Longbranch No4 Mk1* grip mark

Hi; first post and I'm at work so it'll be a quick one.

I'm looking at a 43 Long Branch No4 Mk1* and the picture he sent has "CANADA" stamped on the underside wrist. I can't find any info, or discussion, about this marking, but I have found it on an auction site

"303 British caliber., 25" barrel, S/N 36L6101. Parkerized finish, walnut stock, 1943 dated receiver. Spike bayonet. Original sling. Stock marked "CANADA" on the bottom of the wrist."

I don't suppose somebody here knows anything about it?

Attachment 121185

Typically Canada / England / Australia was marked on the rifles as a pre 1968 import mark (imported into the USA).

Any indication in its history of cross border travel ?

None suggested, but I've also read that import marks were stamped on metal, not wood. I'm also a little curious as to why an importer would stamp it, if there was no requirement to do so until 1968. It couldn't have been stamped 68+ because it's missing the mandated data.

I've seen them stamped on both wood and metal.

It may have British commercial proofs on the barrel but I doubt a post 1968 US import mark. The requirement was a county of "origin" stamp and not country of "manufacture" like post 1968. That's why you see Canadian and US made No.4 rifles with
"England" stamped on. Many No.4's were culled from the military and sold off as surplus before 1968. Some went back and forth across borders too after being surplused. I've actually bought and imported rifles from both the UK and Canada in years past that had US import marks on them so they've been around a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

It's an old auction in Cowan's in USA so there was some cross border. I'd be interested to see the barrel at muzzle but that pic isn't present. ** Canadian Longbranch No. 4 Mk. I Rifle - Auktionen Preisarchiv

---

Yeah, that Cowan listing is the sole example I’ve found of CANADA marked on one, but that does not suggest it’s an import mark. Also, that is not the rifle in question.

@Brian Dick, it’s not British so there won’t be Brit proofs. It’s also not marked as a factory refurb. Still haven’t seen a wood stamped, US import mark. I’d like to learn, I don’t suppose you have a link?

I have seen many pre-68 US imports being stamped ENGLAND, even though they’re Long Branch. I haven’t yet seen a single US imported Long Branch marked as Canadian. Early research has suggested that is because pre-68, it was about origin of design, not manufacture. Doesn’t mean the stamper got it right and it doesn’t mean that my early research is correct either, lol. still don’t understand why a pre-68 importer would stamp it, other than boredom, and why they’d have a Canada stamp in an age where there was no firearm import controls.

I’ve requested a few more detailed pics, should be in tomorrow, but here’s what I have of the muzzle.

Attachment 121187

Sorry for the confusion. I never said it was British. I said it "may have". Nothing definite. Does it have an ownership mark from Canada, New Zealand, South Africa or other Commonwealth nation? That means it was probably British issue and if surplused from England prior to it's arrival back in Canada post service, it will sport British commercial proofs. They could be under the handguards but will be on the barrel providing that's the case. The majority of Long Branch rifles went to British not Canadian service. If it was culled and surplused directly from Canadian military stores, the "Canada" stamp makes it a pre 1968 import because that was the only required country of origin mark. I've even seen it on P'37 web gear, Inglis shoulder stocks, etc.. It has nothing to do with country of design. It's simply country of origin meaning it was imported to the USA directly from Canada prior to 1968.

I learned a little more since my last; specifically about contracting.

Long Branch didn’t produce regular Enfields for the British. They only made the Sten and No4 mk2 sniper for them. I never specified that it wasn’t a sniper rifle. No mount holes. Saying that, there’s should have been none for their commercial market, less theft/loss. The exception is post-war UK factory parts bin refurbs. However, there no refurb mark. This British thought only complicates the matter because if it went to the US, it would have, or still would have, been marked ENGLAND, just like the rest I’ve found. If it came back to Canada from England, it wouldn’t need a stamp and why stamp it Canada?

I’ve only seen the broad arrow and LB, nothing that looks like a British mark. Still, I’ll note if the incoming pics show something different. I’ll have to ask for a specific shot or two.

I’m actually running down a theory. Every small arms in the Canadian Armed Forces identifies itself as being Canadian issue, in one form or another. We’ve been doing that for decades. Our Rangers had been using the surplus military No4’s until they got the C19, in 2018.

