1944 Long Branch No.4 MK1* T

[AngusMcRat]

Hi,

I have a 1944 Long Branch No.4 MK1* (T) which is a matching number rifle however in trying to ascertain it's history a number of anomalies have come up which has left me confused. The first relates to the serial number. According to Clive Law's book Without Warning blocks of serial numbers were set aside for the sniper rifles "71Lxxxx consisting of mostly No.32 Mark2 scopes; 74L0001 to 74L0350 set-up with the Lyman Alaskan; 80L8xxx with the No.67 Mark 1 scope and 90L8xxx mounted mostly with theNo.32 Mark 3 scope". The serial number on my rifle is 80L0259.

Having read the article “Is my Lee Enfield sniper rifle a fake?” there is a comment regarding scopes which says "a Long Branch rifle with a British scope should be approached skeptically". My rifle has a No32 Mk1 scope dated 1943 made by William Watson & Sons.

As I said in my opening sentence the rifle is a matching example. The serial number of the scope has been stamped on the front edge of the butt and the rifle serial number has been stamped just in front of the scope number. The rifle number is also stamped onto the scope bracket along with a Canadian manufacturing mark. Please see attached photo's.

So my question is were British scopes used on Long Branch rifles in late 1943/44 and was the block of serial numbers set aside for sniper rifles 80Lxxxx as opposed to 80L8xxx?

Many thanks

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Roger Payne]

Angus, brace yourself, 'coz there's no easy way to put this to you, but I think your rifle has been made up. Specifically:

The butt is beech. The numbers look to have been stamped in recently. An original LB rifle would almost certainly have been stocked up in walnut.
To my knowledge no British scopes would ever have been fitted to Canadian rifles, or vice versa, during the war, 'factory original'. What happened after the war, during FTR's is a different matter.

The scope is an original William Watson Mk1 of UK mfr

The bracket is not genuine. In fact, it looks like it may well be one of mine that has been doctored up to look superficially like a genuine Canadian item. Someone has gone to a lot of trouble with the markings, but the differences between that bracket & a real one are obvious if one has seen a few real examples.....

The rifle is not well shown but the difference in colour of the front pad compared to the surrounding rifle body side wall makes me suspicious. We could give you more info if you let us have further views, preferably with the scope & bracket removed.

Oddly enough I have an identical reproduction bracket that has been played with to look like a Canadian bracket on my bookshelf just now. It has an original REL scope in it which was losing its focus. I fixed it for the owner who is a dealer friend of mine, but have not been able to return it yet because of the coronavirus fun & games. He bought it at auction, assuming it was a copy, & paid accordingly. The bracket has been marked up in exactly the same way as yours. Presumably whoever did it secured at least two of mine & modified them.

And before anyone asks, I'm afraid I don't know who it was that did it. I've sold around 700 reproduction brackets worldwide over the last thirty years........many dealers preferring to have them in the white, as I get them back from the machinist, without the final finishing off that I usually do myself.

[Lee Enfield]

Angusmcrat, can you post a photo of the actual serial number on the rifle, and the rifles bolt?

[AngusMcRat]

Many thanks for your detailed response. I had a sneaking suspicion so wasn't totally surprised but still disappointed.

Anyway as requested I attach some more photographs. I am aware that the swivel in front of the magazine has been changed for a parker hale version at some point in its history. If you want me to remove the woodwork, happy to do so if this will help.

Neil

[Roger Payne]

Thank you. The bolt body has been renumbered to match the rifle. Lee Enfield is more specialised than I on Long Branch products, so I would be interested to read what he thinks, but I still believe the rifle has been assembled relatively recently. The front pad does not look absolutely typical of a Canadian pad to me, in spite of the (bogus) C/l\ it bears. The rear pad screw heads do not look as I would expect on a Canadian rifle, & as mentioned before there is a marked difference in colour of finish between the rifle body & the pads, yet the rifle body finish looks original to me. If that is so, the pads should have the same blued appearance. The side wall T also doesn't look typical of either of the two sizes of sans serif T's that I am familiar with on Long Branch rifles, although other variants of size & font than those with which I am acquainted may well exist.

