My 43' LB - First (ever?) Teardown

Got my 43 over the weekend and I never expected to find one looking so flawless, but with two unanticipated markings. Also, I've never disassembled a rifle that was so damn snug before. I'm not dumb enough to believe it, but it's like it was never taken down before.

Not seen in the pics are LB marks on the trigger, barrel bands, bolt, bolt head, front sight, trigger guard, safety and barrel and, C broad arrow on Canadian Mk 3 rear sight and butt plate. I'm sure I missed a few

Also, paired with a Mk II bayonet, marked with LB and broad arrow C, living in a British, carbon encrusted scabbard.

More talk alter; bring on the (before cleanup) pics:

Attachment 121939
Attachment 121940
Attachment 121941
Attachment 121942
Attachment 121943
Attachment 121944 odd, huh?
Attachment 121945
Attachment 121946
Attachment 121947

Forgot to add this pic: Any ideas what's the very centered G2 is all about? There's also a G on the barrel.

Attachment 121949
Attachment 121948

Note post #1, pic #4; the one with a Canadian Arsenals Ltd. stamp.
I wonder if this is one of the 70,000 from a cancelled order, ref: https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=36140

Canadian Arsenals Limited.—This company was established under the Companies Act
by Letters Patent dated Sept. 20, 1945 and is subject to the Government Companies Operation
Act (RSC 1952, c. 133) and certain provisions ot the Financial Administration Act (RSC 1952,
c. 116). The company was set up to take over and operate Crown-owned plants and equipment.
It manufactures small arms and ammunition components and has extensive facilities for the filling
and assembly ot artillery ammunition, mines, bombs, grenades, rockets and other specialties up
to torpedo warheads. Its Divisions, together with the locations of their plants, are as follows:
Small Arms Division (Long Branch, Ont.) and Filling Division (St. Paul I'Ermite, Que.). The
company reports to Parliament through the Minister of Defence Production

I hope you read up on the proper disassembly procedure, especially removing the forend. It's all here in Peter Laidler's articles. I see rifles from so many newbies with the draws shagged because of improper disassembly. Working on an ROF(F) No.4Mk.2 "as we speak" that is one of them. The new owner just had to tear it down, sand the **** out of it, apply lovely Midway poly finish and then install it incorrectly. I stripped the plastic banana finish and have restored it with raw linseed oil but the forend is totally out of whack and they aren't worth a crap with an ill fitting forend. Sometimes it's best to leave them alone.

Your rifle strikes me as a Greek return. Much like the 200 or so LB No.4's I imported in 2001. None had any distinct Greek ownership marks but did sport commercial British proofs since they were purchased by a British company prior to export back to Canada. Some had stickers on the sides of the butts with the names and addresses of the Greek reserve soldiers to whom they were issued. The bolt has definitely been replaced in service and renumbered legitimately so it's seen some use. The CAL mark was probably applied after inspection there prior to it's export to Greece or possibly another European nation. Canada supplied these rifles to other nations well into the 1960's.

---------- Post added at 05:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:03 PM ----------

Might be Turks Jim! :lol:

The only issue I had was that everything was so tightly put together. Had no issues with the forend, but took extra care with the barrel bands.
It was very easy, but I do have a copy of the Canadian Forces manuals for reference:

1. PARTS IDENTIFICATION LIST; RIFLE, .303 CALIBRE, LEE ENFIELD, No 4, ALL MARKS
2. EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION; RIFLE, .303 CALIBRE, LEE ENFIELD, No 4,ALL MARKS
3. FIRST LINE MAINTENANCE INSTRUCTIONS; RIFLE, .303 CALIBRE, LEE ENFIELD, No 4, ALL MARKS

There's no indication that it was a Greek return because there are no foreign marks, at all. I've also read that the Greeks would serial the magazine; it's not there either. While it's good to be aware of it while I continue research, there's currently no evidence to suggest it ever left Canada.
The only kicker is that G2 and the mystery "O" or "Q" off on its own. If anyone has a resources regarding this, it would be much appreciated.

Lol, yeah I kinda thought moose/deer or perfect target shooting or something.
I get marking war kills on a rifle (almost always by people who shouldn't be bragging), but is it normal for people to mark a firearm with hunting kills?

Why do you think the bolt has be re-numbered? here's a better pic.

Attachment 121996

Take the time to read Peter's articles listed on this site about working these rifles.

