledge about british firearms i would like to ask a question regarding a rifle of which i dont know what to think about. It is a model T ( M47C ) dated 1943 all matching numbers including the scope ( TEL.STG.N°32MK III dated 1944 ) ex Belgian army ex Gendarmerie special police unit. Up till here no problem. But my question is the next: It is a British made sniper rifle but it has the Canadian broad arrow markings all over. On the metal and the wood. As far as i know Longbranch had their own sniper converted rifles? Does anyone has a explenation for that?

Kind regards

Hello Skider. Welcome to the forum. It is very difficult to say with any certainty what exactly you have without some photographs. If you could let us have some I am sure you will get plenty of feedback on your rifle. Taking what you say literally, I suspect it could either be a rifle of UK manufacture that ended up in Canadian service before going to Belgium, or, it could be a rifle that has been 'doctored up' with fake Canadian markings......the fact that you mention that it has 'Canadian broad arrow markings all over' does arouse a little concern in my mind, as many fakers go over the top when it comes to applying markings. But as stated above, if you can send us some pictures that will I am sure get the conversation going. There are some incredibly knowledgeable people on here in relation to Canadian made or used Lee Enfields.

Incidentally, I am (under normal circumstances) a regular visitor to Ieper, which I see is not far from you.

Best, R.

Hello Roger, thanks a lot for your kind feedback.
I think the term " all over" has to do with me being not a native speaker of english 🙈 to be exact there are 3 as far as i can see. 2 on the wood and 1 on the iron at the end of the receiver. Yes well i was hoping to post pictures of it but i just don't see how, maybe it has to do with me only using my smartphone and not a computer , i don't know.
And last of all, Ieper is not far away at all, me myself i am from Bruges.If you ever get lost give me a call ;-)

Does sound a bit odd.........

Also when you say matching numbers, I'm assuming the rifle has been renumbered for the Mk.III scope as a 1943 dated rifle wouldn't have had a Mk.III scope when built, with the Mk.III not entering service until autumn of 1944.

Of course, a lot of the changes could have been done while in Belgian military and Police service, using many different post-war parts sources over time, so it could be quite legit in its history in that respect.?

Thanks GeeRam, I forgot to comment on the Mk3 scope on a 1943 rifle. One learns never to say never with LE's but it would be pretty unlikely 'factory new' for such a scope to be on this year of rifle. Mk3's were generally fitted to 1944 & 1945 dated rifles, though it could well have been fitted in military or police service 'officially' as a replacement.

Skider, your home town is one of the most interesting & beautiful historic cities I have ever visited!

I am afraid I am not IT savvy enough to advise you on the posting of photo's from a smart phone, but someone else may be able to......

Canadian troops in WWII were usually equipped with Canadian made No.4 Mk.I or No.4 Mk.I* rifles by 1943, but the exception was sniper rifles. Canada made about 1,588 No.4 Mk.I* (T) sniper rifles in WWII, mostly in 1944-1946, but reportedly most of these were sent to the British Army. As we now understand it, Canadian snipers overseas were issued with their sniper rifles out of the British supply system. Thus they could end up with rifles made in England, Canada or the USA. Some of the wartime photos show Canadian snipers using very early No.4 Mk.I (T) sniper rifles with the Mk.I dome shaped cocking piece. By the time of the Korean War, it appears that more Long Branch made sniper rifles were available for the Canadian troops but British made examples were probably still in the Canadian supply system which could explain this one ending up in Belgian service. For more information see the book WITHOUT WARNING by the late Clive Law.

In the 1950s Canada sent a lot of military vehicles, equipment and weapons as NATO aid to Belgium. Several sniper rifles with their No.15 Mk.I wooden chests, have turned up in Belgium and Australia that have the Canadian markings on the chests from the time they were given to the Belgian Army. I had an ex-Belgian issue Long Branch sniper rifle with scope case and like yours, fitted with a No.32 Mk.III scope and renumbered accordingly.

British or American made rifles in Canadian military service are often found with C/|\ (arrow inside the “C”) markings. I have seen one such No.4 Mk.I (T), some No.1 Mk.III and III*, Model of 1917 Enfields and Winchester Model 1894 carbines. .