If we didn’t stamp CANADA on during production to battlefield identify our Enfield’s from the other nations’, or if it wasn’t some on-again-off-again wartime production thing and, the facts (thus far) are that we’ve only been able to find two of these on the internet (2019 and 2121), there’s a sketchy sounding import mark theory and, there’s no talking about or posting images of either; I’m willing to invest some time to investigate wether or not the Ranger’s rifles we’re stamped before issue.

Of course, that’s the one place that’s very hard to find a clear and close picture of, and a recently ex-neighbor would have known; bah.

You're making this way too complicated. I'm not sure where you're learning from. Wartime Long Branch No.4 Mk.1 and No.4Mk.1* service rifle production was mostly for the British. Again, the "Canada" stamp is a marking that was a requirement for shipment to the USA prior to 1968 and after the rifle left military service regardless of where. It's not a military mark. That's all it is. These stamps have been discussed extensively over the years on this forum and probably others. This stuff isn't theory, it's fact. If it has a "C-Broad Arrow" stamped on the breech or even the stock, sometimes both, it's definitely a Canadian owned and issued rifle. If not, chances are 90%+ that it was a British contract rifle. New Zealand and South Africa also had distinct ownership marks stamped on. N^Z or "U-Broad Arrow" respectively. New Zealand had their own serial number system too so that number will also be either engraved or stamped on the butt socket and sometimes top of the breech. Many rifles were culled from service post war and sold as surplus. They had to be stamped with the country of origin before being shipped to the USA pre 1968. Probably to Interarmco in Alexandria, Virginia since they bought direct from the MoD and warehoused them in Manchester, England before shipment to Virginia. There were no imports, (legal), of military surplus rifles into the USA from 1968 until 1986 when the restriction was removed by the Reagan administration so post 1968 imports will have the abbreviated name and address of the importer along with the caliber and country of MANUFACTURE stamps.

I don’t know where your getting your information from. You complicated it with some grassy knoll Brit thing and a repetitive, yet unsubstantiated insistence of import.

You’d think that if it was a common thing, there’d be easily found pictures, documentation or references online. There isn’t. There’s just you (so far). I already asked for a link, do you have one or, any pics to show me a verified pre-68 US imported rifle with a CANADA, one piece, stamp on it? I can’t even find where US legislation specifies that a country has to be stamped, pre-68; I have found third-party reference stating that there were no requirements to mark pre-68. If you have that piece, educate me, please.

I’d also like to see your reference for No4, non-sniper, wartime contracts to the UK. I’ve found none and all my sources cite wartime production specifically excludes the standard rifle. I also haven’t seen anything other than the submachine gun and MkII sniper in company or government documentation. I’m not saying your wrong, I’m asking you to prove it.

Regardless, my theory was correct. It was a Ranger rifle.

FWIW, the very first picture I posted has the Canadian acceptance mark, but that alone proves nothing. I’ve seen a British post-war pistol with a CDN broad arrow and a British proof on a bolt head.

Making friends the quick way, here on Milsurps. ��

As far as the "CANADA" stamp goes, the easiest thing for you to do is read post #2 again. AdE has nailed it simply and easily. I won't complicate things for you any more. You should purchase "The Lee Enfield" by Ian Skennerton and read the chapter on Long Branch production. Since you're in Ottawa, you could also take a trip over to the Canadian War Museum and ask them about British contracts for Long Branch service rifles. They should have all the documentation you need.

By the way, I have an Australian butt in my spares marked "AUSTRALIA" in the exact same place. Good luck in your research.

Brian

I have read quite a bit on Long Branch. I began about 10 years ago, when I started researching my EAL. Regardless, I now have a Ranger saying yes, and Ranger saying no. So, if you still won’t provide proof of your claim, you may be right, you may be wrong, but we do know that you don’t know for sure. If you did, you would have provided it and I’d have stopped talking.

I have seen a few references to ENGLAND being an export mark. Which means if it left the UK, they would have marked it.
I’ve also seen a number of references talking about how the US required the importer name to be stamped. I’ve found nothing about the country being a requirement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doca

I have seen a few references to ENGLAND being an export mark. Which means if it left the UK, they would have marked it.

---

We have no requirement to 'export mark' anything we export, it is the laws of the importing country which affect the 'marking'.
"ENGLAND" is definitely NOT an export mark.

Some of the US Importers hired bonded warehouses and local (UK) staff to mark up the rifles before being loaded onto the boat, but this was to facilitate the passage thru US customs / import requirements, not as a requirement of UK customs / exports.
Other importers had their rifles held in US bonded stores until they could get them marked up with the country from which they were imported by local (US) labour, this was apparently often done by youngsters with a 'Saturday job'.