Greek and other European returns don't necessarily have any foreign markings as i said and not all Greek rifles had the magazines numbered although the majority do. The magazine could have also been replaced.

I make the observation having inspected several hundred Long Branch No.4's over many years. The font is different than what it left the factory with, (look at the serial number on the butt socket), and the rear side of the bolt body looks like it's been filed and renumbered. This is common and correct for a rifle that's been worked on in service. Is it a Long Branch bolt body? I can't really tell from your pictures. Your rifle would have likely had a Mk.2 flip sight as original so it's been through workshops a time or two for sure. I still sense a European return. It's a nice, honest rifle IMHO.

---------- Post added at 09:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 AM ----------

I'm not sure what the "O" and "G2" are. Guessing they are inspectors stamps used during production.

If you look carefully you can see the direction of the original machining marks on the surface of the bolt body that bears the serial number. They 'go' in a different direction to the file/linish marks applied to lose the original number at the time that the replacement number (of your rifle) was applied. As Brian said, the size & font of the digits is also very different to those used by Long Branch. The blueing doesn't appear to match either, which isn't surprising. But as mentioned, it's a nice rifle & it's all part of its history.

I'm glad you brought up the metal finish Roger. My guess is it was dip blued in Greek service. I had several wartime dated LB rifles in the load from CO that had the dark blue dip finish. I've also seen 1903 Springfields out of Greek service from the CMP with the same finish. It's not the original Dulite blue which wasn't too durable in wartime service. I think the Greek Armourers who were trained by the British and Commonwealth just stripped them, cleaned and degreased the metal and dropped them in the bath. Long Branch started Parkerizing in 1950 in the 93L serial range and rifles that saw post Korea FTR at CAL were Parkerized. You'll find a mixture of blue and Parkerized small parts on them. One of my favorite shooters is a 1942 with 2 groove barrel and CAL Parkerized finish. It's marked with the "C- Broad Arrow" ownership mark on the right side of the butt only and was imported from Canada by Century Arms.

I'll definitely be getting more familiar with docs, now that I have hands on a true No.4.

I've seen a references about other LBs making it back, but all of them had some sort of non-factory marks. Just to be clear about marks; there are none that don't belong on a wartime LB, CDN issue No4, less the multiple CAs. I was actually surprised to see how my parts have LB on them, including the magazine. Most of them were removed from my EAL.

Regarding the CMK3 sight; Everything I've seen tells me that it's expected on 1942-1943 produced LB's.

I'd actually seen the bolt handle machining, but was oblivious to the font, lol. Stil not impossible that it was marked with different dies, but lol, highly unlikely. I can also make out what may be the surviving curve of an "0".
Everything about the bolt, including the handle (and chunky head), is marked LB. Here's the pics I have access to, at work:
Attachment 122008
Attachment 122009

Speaking of pics.... I no longer think the 4 marks are deer/moose kills; unless these two on the inside are about unlicensed kills.

Attachment 122011

Greece, maybe, sure and why not, but there is nothing that suggests that its true. Other reading I've done talk about the Greek 4's coming through Belgium (all of them somehow marked) and being British Enfields, less those references on this site by the same folks speaking of it here. Also, I've only noted one importer of Greek 4's, a US importer and as we know.... the whole thing would be marked up if that occurred.

I'll have to dig into export records to see if/what/when we sent them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

Long Branch started Parkerizing in 1950 in the 93L serial range

---

This fits as well, because there are no parts or marks that suggest anything other than LB and, if it was redone at LB 1950+, they'd probably have CA stamped and parkerized it.

The best part is that none of us will ever know for sure.. unless I can figure out that G2, maybe.

Lots made it back. All of the Greek returns I had sported British commercial proofs on the barrels since they were sold by Charnwood Ordnance. None had any other Greek markings other than the odd stickers I mentioned before. The more i look at yours, the more I'm convinced it's a Greek or other European nation return.

I've never seen a C Mk.3 sight on a factory original 1943 Long Branch. There were two earlier stamped Canadian variants. One mismarked Mk.II and the other marked Mk.III that are original on some LB 1944-45 production rifles. I have two 1944 rifles with the mismarked variant and one 1945 with the latter. You can tell the Canadian made stamped sights because the base fits all the way across the body unlike the British ones that have a washer to fill the gap. CAL replaced the Mk.2 flip sights with the later C Mk.3 post 1950 if memory serves. They were standard on the 1949 and 1950 production rifles.