A 1943 BSA No.4 Mk.I (T) would almost certainly have left Holland & Holland fitted with a No.32 Mk.I scope or possibly a No.32 Mk.II scope. A No.32 Mk.3 (marked No.32 Mk.III, No.32 Mk3 or C No.32 Mk.3) would have been fitted in late 1944 or later, either as a replacement for a damaged or lost scope or as an upgrade. When this happened in British or Canadian service The old scope number was cancelled e.g. XXXXX or ———— and the new scope number was stamped on. The bracket was numbered to the rifle. On the rifle in question look for the “S51” stamped into the underside of the butt stock stock and for current and previous scope serial numbers on top.

Belgian issued sniper rifles sometimes have a Belgian monogram in a circle (similar to a Liege marking) in the wood, on the underside, just forward of the magazine. When renumbered brackets were fitted, sometimes only the last four digits of a serial number were marked on the bracket (more evidence is need to be sure). Some rifles had the metal refinished in the Belgian grey finish.

We would need to see photos of the markings on the rifle and the chest, if you have it, to confirm but it is most likely that this rifle was made in England, issued to Canadians, marked as Canadian property, likely used in Italy and/or Northwest Europe, sent to Canada, and then given as NATO aid to the Belgian Army.

I collect Canadian sniper rifles of WWII and would be happy to help to understand the markings on this rifle. I would also like to add it to the research database on the No.4 (T) rifles, so especially want for the database the rifle serial number, serial number on the bracket, scope serial number and the scope numbers on the butt (on top behind or under the cocking piece). The more information and photos the better!

I have a no4mk1(T) that is British made but Canadian marked. I would have to look at it again, but it has a decent sized C/l\ stamped on the wrist near the serial number, and a small C/l\ on the bottom of the forestock near the muzzle. As Colin mentioned, the Canadians used British sniper outfits until LB/REL production could catch up.

Any chance you could post a photo of the wrist? It would be interesting to see if the rifles are close together in numbers.

This is an unusual rifle and I wish to remind readers that we have a newcomer here asking for information about a rifle that he obtained from a family member. He is not trying to sell it as far as I know. It is also important to remember that this rifle appears to have been used by the Canadian Army and then for decades after WWII in Belgian service. The rifle went through many changes in ways that are very different from what would have happened had it remained in the British Army. It appears that this rifle may have gone through a Belgian rebuild process or at least a major servicing/repair e.g. the barrel. There are many odd features about this No. 4 Mk. I (T). The owner is in Belgium and is new to Lee-Enfields. Due to the strict firearms laws in Belgium, the owner is not allowed to have ammunition for it, nor his he allowed to take it out to shoot.

Here is the provenance of this rifle that the owner sent to me along with photos [we shall see about getting the photos posted shortly] : "I wish i could give you more information all i know is that about 20 + years ago this was sold by the " gendarmerie " my uncle at the time was a colonel and bought it togetgher with some FN GP pistoles. stuff that was sitting still in a warehouse for decades . Service people had the first choice before the lot was sold to armsdealers. If someone was in between as a middleman i honestly couldnt say. This is the " story " how i heard it from him. I got it from him about 10 years ago." "I didnt find any canadian markings on the transport case though. Only some letters and 1944. You will notice on the case the word " telescoop" in dutch instead of telescope. Also the number 17352. My scope is 17080, so not that much of a differance. I also noticed the marking "GF" on the scope bracket, never found any explenation for that. Please keep in mind that here in Belgium we are absolutely clueless about this kind of weapons. Absolutely no info available."
I suggest looking at the articles in the milsurps.com KNOWLEDGE LIBRARY. https://www.milsurps.com/content.php...united-kingdom

There are indications (see below) that this rifle was made in England, but that it was official Canadian property. Many people assume that since Canada made Long Branch sniper rifles, that these were what was issued to Canadian snipers. Research has shown that although some Long Branch sniper rifles were retained in Canada, many or even most, were sent to the British Army. Canadian snipers overseas were issued their rifles out of British sniper rifle stockpiles, so a Canadian sniper could have been issued a 1931-1933 ex-Trials No. 4 Mk. I (T), a Stevens-Savage one, a British made one or possibly even a Canadian made Long Branch example, but that would be by chance. "stencollector" on this forum has an example as he mentioned and I have examined it. The C/|\ on that is much smaller and is in a slightly different location, in a manner consistent with how many No. 1 Mk. III* rifles were Canadian issue marked, including my father's one which I still have.