Even if there had been a requirement to export mark firearms when they left these shores, I am afraid it would not have been 'England', it would have been 'United Kingdom', otherwise you'd also expect to see 'Wales', 'Scotland', & 'Northern Ireland' on rifle butt sockets periodically..............!

I disagree. There’s many examples of the England export mark and, the UK isn’t a country so I don’t think it would be stamped as such. I’ve spent over an hour looking for a single example of a UK marked firearm, modern or historic, and came up donuts. Do you have an example? On the other end of this, I still can’t find a single US imported rifle marked only by country of source, less those marked England before heading west on the Atlantic and reportedly, that’s an export mark.

I’m hungry for crow; somebody show me one of what must be 100’s of thousands of pre-68 US imported firearms. Surely there must be more than two that someone decided to stamp with country only, and surely there must be a lot from other countries. If I’m wrong about that, I must be the king of the internet because I found the only two in existence and, they both came from Canada.

You need to understand that random dude saying something on the internet means nothing. Repetitive insistence of something that you heard at some point from somewhere does not validate it as a fact. Doing so makes your case look worse, especially when unwilling or unable to support it. The problem compounds when people regurgitate the unsupported fact and attempt to defend it with “some guy said”. If one can’t substantiate the claim of it being a pre-68 US import mark, one shouldn’t be claiming it however, it’s perfectly valid to say that while possible, it’s speculation.

So, except for stopping the England theory because it doesn’t yet make any sense, we haven’t moved forward at all and, the facts we have:

1. It exists in on only two examples, 2019 and 2021.
2. Us legislation (pre-68) shows that an importers name must be marked.
3. The import stamp theory is only supported by a handful of internet people, the rest refer to those people.
4. There are no examples of any pre-68 US imported firearms showing such a mark other than those marked ENGLAND.

Here’s a little leg work I managed to do. The rifle in question was acquired in 1957. That means it can’t be a Ranger rifle (damn you first Ranger resource, lol; see what happens when you believe random dude?). Note that it also doesn’t make that guy wrong because maybe his unit had CANADA branded rifles. It also means that it was probably in the Korean War, which ended in 53. This is suggested by the rack number written in the butt, hand guard and… eeep.. etched on the receiver. That wasn’t previously said, but it wasn’t relevant at the time. The CAF started replacing the No4 with the FN in 1954ish… that means at most, there’d be a 3 year window for it to have been exported and re-imported. As we know how military contacts and distribution works, and how the government to surplus market works, to say three full years is extremely generous. Realistically, we’ve got a solid year and change for this cross-cross to have occurred. Not impossible, but it’s doesn’t seem probable.

The issue I have with the crisscross is that my grandfather was posted to the US in the mid-60’s, 63-65 I think. We were not, and are still not, excluded from import laws for duration. I have his firearms and neither of the two that were there are marked as being US imports.

I cannot state categorically that these two rifles were stamped 'England' pre 1968, so they may not interest you, but I have certainly owned them both personally for about the last thirty years. I had to look through about a dozen rifles to find these two, & I have seen many more over the years. I have had no reason to doubt that they bear the country mark as a US import requirement, & that they likely were marked pre 1968. (And that those that I have seen were re-imported back into the UK at some point). However, I am not as fascinated by the subject as you doca, & have been happy to accept perceived wisdom as it fits in with my limited experience, so good luck with your research & please do keep us informed of what you discover. I'm sure we'd all be interested to see what you manage to find out.

The simple country of origin marking prior to *GCA '68 which curtailed surplus firearms imports into the US for years. Later followed by the "billboard markings" on firearms which have been evolving in size and placement since they were once again allowed in 1986.

*GCA '68 = the US Gun Control Act of 1968.

Suggest you look up the requirements of the CGA.


Some other than 'England' or 'Canada' US Pre 1968 imports markings in complaince with CGA'68.
They took about 30 seconds of Googling :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doca

There’s many examples of the England export mark

---

As far as I know there are NO examples of the 'ENGLAND EXPORT' marks as there is no such thing - what you are seeing, but not accepting, is that these are US required (under the CGA'68 rules) IMPORT marks showing the country they have been sourced from (NOT the country that manufactured them - one of the pics I posted above is of a UK made BSA that was imported into the US from Australia)

A couple of screen shots of a presentation by 'Forgotten Weapons . Com"

@Roger: Ive seen a variety of ENGLAND marked on surplus rifles, but they were always on the metal, not wood. I can’t speak to the second example and, pending legitimate documentation, I don’t know for sure why your 42 Savage would be marked with it but it does suggest two possibilities:

1. It was commercially exported to the US and either stamped before or after the voyage, then returned to England; or
2. It was stamped after production, but before being issued by the British military, or as per above, having been declared surplus.