The cocking piece and bolt head are LB but is the bolt body? Maybe so or maybe not but it's still a legit replacement as done in an Armourer's workshop regardless.

WW2 surplus of Canadian Enfields were stored by the War Assets Crop until late Sep 1947 when they were sent for destruction.Quite specifically because of not having buyers (guess the Brits and Yanks unloaded first). Seeing as the reason Greece bought a bunch of surplus rifles was for the Greek civil war, 1944-1949, it’s not possible because the remaining CDN 4’s were in active armories until the end of the Korean War, when they were replaced by the C1. These 4’s were then distributed to the Rangers en-mass, and remaining other thousands(?) were sold…post 1954.

Much later edit: I’d really appreciate if crackpot theories were to be avoided. First the swear up and down that it was British (other thread with the IMPORT mark you can’t prove, can’t show examples of and for which the 4 I have found aren’t even in the US- guess where they are) and now its Greek. Neither have evidence to support and if anyone has it, pony up. I love crow sandwiches…. provided that I learn.

I’ve never even heard a of a two piece bolt body. Sounds really flimsy to separate the cocking handle from the rest of it. Can’t imagine what would happen over time as the unbalanced pull rips at the pin. Otherwise, you’ve already seen it, to the left of the SN, post #8.

This C MK3 are easy to tell from the British one because it’s marked CMK3. Here’s a bit from Stratton; note the C MK3, used at Long Branch 1943-1944.
Attachment 122015

@browningautorifle Lol, ok, big guy. Tell me why there’s two marks on the inside of the hand guard, identical to the four marks on outside of the same piece. Now, do you understand why I don’t just buy garbage? - there’s speculation, then theres assuming and regurgitating fact without evidence; guess which one I run into lot of here. Hope the above stated facts didn’t offend anyone.

I never intended for this to begin how it did. Started off great. A few pics, a nice exchange about being sure I was handling it well. Then it went off the rails with this guy at post #16. Sorry for questioning you on something I’d first agreed was likely, but quickly had seconds thoughts because it no longer made sense. Seriously, who shows off their kills on the inside of a forestock and if that’s not it, why do they match the ones on the outside?

I disliked the direction this thread took since post #6, it wasn’t what this thread was intended for. Regardless, I’ll still dig for solutions to the spin class that followed and post relevant findings to the Greek question, and any other development with this specific rifle. With evidence closing the sight matter, I thank you for no longer contributing to the speculation, Jim and whoever else doesn’t like questions, facts or rebuttal.

Hi Doca, We're here trying to help you in the study of your rifle. I've tried and tried to tell you what I know, (it's not speculation), from the experience of handling more than one or two Long Branch No.4's during my time in this trade and before to be honest. I also have a reference collection here of at least one of each date and duplicates of several plus snipers, etc.. I've collected Long Branch No.4 rifles and Inglis No.2 pistols for more years than I care to admit now. I am a US importer who brought in 200 of the Greek owned Long Branch rifles back in 2001 as I've stated but you either aren't reading my posts carefully or just don't want to believe what my and others' opinions and facts are. Guess what? Many rifles have been exported from Canada to the USA and then reexported back to England, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Europe. Guess how I know? I've been an exporter since 1997! Some of the folks reading this around the world own and shoot these rifles as purchased directly from me in years past as well as from other dealers in the UK I've done exports for. I'll give you some advice if you choose to take it. Set Stratton's little book back on the shelf because it's full of mistakes as you were told before by AdE in the last fiasco of a thread and buy a real book like Skennerton's "The Lee Enfield". I think I mentioned it before too. No book is perfect but it's the definitive read if you think you want to collect rifles of the Lee Enfield pedigree. The $100 you'll spend on it is well worth it. Buy one of the Small Arms ID Series booklets on the No.4 rifle too, also from http://www.skennerton.com. It includes the real Illustrated Parts catalogue. Then you will understand the nomenclatures of the parts your rifle is comprised of, (including the bolt assembly). Anyhow, I'm not trying to offend anyone here. I stick to every bit of what I've said about your rifle and still think it's an honest example that's seen service in multiple Armies and been worked on just like 99.9% of the No.4's out there. All the best. Brian, (aka: random internet guy crackpot!)

It's not that I don't appreciate help, but I don't appreciate speculation presented as fact because of what comes down to "I said so".