In the 1950s the Canadian Army gave away many tons of vehicles, small arms, field artillery etc. to NATO allies including Belgium. This program is known to have included No. 4 (T) sniper rifles and their No. 15 Mk. I transit chests. At least a couple of chests have survived with the markings put on at that time saying that these were a gift from the Canadian Army to the Belgian Army. In cases like this where the chest has been repainted in European service, such NATO markings and the earlier wartime markings, may still be present under the later paint, though we know that this chest was used with a different rifle as per the markings on it.

Some observations follow. Note that when I type C/|\ you should assume that this is the Canadian issue mark with the arrow inside the C, except as stated for the leather scope caps:

RIFLE:
Made by BSA The original BSA serial number is unknown as the original markings were linished off, but it might be AT5705 -(see comments under BRACKET below) It was renumbered with a Canadian Long Branch serial number 48L3954 on the body and the bolt is a Canadian one with the same number. 48L3954 Bolt handle has C/|\ on top of the knob. Note that the Canadian Army did sometimes transfer serial numbers between firearms, although this was usually done with spare bodies produced for that purpose. This rifle has "M47C" (BSA Shirley 1943-1945 period wartime code) stamped in above the new Canadian serial number and 1943 stamped below the serial number. Barrel is dated 1943, was refinished in the Belgian grey colour and has Belgian proof markings. Front scope pad is staked. Rifle has the "T" with serifs by the ejector screw. No "TR" is visible, but may well have been linished off. The photos received so far do not show if there was an "S" on the right side of the body below the bolt head. The correct examiner's marked are present on the body on each side of the cocking piece. There is a large C/|\ stamp on top to the receiver ring as shown in "An Armourer's Perspective" p. 54. I have only seen this mark once before and that was on a totally correct 1941 Long Branch No. 4 Mk. I and it is a Canadian ownership mark, indicating that this rifle was on Canadian issue. Furniture: Butt is Canadian made, with C/|\ and stadium with 14 and tiny C/|\ inside). Oddly it has "S51" marked on it which is odd as Canada did not use that marking and Holland and Holland did not convert Canadian rifles to sniping equipment. The "S51" is in a different font, so was it applied by an armourer (possibly Belgian?) when changing the butt stock? Possibly dutifully copying the marking even though not understanding its meaning (better safe than sorry)? The butt plate is gunmetal which people mistake for brass, and is apparently British. Front sight is British /|\. Upper band is Long Branch ("LB" monogram) marked. The sling swivel in front to the magazine is a civilian Parker-Hale marked target shooting (tall shaft, rotates 360 degrees) version.
The rifle is presently matched to a No. 32 Mk. III scope serial number 17080 as marked on the wrist below the cocking piece. The number stamping is not as well spaced as on British and Canadian converted examples. The original scope serial number, as fitted by Holland and Holland at the time of conversion to sniper equipment, is not there as the butt has obviously been changed, presumably in service.

SCOPE: MATCHED by Belgians? "TEL STG No 32 MK III / OS 2039 A / AK&S No 17080 / 1944 / /|\" Leather scope caps marked "C/|\ 86 V5-105-2143 " (Note the C/|\ is not the Canadian issue mark on this as the arrow is outside of the C on this set.)

BRACKET: Made by Rose Brothers in WWII. Marked "JG" Also marked with large "GF" Caps marked rear 557 and front 558. The "GF" mark is puzzling as it is generally thought to be an Indian Army marking. Bracket has rifle number AT 5705 which was a 1943 BSA. Could this have been the original BSA serial number of this rifle? That might help to explain why it was not renumbered when the rifle was renumbered.

SCOPE CASE:
No. 8 Mk. I by B & Co. Steel, square corners. No year? Paper labels inside lid of case. One left plain white paper RIFLE No / M47C TELESCOPE No / AKES No 17080" (two errors as maker code shown as serial number and AK&S shown as AKES) On tight side is instruction "LABEL R.339" Early tool marked "STG. TEL. / MK. 3" No carrying strap.