It really doesn’t matter which one it is. The crux is this is is the fact there’s only 2 known to be marked Canada, while there’s many marked England.

I don’t think I ever will, but if I get traction, I’ll happily add it.


@Alan:
—-
Edit: you last posted while I was writing. I’m well aware of that slideshow. The thing I was looking for wasn’t that a country name be marked. I asked about a country being marked on the wood; which you later sent.

—-

Its not that I’m not accepting it, it’s that you seem to think its a 68+ US import for some reason. If it was, it would have more on it than just some country. I just think it’s irresponsible to drop the hammer on speculation that it’s a US import mark when there nothing else to support it. Sure, the US stamped an import source country, but that does not mean this is a US import mark and because there was no standard format, it’s impossible to just presume it. I won’t get into how hauntingly familiar that specific Canada stamp looks to other government markings of the time; largely because I currently can’t back it up. Stand by…. I’m tryin, lol.

I easily found the 1968 GCA, several days ago, and read it enough to understand it’s requirements however, as stared above, it means nothing to this event because its verified in Canadian hands since 1957. There are no marks found on this rifle that suggest it may have been anywhere but in a CAF arsenal until it was acquired in 1957 by the guy who sold it to his gunsmith, and who I was going to buy it from. I’m much more interested in US law between Sep 1947-end of 1957.

Why Sep 47 and end of 57?

First, because the guy had in it 57.
Second, because the War Assets Corporation (Canadian Crown company) took control of post-war surplus weapons and not a single one was moved from storage until late Sep 47’ when the corporation ordered their destruction. The RCMP wanted to sell them. This destruction included the stock of surplus Enfield rifles.
Ref: Peace Divided, The War Assets Corporation and the Disposal of Canadas Munitions and Supplies, 1943-1948, Western University, 2016.

This radically changes the likelihood of export-import surplus, Canadian No4’s because they were destroyed. So, when could they hit market again? No earlier than 1954, after they were the CAF’s battle rifle in Korea and, when the CAF adopted the C1A1, FAL. Now we’re back to a max 3 year window, assuming the Canadian government dealt with the collection, cataloging, repairs, tendering and distribution in a timely manner unprecedented and unrepeated by a government body since. So, we can safely narrow the US import data search to legislation between 1954-1957.

Thank you for the pics. I knew someone had to have one. I don’t know if that a pre or post-68 import, I suspect post because the receiver has the county and caliber. However, it’s good to see it stamped on the wood. Sincerely, thanks for that. Your pics don’t show it, but does that Aussie rifle have the rest of the mandated import markings?

I’d be negligent to not point out that your wood stamped Australian mark is uneven in spacing and position, while Canada mark is consistent. This doesn’t mean a lot, but it does tell you that either someone had enough coming in to have a one-piece manufactured Canada stamp, while whoever stamped Australia did not, or its a plain language government ownership mark, just like we still do today. Not a big deal, just an observation.

I have to wonder about that stamp because, I can’t remember right now, but I know one of the US laws mandated imports to be by a legitimate import broker only; was that 68, later or earlier? If it was 68+, I wouldn’t expect to see a professional one piece stamp in Bill’s hardware shop for what may be a handful of Canadian firearms they’d get. Not impossible, but legitimately questionable.

Again, thank you for the picture. Its a visual on the fact the 68 mandated import marks were not required to be on the metal. That’s what I was looking for. It also writes off the English import theory, but it doesn’t address pre-68 marking requirements. Do you have anything about marking requirements from for the period of 47-57? Yes, I’ll still work with the larger range even though it doesn’t make sense.

From what I've read elsewhere the requirement to mark goods imported to the USA with country of origin has its roots in the McKinley Tariff Act of 1890. The Act was a misguided attempt to protect US industry from foreign competitors and products which were finding their way into the US domestic market. Ultimately the whole concept proved flawed and became widely unpopular, resulting in the act lasting little more than four years. However one feature which survived the ending of tariffs was the requirement that goods made outside of the USA had to be prominently marked with their country of origin prior to their entry into the United States. An example of this can be seen on the many Fairbairn Sykes commando knives surplused by the British Government after WW2 and imported into the US. These are typically stamped "ENGLAND" on the crossguard. Similar examples can be seen with imported ceramics, e.g. marked "JAPAN".