When I ask for references and evidence, only to be provided with 'I'm experienced' or 'I'm an expert', it means nothing because that person's experience or expertise may be based on someone else's falsehoods. When unable to provide substantiation for input, it's value is naught and, the longer and louder that person (and friends) scream about how correct they are, without passing any real evidence to support it, the less credible they appear.

I can do a lot of work on my vehicles, but should anyone take my word on driveway maintenance/repair, or should I provide them a document? A brake job is the same on a Mazda as it is on a Ford, right? Well, no, it's not. So, if I tell someone how to do a brake job on a Mazda, when they have a Ford, they'll at least use the wrong fluid and my knowledge is labeled as garbage, even though I was correct. However, if I show them the mazda service manual, they might identify that for its the wrong vehicle and that can be corrected.

The biggest difference between the above example and this rifle discussion is that a vehicle's brake job is easily researchable and, doesn't have such a muddy and mysterious history as these firearms.

I am reading your posts, you have many and I can't find all the relevant ones, and that's part of the problem. From what I've found, it's all your word and no facts to support. I'm just the only guy to not put up with it. You have many posts so, gimme a break and point to significant posts where evidence is supplied.

I'm very aware that firearms, just like other goods, don't only go one place. However, that does not mean they all bounce around the world before ending up near where they began. To assume such a thing is reckless, just as its reckless to 100% identify this No 4 as having been a Greek rifle based on colour alone, when Canada didn't sell any to them. I'm still digging though export data to make sure, but you'd think it would be as easy to find as the others.

If you go back to the other debacle of a thread, you'll see the reference for the University of Winnipeg. I'd already mentioned this publication, but within it you'll find a reference for letters between the RCMP Commissioner and the WAC VP. A letter, dated 30 Aug 1947, states:

"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."

ref:[url="https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?

So, if Canada destroyed all those declared surplus, beginning Oct 1947, how did we export wartime produced rifles to Greece for their 1944-1949 civil war? We have seen British FTR w/LB parts in Greece, but that also speaks to my comment in the other thread about why so many LB parts were in British bins.

In short: Canada didn't send rifles back across the Atlantic for repair during wartime, because it's dumb; they'd go to British facilities, get torn down and rebuilt with other British parts. The same probably would have happened to those returning damaged when the European theatre closed; why ship broken guns we don't need or want? In reality, no one is going to dig through bins to find CDN parts (from furniture to receivers and everything in between) to repatriate post-war; that's why there are/were so many LB parts and FTR'd rifles in England, a country, BTW, who everyone knows sold many 4's to Greece.

According to another research paper, Canada did sell a bunch, to India and Pakistan for military use. India (unknown number) and Pakistan (100,000) didn't request to purchase any until late 1948, but were soon approved for sale.
ref:https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/handle/1880/111845/ucalgary_2020_montagnes_joel.pdf?sequence=2

However, we also know that LB produced new No 4's for a number of years after the war, and probably FTR'd CAF's until the FN's came.

The above forces a few conclusions:

1. Those declared WW2 surplus were destroyed in Oct 1947+.
2. Those declared CDN surplus after the initial destruction may have ended up in
a. India
b. Pakistan
3. India and Pakistan must have received newly produced LBs, at least amongst any lingering WW2 era rifles.

However, we also know that these Pakistan and India exports were marked, because there's many traced examples. Also, thinking about it, there's a post here about LB production numbers and the math does not work. If we sent 100,000 to Pakistan alone in 1948-1949, where did the ones come from to go to Greece and what about all the post-war, LB productions that went to NZ?

Do me a favour; I assume you have Skennerton's book, crop out what it says about the C MK3 and post it as a reference note. I can work with that, but until then its no more than a Get Along Gang scenario where the guy who disagrees get shamed by the rest until he complies, for right or wrong.

For the record:

1. I saw the bolt handle resurfacing, but wanted to see what reaction I'd get by asking. Why? Because of the characteristics of my other thread.

2. I don't think you, as an individual (or anyone else here) actually is a crackpot. The theory itself is crackpot, less evidence. Evidence of which my particular 4 carries none of, pending the "G2". I think cracking that nut will open the doors.

Page 312 of the chapter on North American production. I can sell you a copy of the book if you like as i still have a couple left in stock from Ian's last visit here. Merry Christmas.

Brian

Pictures not visible?