CHEST:
No. 15 Mk. I MISMATCHED as it is for rifle AM7404. Made in 1944 in the UK, apparently by CAMBRIDGE. No instruction label glued inside the lid. British folded leather handles and British 3-screw top hinges. [Canadian made chests had folded and sewn leather handles and 4-screws in top hinges] Chest was repainted and has markings, apparently in Dutch. Unit identity of "1/II" on left and left end of lid. Stencilled on front in white using European number shapes, "LEE. ENF. AM 7404 / TELESCOOP 17352" Note that chests being permanently numbered to a rifle was generally a post-war feature as used by police, RAF and foreign armies. During the war, the protocol was the rifle serial number was pencilled on a small form which was printed on paper and this was then inserted into a tin metal frame at one end of the chest. The paper was changed every time a different rifle was put into the chest for shipping or storage.

Thank you so much for your professional and very detailed explenation!I couldn't ask for more. I can imagine that when your heart beats for original british and canadian fire arms you get a bit upset having to see my rifle. Sounds a bit Frankenstein to me. But at least it was in service for many more years and i am sure it performed how it was supose to. Thanks a lot!

Cool rifle with a great and varied history.....:thup:

Confused about the not being able to buy ammunition and shoot it though......I was under the impression that the process for getting a licence in Belgium was similar to UK, taking a similar amount of time, other than the fact that you need a licence for each gun in Belgium rather the person being licensed as per the UK. And you can own and shoot pistols in Belgium still unlike the UK.

Interesting rifle. I was left scratching my head looking at all the pics...

I can clarify one thing; The "GF" on the scope bracket indicates "Gujarat Forces," so the mount definitely had a stint of Indian service.

I have a 1943 (T) that has the same, upside-down GF mark in almost the exact location on the mount. Mine also spent some time in India.

Well I learned something today with regards to that GF marking. I had a scope bracket some 20 years back that had that mark....never could figure out what it was. I even asked on one of the gun boards back then, and nobody else had seen it either.

The font on the serial of the rifle in question looks more European than Canadian. The font of the S51 on the butt also looks more European than British.

Here are a couple shots of mine....a totally different bird, but shows the Cdn property marks on a British made rifle.

I'm afraid I don't buy the "Gujarat Forces" story.

First of all, is there any evidence of any formation(s) called "Gujarat Force(s)", now or since WWII? I can't find any.

And if there was, why would such a marking be put on the scope bracket, rather than the logical place: on the rifle? Totally out of keeping with normal practice in firearms marking.

And if it was a military mark why would it go on upside down?!

"G------ Foundry" seems a much more logical and likely marking to me, just as we see "JG" and "N92" for other makers.

Plenty of possibilities here.

Mr Laidler answered this one back in 2009 and 2011 when the topic of GF was brought up.

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=33307

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread....1&daysprune=-1

It was explained the Gujarat Forces were Indian State Forces, and not part of the Indian Armed Forces.

A most disparate collection of parts! I feel quite sure that the rifle itself is a genuine 4T, but it is very difficult to come up with an explanation for how it is now that fits in with what we have been told of the provenance. Every potential explanation I come up with I then find I can shoot full of holes with a little thought.

Is it possible by any chance that the good Colonel of the gendarmerie may have acquired it by other than official channels, & that the scope & bracket came from elsewhere? The re-serial numbering may indeed have taken place in Canadian service, but 'cloning' weapons with the numbers from rifles that have been scrapped is also something which goes on from time to time. And the Belgians, among other nations, received a lot of Canadian equipment after the war as we already know. There would have been plenty of Long Branch No4's in the Belgian supply system.......

And most curious that somebody has gone to the trouble of applying the S51 in the wrong font to the butt, as well as cleaning off the butt socket markings & reapplying the M47C 1943 & the new serial number. They even went to the trouble of using a different set of stamps for the serial number to the set used for the rest of the butt socket markings.

I was open minded about the GF marking, but PL was clear that it meant Gujarat Forces, & TBH I can't think of anything better.......I know it could be a foundry marking but this bracket is clearly a Rose Brothers variant & also bears the typical JG inspector's stamp.