Firearms would not have escaped this mandated compulsory origin marking and indeed there are discussions elsewhere about it in the context of English gun makers at the end of the 19th century.

I'm no exspurt but I'm also not unsure at all of what these stamps are. I've been studying this stuff for 40+ years and a licensed importer for 26 years but I digress. Desperatedan lays it out in detail. I've asked Doug to add a picture I sent him to this post when he gets to it. I found the Australian stock in my spares and took a picture of it for you. These country stamps are country of origin stamps required for import to the USA and were applied to firearms prior to 1968 when the rules and marking requirements changed as we've told you. If you think they're all stamped on perfectly straight, you'd be sadly mistaken as that simply isn't the real world. Brian

---------- Post added at 03:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:45 PM ----------

Just for clarification: The pre 1968 country of origin stamps were stamped on metal, wood, webbing, Inglis shoulder stocks, etc. I've seen Canada, England, Australia and probably a few others I can't remember. Post 1968 import marks are required by law to be stamped on the metal and what's required is outlined in my earlier posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

I found the Australian stock in my spares and took a picture of it for you.

---

Attachment 121251
(Click to Enlarge)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doca

Its not that I’m not accepting it, it’s that you seem to think its a 68+ US import for some reason.

---

I think you are confusing the pre 68 and post 68 import markings.

Pre 68 (which is the ones I;ve been refering to) ONLY required the county of origin / country it was being shipped from.

Post 68 (which you seem to be asking about as you keep asking for the 'rest of the import marks') required the Importers name, address, calibre country of origin and to ensure it had a readable serial number.

The Lee Enfields shown, marked CANADA / ENGLAND / AUSTRALIA are all pre GCA68 imports and meet the requirements of the period, BUT, they do NOT meet the post CGA requirements, hence they can only be PRE 68.

I'll leave it at that.

Country of ORIGIN was a pre-1968 requirement. Country of MANUFACTURE is a post-1968/GCA68 requirement along with the other marks you mention. It can be a bit confusing for we mere mortals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

Country of ORIGIN was a pre-1968 requirement. Country of MANUFACTURE is a post-1968/GCA68 requirement along with the other marks you mention. It can be a bit confusing for we mere mortals.

---

it is certainly confusing using English.
The country of Origin, is the country of Manufacture.


The work ORIGIN means where it originated from, the Dictionary definition being : the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived. hence the country of origin of a Savage rifle would be the USA, A BSA rifle would be ENGLAND, and a Lithgow would be AUSTRALIA.

This is not what we are seeing, with the example above of the BSA rifle marked AUSTRALIA.

I therefore suggest that either the word ORIGIN is being incorrectly applied, or ORIGIN means (irrespective of any dictionary definition) "country shipped" from on the last leg of its journey before landing in the USA

Alan, you’re trying too hard to put sense where there isn’t any. These rules and regulations are written by clueless legal types. Just think of all the crime we’re stopping. Comforting eh? Brian

PS, The BSA from Australian service shown is marked post 1968. Since it was imported from Australian stores, it got the same stamp which is technically incorrect. The rule as written is country of manufacture.

I think we would all like like the opportunity to read your sources for this new information; as a first post, that's quite an important piece!

The fact that Longbranch were only making No4Mk2 sniper rifles for the Brtisih during WW2 is incredible! That they had access to a redesign 5 years before the Brit's who invented it.
None of that is the " The Lee Enfield" book by Mr Skennerton; which, at around 600 pages; is as definitive a history of the Lee Enfield as you are likely to find!


After taking a few minutes to look at "Skennerton" book; page 319 has the production figures for Long Branch wartime listed, as noted by the Inspectorate.

No4Mk1 and Mk1* = 910,368
No4 T sniper rifle = 992
Sten 9mm = 128,238

Definitely a lot of confusion here. Doesn’t matter much. Due to the receiver etched rack number, I moved on from the otherwise beautiful one I’d scoped (almost bought it anyway and regret skipping it).

Just a few last calls before I abandon this.

1. I wasn’t confusing pre and post 68’ requirements: for some reason it just keeps being brought up. Constantly telling me there’s a difference does no good, because it does not apply to this. It does not apply to this because, since before post #1, I knew it wasn’t 68+ import because…. See posts #6 and #20.

