Stamped "Test" on receiver?
I've not seen stamps on the muzzle either...
Printable View
Stamped "Test" on receiver?
I've not seen stamps on the muzzle either...
That receiver shows some interesting machining or forging flaw on the rear portion of the action.
I believe that "TEST" and the sideways C^ have been added post service to increase saleability.
1. That particular form of C^ is one that was used to mark wood rather than steel.
2. The rifle has post 1960 British commercial proof marks
3. The rifle has a Mk3 rear sight which went into use at the end of 1943/beginning 1944 (fitted to in service rifles after January '44 -June 1944)
4. one of the C^ is directly over the locking lug recess and has deformed the metal below into said recess -
5. Canadian Army Armourers instructions (from the '20s thru 1944) prohibited stamping markings into the side of the receiver
6. British commercial proof markings are commonly found on the muzzle - watch for deformation into the bore corresponding with the stamps.
I am interested in seeing the marking between the Long Branch data block and the receiver ring.
I'll take more pictures. I stripped and cleaned it last night. The butt stock has also been re-worked such that the wood normally notched for the safety has been removed. There are even more C^ stamps on the fore stock and hand guard. Was this perhaps done commercially?
More attached. They certainly went to town with the C^ stamp all over.
Stock was also varnished/lacquered sloppily. It was brushed partly onto the lower nose cap.
Someone has had a heyday with a set of stamps and I can probably name the area it came from and a previous owner.
Unfortunate that someone took an interesting gun (does the bolt serial number match the receiver?) and tried to fraudulently "improve" it.Quote:
Originally Posted by nifkinsbridge
I suspect that in an effort to clean an oil soaked stock a previous owner rasped or filed the wood to it's present shape, then in an attempt to make it more saleable added all the extraneous fraudulent markings.
Agreed, pretty much for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Enfield
I was thinking the same thing. Saw things like this done...Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
The C Broad Arrow is of course totally superfluous nonsense, but the "TEST" part may have some plausibility in that the cosmetic defect on the receiver wall MIGHT have caused a rifle or receiver to be pulled out of the production line. Long Branch maintained high standards of finish as well as quality.
On the other hand, the receiver looks like it has served long and hard, and if it was just a rejected receiver that later got built up post-war and slipped out the back door, it wouldn't show that much wear. The rare MkI cocking piece and early pattern safety lever also suggest it went through the production line in the usual way.
On balance probably all fakery.
Some of the worst wood butchery I've seen. Clown must have had access to a big belt sander and got carried away.
Not a chance. Long Branch had pantograph engraving machines (before the data block roll stamp 1941 and early 1942 N0.4 receivers are engraved, [as are 1944 C.No7 receivers] not rolled).Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
I have seen (and have owned) a number of LB No4 receivers with cosmetic machining or forging issues (my MP "DCRA" 7.62 is one such).
We know that receivers with issues were set aside for correction or later salvage - most of the 1944 and early 1945 dated C. No7 receivers show evidence (machining contours) of being much earlier (1942, '43, '44) No4 receivers than the C.No7 date.
Of course they did have them, but if just marking a few sacrificial receivers why bother to set them up in a pantograph?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Enfield
I'd want to take a good look all over the receiver before claiming to be 100% sure it's completely fake, even if 90% sure now. ;)
Just BTW - the "S" is upside-down.
Serial number is pretty close to mine...
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...713df4_b-1.jpg
I wonder how far apart in time they were made.
240,000 /365 would give you a reasonable estimateQuote:
Originally Posted by Littlejohn
Thanks for the input everyone. Very helpful.