I just wonder if skyder was given the full story about how the rifle was acquired......if maybe somebody felt the need to protect themselves...........or did it go through the hands of an unscrupulous third party faker on its way to the good Colonel??

Somebody with thorough knowledge of the Belgian military stores system, & specifically their practices in procurement, marking & disposals, would no doubt be able to shed more light on the issue, at least in knowing what normal practice was........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smle addict

Mr Laidler answered this one back in 2009 and 2011 when the topic of GF was brought up.

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=33307

---

Yes, its true what Peter posted in this thread about the Thompson collectors in the USA (and elsewhere) identifying these marks about Indian paramilitary forces markings, as I've been recently finding out about the marks on one of my M1928 Thompsons, which I thought was a British issue, but appears to have been Indian Army issue, later seeing Indian Police/Paramilitary service.

That scope is 396 after my AK&S 1944 MkIII Ser 16684

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

That scope is 396 after my AK&S 1944 MkIII Ser 16684

---

Yours is a really early Mk.III scope then, one of the first 500 individually checked.

Its clear how the scopes were obviously plucked from store and put on rifles in a very random way at H&H, and rifles pulled from store as well.

The serial number of my 4T is only 66 numbers away from one of the 6 rifles used in the Mk.III scope trials on the scopes introduction, and only 84 and 418 away from another 2 of the 6, yet my scope number (original to rifle) is near the end of the 2nd Mk.III scope contract, so over 5000 units into Mk.III scope production rather than say, in the first 500 or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smle addict

Mr Laidler answered this one back in 2009 and 2011 when the topic of GF was brought up.

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=33307

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread....1&daysprune=-1

It was explained the Gujarat Forces were Indian State Forces, and not part of the Indian Armed Forces.

---

Thanks, I reviewed the those threads. I had one of these No4(T)s with a "GF" bracket. The marking was not stamped, it was deeply cut, unless it was stamped as part of the manufacturing process and the resulting raised edges around the letters ground off at that point.

Gujarat was not one of the Princely States from what I can see online.

IMHO there are too many of these brackets around anyway for the purported issue to the tiny tinpot forces of some Indian Princely state to account for them. IIRC most of those states bought their own weapons privately and where would they have bought No4(T)s just after WWII??

Or does anyone believe the British Indian Army was handing such stuff out in 1946-47?

And if they were in the possession of some Indian force, why would they have been disposed of, when and to whom? None of the usual signs of Indian service are seen on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

IMHO there are too many of these brackets around anyway for the purported issue to the tiny tinpot forces of some Indian Princely state to account for them. IIRC most of those states bought their own weapons privately and where would they have bought No4(T)s just after WWII??

Or does anyone believe the British Indian Army was handing such stuff out in 1946-47?

---

Where do you think all the British kit and weapons went when we pulled out of India in 1947?

We certainly didn't bring it all home, we left most of it there. A lot of the stuff then got passed onto the regional paramilitary later on, to replace a lot of the captured kit we got of the Italians in East Africa, that we sent to the regional paramilitary forces in 1940/1, to replace the 19th century kit they were still equipped with. A lot of the markings seen on this ex-Italian stuff that has turned up, are the same makings to be seen on ex-British issue WW2 stuff that later turned up as well.

I hate to rain on everyone's parade but the "S51" alone being restamped on the butt makes me suspicious of this one. There's no legit reason other than fakery to do that and I've never seen it before. This rifle may be legit but I don't think I'd touch it. It makes for a great story though.

Bri, have a good look at the photo showing the rifle body round & including the front pad. I suspect that is a properly fitted front body pad........but as you say, who knows what happened to the rifle subsequently.

I wonder if the rifle body lower front has the 6 o'clock barrel indexing mark......?

This equipment is definitely full of puzzles and is definitely not a typical No.4 Mk.I (T).

Proving such a story can be very difficult and for what it is worth, I recommend that the owner write it down in as much detail as possible, including the serial numbers and the name of the uncle and if possible include old photos showing the rifle, sales receipt etc. I doubt that we would ever know the full story of this rifle. If the uncle is alive, definitely get a written statement from him.