2. Thanks for editing your post about LB production; here’s a very slim read about it: Long Branch Lee Enfield Sniper Rifles - Calibremag.ca

3. @Roger Payne and @Alan de Enfield: The English export stamp is a real thing. Ref: British Enfield Rifles, Volume 2 2nd Edition Revised, Lee-Enfield No* 4 and No* 5 Rifles, Stratton, 2003

“BRITISH EXPORT MARKS
On many No. 4 rifles (and conversions) and No. 5 rifles, one finds the word "ENGLAND" stamped in letters 0.08-inch high on the top of the receiver ring or on the left side of the buttstock socket. This indicates that the rifle was approved for export. Such rifles also generally carry the British Nitro-Proof stamp—a crown with the letters "BNP" beneath—on the barrel, the receiver ring, or both.”

My take away from this point is that the reason we don’t see Canada marked on all those English imports is because they’re not marked for import. They were marked by the Brits before they got in the boat. That must have complied enough with the sporadically adhered to US import law, I guess.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see that Australia, being a commonwealth, had something similar. Us? We destroyed what we didn’t keep or sell to other governments (NZ, India and Pakistan for sure). The next known batch of wartime produced No.4s wouldn’t have left Canadian military depots until 1954.

4. At least I now know that NZ got a pile of LB No.4s. Don’t know if AUS did, but it’s no stretch to imagine that a good chunk of the 50,000ish they imported for the NZ military (LBs are reportedly the most common still found in NZ, 2012) probably went to AUS when they retired from service in 1954, when they bought the same rifle as Canada. http://www.armsregister.com/arms_reg...field_no_4.pdf
Attachment 121738

5. @desperatrdan: Thanks, I’ll read up on the McKinley Tariff Act, but I’m still suspicious that that stamp is in fact a US import mark. However @Brian Dick, thanks for the example of a one piece Australia’s stamp, but I’m still suspicious (mainly because of above #3, last para and, random guy’s PowerPoint and unvetted internet claims mean nothing to a fact based individual).


I’m currently chasing one in England, one with a CDN out of service mark and , one with a War Assets Corp. stamp on the Knox (still researching, be kind).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doca

Just a few last calls before I abandon this.............

3. @Roger Payne and @Alan de Enfield: The English export stamp is a real thing. Ref: British Enfield Rifles, Volume 2 2nd Edition Revised, Lee-Enfield No* 4 and No* 5 Rifles, Stratton, 2003

“BRITISH EXPORT MARKS
On many No. 4 rifles (and conversions) and No. 5 rifles, one finds the word "ENGLAND" stamped in letters 0.08-inch high on the top of the receiver ring or on the left side of the buttstock socket. This indicates that the rifle was approved for export. Such rifles also generally carry the British Nitro-Proof stamp—a crown with the letters "BNP" beneath—on the barrel, the receiver ring, or both.”

My take away from this point is that the reason we don’t see Canada marked on all those English imports is because they’re not marked for import. They were marked by the Brits before they got in the boat. That must have complied enough with the sporadically adhered to US import law, I guess.

---

doca,

No disrespect but with me being a Brit in the UK I would suggest that whilst he has compiled a lot of good material, Stratton shouldn't be taken as a definitive source. It was written some years ago and in particular he is a US author referencing British/UK proof marks.

It is the law in the UK (The Gun Barrel Proof Act dating back to 1868) that any firearm offered for sale in the UK must have valid proof marks. This also applies to any firearm imported for sale. It also applies to any firearm prior to EXPORT from the UK. So all those "BNP" proof marks you see are a legal requirement before those typically British firearms you will come across over there have left these shores.

Any other marks, in particular "ENGLAND" stamps, are marks applied by the IMPORTER in the USA as required under US law. Other than proof marks, there is no British/UK legislation that requires/required the UK (England/Scotland, etc) as country of origin to be marked on firearms prior to export. It may be that within the 'no-mans land' of a bonded warehouse the marks required by the importing nation are added but there wouldn't have been any need for them to be applied by the UK exporter.

Good luck with your continuing researches.

As time goes by, more and more errors are found in ALL technical books, these include both Stratton & Skennerton, as new information comes to light with the ever increasing release of time-locked documentation, old 'well known' facts are shown to be incorrect.

This is why such as Skennerton need to release updated issues of their books, correcting previous errors (information 'correct' at the time) and adding new additional information.