Since limpetmine is asking, this about the Canadian sheet steel fabricated rear sights from "The Lee Enfield" by Ian Skennerton. I'm not going to break the back of my copy scanning it.

"The Canadian patterns were developed late in 1943, and the following year samples were forwarded to England; the alternatives were approved and incorporated into Canadian production. A pressed steel buttplate was also approved as an alternative for Canadian production and changes were made to fittings such as the foresight protectors, trigger guard, safety catch and upper and lower bands."

To put it simply: There ain't a snowball's chance in Hell that a CMk.3 sight was fitted on doca's rifle at the factory in 1943. Besides, if you look at the back of the leaf, it will have the post 1946 CAL stamp, not the wartime LB stamp. Check it out.

My observations of factory original wartime rifles with Canadian stamped rear sights that I own.

1. 1944 71L0808 - Mk.III, (early mismarked Mk.II)
2. 1944 78L7814 - Mk.III, (early mismarked Mk.II)
3. 1945 87L4573 - Mk.III
4. 1949 91L0950 - Mk.III
5. 1949 91L2448 CMk.3 - six groove rifling
6. 1950 93L2531 CMk.3 - six groove rifling
7. 1950 94L8015 CMk.3

The majority of the Greek owned rifles I imported from England via Canada were 1950 dated along with many like doca's that had been through workshops and repaired. Your CMk.3 sight was a replacement as doca's rifle originally had a Mk.II 300-600 yard flip sight as I already said. All of my factory original 1942 and 1943 rifles are fitted with the simple Mk.II. My single 1941 sn. 0L880 has a Canadian Mk.1 rear sight. It's pretty obvious that Canada sold rifles to the Greeks during the Korean war, possibly even later along with spare parts to maintain them. Doca's was repaired/rebuilt in overseas workshops. No one seems to know exactly where as it's been discussed on this forum long before these threads. I lean towards Greek workshops but could be wrong. That's why doca's has a renumbered bolt body, replacement rear sight and dip blue finish instead of CAL Parkerizing. As a note of interest, the Greek Armourers were trained by REME and RCEME. They shared workshops as British and Commonwealth soldiers do. I don't need some reference material to tell me that because all I have to do is look at the quality of the work which is generally fantastic. You also see these type British/Commonwealth repairs on Springfields and M1 Rifles returned from Greek stores that were sold off by the Civilian Marksmanship Program here in the USA.

doca, I realize that you desperately want your 1943 Long Branch No.4Mk.1* to be a factory original, Canadian owned and marked rifle. If it doesn't sport the "C-Broad Arrow" ownership mark, (not the little ones on all of the small parts and wood), on top of the breech or right side of the buttstock, it simply isn't so. I have two of them here both 1942. One that's pretty much original but worked on, (God forbid), that's marked both on top of the breech and on the side of buttstock. The other is a CAL FTR, Parkerized and only marked on the side of the buttstock. As I think I said before, CF owned rifles are scarce because the Army is and always was small.

I'm ready for incoming. I have my Canadian Mk.II (?), (can't remember as I'm not a helmet collector), helmet ready doca. I don't care if you buy the book from me or not but BUY THE BOOK. These guys are tired of me preaching about buying books. You've got a good 30-50 years of catching up to do to many here. The only reason I'm feeding you is because you're a Canadian like me. Well, I'm an American now but my birth certificate says Ontario, Canada!

Brian

PS, I have two cousins buried in Europe. One in France and the other in Belgium. Both were Canadian Army, one Infantry and the other Armour from SW Ontario, Kent and Essex counties. Both were killed in 1944. There's a reason for my study of these things since my teen years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

I hope you read up on the proper disassembly procedure, especially removing the forend. It's all here in Peter Laidler's articles.

---

Hi, Brian.

I know I've seen the disassembly instructions somewhere. I looked at the index of Peter Laidler's articles but nothing jumped out at me as being disassembly / forend-specific instructions. I've set up a folder where I dump potentially useful articles, but I don't see it in my own folder either. Pardon the dumb question, but which article is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wernher von Beige

Hi, Brian.

I know I've seen the disassembly instructions somewhere. I looked at the index of Peter Laidler's articles but nothing jumped out at me as being disassembly / forend-specific instructions. I've set up a folder where I dump potentially useful articles, but I don't see it in my own folder either. Pardon the dumb question, but which article is it?