Certainly if it was offered for sale it would be a difficult sale and most collectors would look at it as a parts source. At least the scope and bracket are original. The scope case appears to be original though the serial number label is very questionable. The No.15 Mk.I chest is also original though repainted. The rifle is the biggest problem. As Roger Payne pointed out, it looks like it started out as a legitimate No.4 Mk.I (T). Who made the changes and when? We know so little about changes made by post-WWII military and police users of these rifles.

This equipment reminds me of the 1950s-1960s cars one hears about in Cuba. Still running and perhaps looking good, but a far cry from the way they were when they left the factory.

The owner can enjoy this rifle as a family heirloom.

It's obviously an original No.4T cobbled up with an original bracket, telescope, and CES. It's value lies in the sum of the parts. I don't think there's a snow ball's chance in Hades that it left military or police service like that. Belgian or otherwise. Just my 2 cents. I've looked at one or two.

I'd be interested in how it shoots.

Not far off the OPs scope.Attachment 109349

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeeRam

Where do you think all the British kit and weapons went when we pulled out of India in 1947?

We certainly didn't bring it all home, we left most of it there. A lot of the stuff then got passed onto the regional paramilitary later on, to replace a lot of the captured kit we got of the Italians in East Africa, that we sent to the regional paramilitary forces in 1940/1, to replace the 19th century kit they were still equipped with. A lot of the markings seen on this ex-Italian stuff that has turned up, are the same makings to be seen on ex-British issue WW2 stuff that later turned up as well.

---

Well, let's assume for a moment that something called "Gujarat Forces" actually existed, and that they marked their small arms in totally new and illogical ways, and that a whole bunch of kit was shipped out to them in 1945-47. Because the evidence is pretty clear that No32 Mk3 scopes had hardly reached the front lines by the end of WWII in Europe. There were weapons enough in the UK and Europe to equip huge armies which had just been demobbed, why take new weapons out of store and send them to India of all places? After WWI the second-line, unwanted stuff was sent to India: Rosses, P14s etc. Now, with Indian independence clearly in the offing, they are sent a bunch of new kit instead of some of the stuff sitting around from the demobbed armies of WWII?

Seems doubtful to me.

Not being an expert on post-colonial Indian/Pakistani history, I can't say when the Princely States disappeared, but IIRC it was not long after independence - or rather the rule of the various Ranas, Maharajas etc. went under, even if the states remained as geographic entities within the Indian federation(?)

So, their little "armies" died with them, and where did all the kit go again? Would have been collected up by the Indian Army and in some sense divvied up with East and West Pakistan by means fair or foul; at least that seems like a logical outcome to me.

The Indian Army was in no rush apparently to sell off their other holdings of No4(T)s, for example, so why would they sell off these? They would have just taken them into inventory and used them for another 50+ years as they did the other rifle we see on the market today.

It's not not like they had more of weapons than they wanted, or didn't have the space to store them or the labour to handle them, is it?

So let's assume also that they had some big pantograph engravers in Gujarat and they liked to mark things upside down, exactly what wold be the point of marking the scope brackets and not the scopes or the rifles? What tends to get stolen in that part of the world? Rifles...

So where's the big GF on the rifle? Or where's the GF stamped in the woodwork?

The whole things makes no sense whatever and therefore I'm not inclined to believe it without some documentation.

Now in those threads linked on the previous page, there was some debate about possible Israeli markings such as "AL" prefix serial numbers. I can well believe that Israeli buyers were combing through recently independent India for arms they could buy in 1947-48. And India is a country where money talks, walks and sings.

As for the rifle itself, severe identity crisis: replaced bolt, rifle renumbered to match the bolt...ugh!

Total bitzer, the label in the No8 Case giving M47C as the rifle number :rolleyes:

Perhaps Rose Bros. had a temporary surplus of work and sub-contracted to another foundry? The "JG" in that case would simply represent their inspection mark and be entirely in keeping with usual practice in such situations.

See my S 51 stamping on my T the ones top nib is straight rather than facing down and the stamping is more of a line than having flat spots like the one on the Op's butt.
Why do those linish marks on the safety spigot look fresh!

Geeram my T & scope were also used in front pad trials as it is listed in Peter's book on the T they are still together like the day they were matched and one cannot ask for better provenence for the rifle and scope being a ridgey didge sniper T than them being listed in that book.