Possibly one of the biggest internet myths, now corrected, is the fact that Ishapore used 'superior / better steel for their production of the 2A / 2A1 rifles'. They didn't.

I reckon 25 years in the firearms import business won't convince you that I know just a little bit about it. Just for fun I'll reiterate one more time that it's a pre-1968 export/import marking for the country of origin. Yes, it was probably done in a bonded warehouse either before or after shipment to the USA. There's nothing military about it much like post-1968 import markings or British commercial proof marks. It's very simple. End of story. Good luck in your research.

@Brian Dick: You're probably correct about the CANADA being an import stamp, but I guess as time goes by, less and less people will know because there's only verbal evidence. And no, lol, I still don't (and never will) just take the "facts" of someone random on the internet.

I found a fourth with the exact same mark. This one, like the other three, is in Canada. I guess that's the crux of the back and fourth over this; surely there must be a pile of CANADA stamped riles in the US, but I can't find any so I research and debate because, as said above, new information comes to light over time. So, being a paper trail kind of guy, with no any evidence to support the "known fact", I ran with a few other leads, with mixed results, but feel like I got a little rougher than intended with some here and, I apologise for that. I can be pretty blunt, especially when bouncing between a number of things.

The good news (for me) is that I finally located and purchased one that fits the bill; a beautiful 1943 Long Branch, supposedly originally assembled (I hate buying things unseen in person), 2 groove 1* with all CDN markings.
Scoring that, I quickly acquired a MII bayonet and scabbard, also LB and C board arrowed.

I'm looking forward to my first tear down and documentation before the introduction to its cousin(?), my E.A.L .303 (prob-poss RCAF contract, but that's a whole other unstable debate)
Scheduled for a 14 Dec arrival, I'll post appropriately once given a go over.

One can think of other scenarios in which such a stamp might be applied, such as intended exports that never were exported for some reason, or rifles overhauled for NATO (or non-NATO) allies etc. In the latter case, as so many Long Branch produced weapons remained in UK hands, among others, such a mark might have had a purpose in making clear that the weapons had been supplied from Canada, and not some other source.

As for the purported destruction of large stocks of weapons before the Korean War, I am highly skeptical. I know someone who worked in a facility in the late 1950s and into the 1960s where huge quantities of Long Branch No4s, Stens and Inglis Brens were comprehensively overhauled, refinished and repacked for supply to Turkey, Greece and probably other countries, and these were all or almost all WWII production weapons.

Yea, we exported a bunch but the War Assets Corp. destroyed WW2 surplus.

At the time of destruction, LB was still making No 4's mainly for export, as I understand it. Pakistan, India, NZ for sure ended up with thousands, but that mass exportation occurred after the CAF dumped the 4's altogether in 1954, with the issue of the C1 FN. I remember reading that 10,000 4's were sent to India, or was that Pakistan. Regardless, it fits well with your friend who saw them in the late 50's.

From what I could see, the only LBs left in England post-war were those left behind in part bins, or acquired by allied troops and likely written off.

One other thing you clipped was the NATO marking.

As I said before, the CAF has marked every rifle marked with CANADA since the FN, for sure. I see no reason why the CAF wouldn't stamp CANADA on rifles from the Korean war (UN) period. Especially if you consider that the No 4's were still the main battle rifle and that we sent less than 27,000 people, including a bunch who bunch would wouldn't be carrying a battle rifle; cooks, chaplains, officers, admin staff, machine gunners, anti-armour and the list goes on.....

While a lot of those Korean 4's could easily have been exported to the US, they'd already be marked from the UN mission. This would explain why the 4 I've found (only on Canada from BC to NS) are all marked in exactly the same place, with the same uniformity. That doesn't smell like an import stamp to me because it implies uniformity across US importers, before any was mandated. Alternatively, they were Korean wartime and never exported. In the end, who knows; I just can't conform to the impression that is an import stamp because while some personal opinion supports it, there's actual evidence that suggests more logical hypothesis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doca

From what I could see, the only LBs left in England post-war were those left behind in part bins, or acquired by allied troops and likely written off.

---

The fact that so many went through UK FTR in the 40s and 50s, including to Mk1/2 status, proves that was not the case.

Would be interested to see reproduced whatever evidence there is that War Assets Corp. destroyed large numbers of No4's etc. in the immediate postwar period. There's good evidence that large quantities of older arms were destroyed: Rosses, pre-SMLE Lee Enfields and perhaps SMLEs as well. From reports I've heard years ago, there was a surprising amount of pre-WWI weaponry still on hand even after WWII, and most of this went to the smelters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

The fact that so many went through UK FTR in the 40s and 50s, including to Mk1/2 status, proves that was not the case.