---

It was a multi-page document 'fitting a forend', of which is probably the key instruction :


DO NOT LIFT THE FORE-END AWAY AT THE MUZZLE. Not now, not tomorrow, not EVER. It is only EVER tapped free downwards, at the rear, by finger pressure or tapping it downwards and free with a wooden drift against the top left and right edges of the fore-end. Thus, releasing it from the grip of the draws and the butt socket. This should tell you something. If your fore-end can be rotated free by lifting it away at the muzzle, then it’s well and truly shagged. That’s another REME technical term this time, meaning ‘ ….somewhat worn out!’

Go to Peter Laidler's articles and find the ones on wood fitting and forend fitting which is most important. Enjoy and learn.

Looks like the site lost all my pics with that update, last month.

I've been searching to support the theories presented here, and so far have nothing. The only reason I'm writing today is to address a few things I read this morning and to re-state some facts.


1. "doca, I realize that you desperately want your 1943 Long Branch No.4Mk.1* to be a factory original, Canadian owned and marked rifle."

- You're still misunderstanding the situation. The issue has never been a want, it's been about unsubstantiated claims of provenance, based on speculation, misdirecting errors and misinformation, by members of this forum.

- I have some bad news for you. With all parts accurate to a LB assembled No 4, and lots of Canadian ownership marks, only (see number two, below), it is an original factory, post-war CAL FTR, with no links to export, because there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Don't worry, I'll blow your mind about the Greeks further below.

- So, do we now all understand why this statement was inaccurate? Good. Now stop misleading readers.


2. " If it doesn't sport the "C-Broad Arrow" ownership mark, (not the little ones on all of the small parts and wood), on top of the breech or right side of the buttstock, it simply isn't so."

- How many times do I have to tell you or show you that it has the C broad arrow in all the correct spots, including the buttstock, receiver, barrel, front sight, bolt and more and, there are no other identification marks anywhere, less previously identified LB and CA marks, and the mysterious "G 2", as previously stated and as seen in the posted pictures of post number one and two, in addition to the typical inspector and Canadian proof marks..

3. "Page 312 of the chapter on North American production. I can sell you a copy of the book"

- US law permits the sharing of this compartmentalized information from the source document for publication here, under the terms of fair use.

- I'm not paying you to backup your own claim, but I do have to wonder why my reference, references your reference as a "technical reviewer of the final manuscript", but apparently got it wrong. In short: your reference gave the thumbs up to my reference and, if my reference is wrong, your reference can't be accurate.
Attachment 123320

- The good news is that you don't have to scan it. Just take a digital photograph.

4. "Besides, if you look at the back of the leaf, it will have the post 1946 CAL stamp, not the wartime LB stamp."

- Thankfully, the point I was making had nothing to do with the original assembly; it was about the correct sight for the 1943 production date.

- All my sources state that the C MKIII was first used in 1943; I've seen no statements to the otherwise, beyond your posts here. Mine clearly was not 1943 because there is a CA stamp on the sight, which means it's production was after 20 Sep, 1945. Note that I never said 100% original assembly; even in post one I suggested it was a stupid concept.

5. I'm not even bothering to ask for evidence of the following, but I will follow-up each with a brief statement:

a. "... as doca's rifle originally had a Mk.II 300-600 yard flip sight as I already said"

- Speculation. You've provided no evidence to support, and my published evidence identifies the C MK3 rear sight was used in 43-44 LB No4. Mk1* production. Again, your reference was as a technical reviewer for my reference.

b. "It's pretty obvious that Canada sold rifles to the Greeks during the Korean war"

- Either Canada did or Canada didn't. Pick one and stand by it.

- I've found no record of such, but I have found a pile of LB No4's, FTR'd from UK part pins, that were sold under the well documented British sales to Greece, during the civil war.

- I've also found New Zealand, Indian and Pakistani sales in the 1950's, but all of these firearms are expected to have obvious signs and again, mine has no signs of exportation, period.

c. "Doca's was repaired/rebuilt in overseas workshops"

- Speculation based on no evidence and, contrary to all existing evidence.

d. "That's why doca's has a renumbered bolt body, replacement rear sight and dip blue finish instead of CAL Parkerizing."

- We already know it was reworked by Canadian Arsenals Ltd, after 20 Sep 1945, just I always said.