You know, re the 'GF' stamp; it has never quite 'sat right' with me, but I've accepted the 'official' explanation as seeking a more convincing alternative has never been high enough up my list of things to do to to get done! Always plenty of other things to do that were more pressing. It might be correct, but in truth I share some of the skepticism stated above. I find the speculation that Rose Brothers could have farmed out some of the production work to other local companies an interesting possibility. And whilst GF might stand for Gujarat Forces, it could also conceivably stand for something like 'Gainsborough Foundries', or 'Gainsborough Fabrications', or some such. I wonder if the companies register of the time might shed any light on the issue.....?


As an aside, on the matter of Indian equipment & what they did or didn't have 4Twise. I've seen quite a lot of Indian issue 4T's over the years, including having the chance to inspect a batch of fifty of them at Charnwood about twenty five years ago. From what I could see there was a fair sprinkling of all marks of scope in amongst them. Similarly rifles; mostly BSA's, with the odd Long Branch, Savage, & even Trials rifle - just as one would randomly expect. I presume a lot of the kit was already there when the war ended & still there shortly after when Independence was gained.

Yes, I think you've probably nailed it there - I was forgetting that Rose Bros. were in Gainsborough.

But it's also quite possible that this is a letter code for another foundry that gives no clue to its name or location, which was the purpose of such codes after all; "JG" and "N92" being the obvious examples.


Quite likely the Indian divisions "overseas" took their weapons back with them at the end of the war, it would have been a simple way of getting rid of the stuff while giving them an update over the weaponry they had before WWII.

No doubt their small arms, including No4(T)s were issued from the same sources as what the Canadians for example received, and therefore the same potpourri of manufacturers.

IIRC there's photographic evidence of No4s on issue in India by 1944/45, though can't be sure about formations without checking.

It could be a different foundry, but the castings marked with the GF do not look any different to me to those made by Rose Brothers that do not bear the GF. However, I have never made any proper study of them, but they appear to be 'run of the mill' RB products. I suppose it could be that RB provided the tools, including molds, for a subcontractor, or perhaps a subcontractor did some of the machining of the castings. And sometimes, manufacturer's add certain markings to only a specific percentage of what they make. I've sometimes mused (what a sad life I lead!) why Rose didn't mark their castings with their officially allocated factory code, in the same way that Dalgleish were allocated N92; presumably RB would have been allocated a code starting with M followed by a number as Gainsborough lies in the north east corner of the Midlands. Yet they didn't, they seem to have marked a few brackets with the roundel containing R B G single digit number, or more commonly JG or KD. Again, it's only speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised if the latter two aren't the initials of two of the inspectors working at the factory.

Someone will probably turn up some documents next week confirming beyond any doubt that GF means Gujarat Forces......:madsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

.........… presumably RB would have been allocated a code starting with M followed by a number as Gainsborough lies in the north east corner of the Midlands.

---

M632 = Rose Brothers

Without digging out my copy of the Little Green Book, someone remind us of what "JG" stood for and why "M632" doesn't appear on their brackets?

That's what I was getting at.......why Rose Brothers never did use their allocated factory code, unlike Dalgleish (N92), rather just using the JG or KD marks. AFAIK nobody knows for sure what they stand for, but I rather wonder if they may be the initials of inspectors there.....though I have not a shred of evidence to back that up. If anyone knows for sure please chime in!

Next question: how common a practice was it for contractors to leave off their code markings?

Or was it done in this case as someone thought soldiers might be confused by the "M632"? Seems improbable, but not impossible.

Or was it actually Rose Bros. at all who made them? Things have been known to change after contracts are issued...

Is this the Belgian mark?

Yes, the circular mark appears to be a Belgian mark. I had the same mark on a Long branch No. 4 Mk. I* (T) in the same position. That rifle had the metal refinished in the grey such as the Belgians are known to have used. A similar monogram mark was used for Liege years ago on firearms.

The "K B" marking s found on some Long Branch made rifles and appears to be a 1945 marking, probably by an inspector.

The "16" is likely a rack number for use by the storesman. I have not seem such a marking in this location before.

Your example appears to be on a Canadian made Long Branch. Can you tell us the rifle's serial number?

Thank you Seaforth.

The fore-end is the only Canadian part of the rifle.

The rifle is a 1944 BSA.