Would be interested to see reproduced whatever evidence there is that War Assets Corp. destroyed large numbers of No4's etc. in the immediate postwar period. There's good evidence that large quantities of older arms were destroyed: Rosses, pre-SMLE Lee Enfields and perhaps SMLEs as well. From reports I've heard years ago, there was a surprising amount of pre-WWI weaponry still on hand even after WWII, and most of this went to the smelters.

---

Actually, I think it suggests validation of my thought.

With no evidence to support, other than logic, I guarantee you that LB, CDN issue rifles that were damaged during the war were not sent back to Canada for repairs; they would have been repaired in British facilities. This suggests that British parts bins would have had copious amount of LB parts in part bins before the war even ended. With the end of the European theatre, it seems more likely that broken/damaged CDN issue rifles would end up in British parts bins rather than shipping them back to Canada, who wasn't interested in refurbishing or storing WW2 hardware.

So yes, I'd expect there to be thousands of LB parts and, many hundreds of LB receivers, laying about British FTR facilities because something else on the rifle wasn't up to standard before the war ended.

After the war, no one is digging though bins to find Canadian parts for shipment back home so, I'd expect that they'd just get written off in the same manner as the ones that may one day be found somewhere in Europe under a foot or two of soil.

Sure thing (I'm surprised no one googled it already, but maybe someone did and that's why the heat dropped); note that it references correspondence between the WAC VP, H.R Malley and RCMP Commissioner, S.T Wood. It's not much, but it's the only pen-to-paper in this, or my other thread.
https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewconten...72&context=etd

"Since Malley?s attempt at liberalizing selling restrictions for service rifles failed
and no legitimate international clients were found, the WAC had no other choice except
to underwrite the cost of destruction. Whenever firearms were destroyed detailed
procedures were employed to ensure that the weapons were confined to specific
localities, sufficiently mutilated, and that the destruction process actually took place (so
no weapons mysteriously vanished). Surplus weapons in the hands of the WAC were all
destroyed in a similar fashion as the stock of 8,000 machine guns ?of various types in
storage at Lauzon and St. Johns, Quebec? that Malley mentioned in his 30 August letter
to Wood (82). ... All small arms declared surplus were mutilated under the supervision of a WAC
representative.

82-Ibid, H. R. Malley to S. T. Wood, 30 August 1947."

The document refers to some private sales, but that does not tie that mark to a US import stamp. If I found 400 with that mark, that would make a difference. I've only found 4 and I'd be interested in finding the US citizen(s) with such a connection at the WAC that they were able to acquire a handful on their own.

What is your documentation for the purported destruction of rifles? Never read that, never heard that, not once. You ask for "proof". Let's see yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doca

Yea, we exported a bunch but the War Assets Corp. destroyed WW2 surplus.

At the time of destruction, LB was still making No 4's mainly for export, as I understand it. Pakistan, India, NZ for sure ended up with thousands, but that mass exportation occurred after the CAF dumped the 4's altogether in 1954, with the issue of the C1 FN. I remember reading that 10,000 4's were sent to India, or was that Pakistan. Regardless, it fits well with your friend who saw them in the late 50's.

From what I could see, the only LBs left in England post-war were those left behind in part bins, or acquired by allied troops and likely written off.

One other thing you clipped was the NATO marking.

As I said before, the CAF has marked every rifle marked with CANADA since the FN, for sure. I see no reason why the CAF wouldn't stamp CANADA on rifles from the Korean war (UN) period. Especially if you consider that the No 4's were still the main battle rifle and that we sent less than 27,000 people, including a bunch who bunch would wouldn't be carrying a battle rifle; cooks, chaplains, officers, admin staff, machine gunners, anti-armour and the list goes on.....

While a lot of those Korean 4's could easily have been exported to the US, they'd already be marked from the UN mission. This would explain why the 4 I've found (only on Canada from BC to NS) are all marked in exactly the same place, with the same uniformity. That doesn't smell like an import stamp to me because it implies uniformity across US importers, before any was mandated. Alternatively, they were Korean wartime and never exported. In the end, who knows; I just can't conform to the impression that is an import stamp because while some personal opinion supports it, there's actual evidence that suggests more logical hypothesis.

---