- Sorry... blue finish? I have a wonderfully blue EAL 303, but guess again. The receiver was clearly parkerized using either magnese or iron phosphate because it's very dark grey, or actually black. I don't know where to draw the line between a very dark grey and black.

- Does it not make sense that when it was CAL FTR'd, its likely that's when the bolt and sight were replaced and, is it not less likely that it was done by some foreign location that just happens to have boxes of LB parts, and only uses LB parts on a LB firearm?

- Brian, in post nine you said, "Long Branch started Parkerizing in 1950". We know it was reworked post-war; lacking evidence of border hopping and FTR date, it was more likely done in Toronto than Athens, circa 1950 (if you're correct on that year). The observation is supported by your own statement in post 12, "CAL replaced the Mk.2 flip sights with the later C Mk.3 post 1950 if memory serves." Regardless of sight production dates, does it really not make sense to you that if LB was post-war FTR'ing, they would have dipped it at the same time? It does to me.

In summary:

- We've always known it was reworked post-war. I just assume all at LB because almost everything is marked as LB or Canadian owned and, there isn't a single characteristic to suggest otherwise. Maybe there's a screw that isn't from Toronto, but the only country I know that even bothers with inspection marks on screws, was the Germans.

- There are broad arrow C, LB and CA marks everywhere one would expect to find them. I'll need to tear it down again, but I was surprised at how many small parts have LB on them.

- There are no non-Canadian marks on it, whatsoever.

- While there is actual evidence to suggest a (reasonably) cozy domestic life, there is no evidence suggesting an exciting international experience or mass parts-bin refurb. Why? Because the only markings that distinguish it from 100% war time assembly are the CA stamps, clearly applied later, below the Canadian government ownership broad arrows on the butt stock and forestock, and the post-20 Sep 1945 rear sight. Otherwise, it barely has a scratch.


Bottom Line

My No 4 was Canadian military issue rifle, in whole, until sent for refurb post-war. Then it got a new bolt and rear sight, packerized and stamped with the Canadian Arsenals Ltd mark. That's all anyone can currently prove about this particular rifle. For all we know, based on visual wear, it was one of a refurb done by the Canadian military, who then stored it. Who knows, but I do know there is no evidence to suggest it ever left Canada so, stop making it up.

- - -

Look; I just wanted to share a cool piece of history, learn some more and enjoy one of my few passions. All your information about these firearms may be accurate, but you need to understand that there are multiple reasons why any one particular rifle may be what it is today. I'm just asking you to deal with the facts are they are available.

I've presented a logical argument based on facts, to counter hearsay as forum members try to pigeonhole this particular rifle to a story that even they cannot validate. I don't care if you don't agree, but you should care that so far I can discredit all your fantasies.

- - -

P.S. I also have a lead on the mystery "G 2" stamp on the wrist. I don't like it because it's as thin as a bowl of gulag soup however, it is suggestive of what it is, rather then where it was and who carried it. My research also suggests that the soup my be a little thicker due the geolocation of other period Enfields marked "G 1" and "G 2", but you know, speculation. At least I own it.

If anyone has information about similarly G stamped WWII era-firearms, specifically current and service location, make/model and anything you may know about it, I'd really appreciate it. If its speculation, please just be clear because I don't want to replicate my experiences here.

Hi Doca, Go ahead and believe whatever you want to. Most here already have you pegged as a troll and won't waste their time commenting. I've tried to pass along many years of experience, (something you have no respect for obviously), along with the excerpt from Skennerton's chapter on North American production about the sights. Buy a real book please. It's time to graduate from the beginner's booklet. FYI: I just finished servicing another '42 date Greek owned Long Branch for a client in New Hampshire. Another nice, honest rifle in excellent condition that's been around the block a bit. It's a Century Arms import, serial number 6L0570. It's been overhauled at CAL, has a six groove C Mk.4 barrel installed and Parkerized finish. The only mark added is the "51" stamped on the barrel which is typical of CAL FTR. The Greek soldier scratched his name in the buttstock too which is pretty hard to discount. It has no Canadian ownership marks and the only non Long Branch parts fitted are a British lower band and Savage safety. All Parkerized with the tell tale dark grey manganese phosphate CAL was famous for. Your claim that your rifle never left Canada strikes me the same as the statements of being "unfired" or "unissued" that we hear/read frequently from people who are clueless. You'll find this is very seldom the case with military rifles. Brian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limpetmine

Pictures not visible?

---

Much else is though...:rolleyes: