Fake Long Branch No.4’s??

I have recently started following the firearm auctions (Canada) through Icollector in an attempt to collect more “stuff” I probably don’t need!
On a few occasions I have come across No.4 rifles with somewhat strange (to me) markings. The “Long Branch”, date, etc. markings on the receiver seem to have been CNC engraved as opposed to stamped like the originals. The configuration of these markings was just off enough to make me take a second look. They seem to be selling for top dollar like the rest. Are these the real deal or are there some shenanigans going on?

PS, people seem to be paying crazy money for Enfield rifles (and other milsurps) in these auctions. Just auction frenzy or am I missing something?

It's impossible to comment on either the value or validity of any particular firearm with seeing pictures of them. Could you post some links to the rifles in question?

I was reluctant to post a link in case I was mistaken. Don’t want to make any false accusations!
Here’s one that is up for sale now.
https://www.icollector.com/1944-Long...hest_i50082278

Note that there is no serial number on the butt socket. That rifle was set up using one of the numerous stripped and refinished receivers that have been floating around for years. It is a parts gun. It isn't a fake in the sense that falsification of markings was done.
The markings have been applied using a pantograph style engraving machine, and are correct. I cannot explain the pairs of punch marks on the sidewall of the receiver and on the butt socket. Note that the bolt has a No. 4 .303 serial number.
Barry Langille was a long time DCRA/PRA competitor. I am sure that he was able to source quality parts.
In all likelihood the rifle - and others - were set up with the PH5C sights to allow for small bore practice in preparation for fullbore competition. Or, they may have been set up simply as interesting projects. I have done the same, although I have not been lucky enough to acquire original No. 7 barrels, and have had to make do with .303 barrels with .22 liners installed. I do have one I bought years ago which was assembled with a No. 7 barrel - essentially like this one although in lesser condition.
So, the markings are not spurious, recently applied fakes intended to deceive. The rifle appears to have been assembled using all Long Branch parts. It is, no doubt, a quality shooter, and is a representative specimen of a Canadian training rifle. What it is not is a rifle originally assembled in 1944.

It's legit. There were three styles of stampings for the Canadian No.4's converted to .22. The one shown is the Type 1 as classified by collectors, there were 4,237 made in 1944 with another 2,983 completed in early 1945 and yes, different fonts were used. It appears to be missing all the kit that went with it but still, highly collectable. Expect it to go for a lot more than the current bid.

In the same auction, look at Item #57. It was set up on an unnumbered receiver as well.
The British rifles converted to .22 were probably intact .303s rebarreled to .22, not parts guns.

https://www.icollector.com/Non-Restr...bl-l_i49859780

Here is another example from a past auction. This is the one that originally got my attention. It’s supposedly a No4 “T”.
Serial number seems incorrect for the year. 0L**** should be earlier than 1944. Same engraved font on the receiver as the above mentioned .22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiriaq

Note that there is no serial number on the butt socket. That rifle was set up using one of the numerous stripped and refinished receivers that have been floating around for years. It is a parts gun. It isn't a fake in the sense that falsification of markings was done.
The markings have been applied using a pantograph style engraving machine, and are correct. I cannot explain the pairs of punch marks on the sidewall of the receiver and on the butt socket. Note that the bolt has a No. 4 .303 serial number.
Barry Langille was a long time DCRA/PRA competitor. I am sure that he was able to source quality parts.
In all likelihood the rifle - and others - were set up with the PH5C sights to allow for small bore practice in preparation for fullbore competition. Or, they may have been set up simply as interesting projects. I have done the same, although I have not been lucky enough to acquire original No. 7 barrels, and have had to make do with .303 barrels with .22 liners installed. I do have one I bought years ago which was assembled with a No. 7 barrel - essentially like this one although in lesser condition.
So, the markings are not spurious, recently applied fakes intended to deceive. The rifle appears to have been assembled using all Long Branch parts. It is, no doubt, a quality shooter, and is a representative specimen of a Canadian training rifle. What it is not is a rifle originally assembled in 1944.

---

Tiriaq is as usual right on the mark.

The dots on either side of 1944 are weird...

---------- Post added at 05:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:51 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunderstreak

https://www.icollector.com/Non-Restr...bl-l_i49859780

Here is another example from a past auction. This is the one that originally got my attention. It’s supposedly a No4 “T”.
Serial number seems incorrect for the year. 0L**** should be earlier than 1944. Same engraved font on the receiver as the above mentioned .22

---

Both the LongBranch "No4t" and the "L42" in that auction are totally fake - and would probably only fool someone with very limited knowledge...hopefully?

There was a real C.No7 and a real No4T later in the auction.

The T is an obvious clone and not an original sniper

0L5555 would be a 1941 rifle, and a No. 4 Mk 1 (no star).
This rifle is made of whole cloth, with a $199 repop scope case and a Chinesium knock off scope. Buyer beware.

Yes, 0L5555 would be a Mk. I rifle made in the autumn of 1941.
If a rifle's receiver was scrapped, its serial number might be applied to a new replacement receiver, so it could be possible for a Mk. I* rifle with a post -1941 date to have a serial number from an earlier rifle.
That is not the case with that auction prize though. Sure hope the buyer was happy with the $3750 plus commission, plus tax that he paid. Including delivery, the total would be scaring 5 grand. Putting together a quality representative specimen from components gathered from here and there isn't cheap these days, but the better part of $5000?
Sure hope he knew exactly what he was buying.
A buyer has to know what he is buying.
The Long Branch .22 that is the topic of this thread is a nice looking rifle, and could be a good purchase for someone who understands what it is.

Thanks for the info gentlemen, confirms my suspicions. Perhaps me calling them fakes wasn’t the best choice of words but they definitely aren’t originals. I sincerely hope the buyers know/knew what they were getting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunderstreak

I was reluctant to post a link in case I was mistaken. Don’t want to make any false accusations!
Here’s one that is up for sale now.
https://www.icollector.com/1944-Long...hest_i50082278

---

Here ist a later model of the trainer:
Non-Restricted rifle Lee Enfield (Long Branch) model C No.7, .22 IN., Mk.I, .22 LR Single bolt actio

In 1944 they didn`t have a name for it.

But with this I understand your Problem:
Non-Restricted rifle Lee Enfield model L42A2D12 ( Long Branch), .22 LR Single bolt action, w/ bbl le

Never heard about this. And the butt seems to be Australian.

Yup, the butt is from an Australian SMLE.
Don't you think that someone had a lot of fun making up that rifle?

Some guys have lot of time. And a No. 4T-Trainer real exist - BSA made 100 in 1945. So the L42-Trainer is an interesting idea. But my favorite on this rifle is the Label in the box - you can see that there was another (larger) Label before. Interesting ideas but bad work.