Are there any modern Italian proofs on it, or Italian ownership stamps in the woodwork? Just curious.....

[rgg_7]

I had a good look at your pictures and observe the following:

1. Bolt is not Long Branch. Appears to be Brit and renumbered with a partial serial number. How is the cocking piece and bolt head marked?
2. Rear sight is not Long Branch. Appears to be Brit "F" marked.
3. Trigger guard is Brit.
4. The serial number on the butt socket looks like a restamp
5. Are pads soldered on? They look CDN except for the staking.
6. Bracket is not CDN. Someone has gone to a lot of efforts to stamp with an inspection mark and serialize. Can you show us a picture of the opposite side to see if an numbers are stamped on the cradles.
7. Remove the front handguard and see if the barrel is Long Branch and date '44.
8. Scope is Brit as a couple folks have already stated. This would not be original to a LB T however would for a Brit Refurb.
9. Forestock id CDN maple.
10. Handguards appear to be walnut. If removed are they LB marked?

I'd shoot the rifle and enjoy it as is.

Ron (Canada)

[AngusMcRat]

Gentlemen,

Many thanks for your comments.

I will carefully strip the rifle down tonight, photograph everything and post them here.

As you say, someone has gone to a lot of trouble with this one.

Thanks again it's most appreciated.

Neil

[Seaforth72]

I agree that this "sniper" rifle 80L0259 / 2787 is not correct.

We would expect the serial number of a 1944 rifle to fall within a known range of serial numbers and this one does not. Furthermore, the 80L8xxx range of sniper rifles were fitted with C No. 32 Mk. 4 (later called C No. 67 Mk. I) scopes on very different style Griffin & Howe style mounts made at Long Branch.

There are no known cases of British scopes being fitted at Long Branch to production sniper rifles, though as mentioned previously, this was sometimes done during service repairs or Factory Thorough Overhauls when a scope was replaced in service due to damage, loss or upgrading to a newer model.

This rifle, 80L0259 with scope 2787 was discussed previously, September 20, 2013, on Milsurps.co, on thread http://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=45624&page=1 A potential buyer in Australia opted not to buy it in 2013. I do not know who the seller was at that time or who the forger was.

[AngusMcRat]

Thanks Seaforth, I wish I'd known about this forum before I bought it!!

In stripping it down to look for various marks and answer a number of questions asked I looked at the serial number under a strong magnifying glass - see the first photograph! The first digit is a 6 so the correct serial number is 60L0259 although if you look at the number on the bolt it shows 0258.

Between 2013 and when I bought the rifle in 2017 it had lost its transit chest and scope case.

The $64,000 question is what are my chances of getting my money back as it was sold to me as a genuine No4T by a dealer, who in my honest opinion should know better?

Whilst rgg_7 advice was to "shoot the rifle and enjoy it as is" it is leaving a somewhat hollow feeling in my stomach.

Any advice on legal recourse against the original dealer would be appreciated (I'm UK based).

I've attached various other photographs for reference.

Many thanks

Neil

[rgg_7]

1. It's been rebarrelled as you can see marking on the knox form where the action wrench slipped. The barrel is Long Branch "LB" marked , '45 dated and correct proof mark.
2. Serial number is much clearer - 60L0259 althougth the "6" looks restruck as you can see a double impression. Generally these line up and the "60" is misaligned. Maybe correct.
3. Handguards are Brit - S76 on front top guard and SL74 rear. both walnut.
4. Butt is Brit Beech JC N22
5. Pads appear to be soldered. The screws in the rear pad are setting above the pad which indicates they have been replaced. Neither should be staked if CDN.
6. It's interesting that there's an 2013 thread asking about this rifle.

It's not the real deal. Somebody has put a lot of effort into this creation. Wonder how it shoots?

As far as recourse - I'd talk to the Seller - show him our comments. You have a few knowledgeable people telling you that it's not genuine.

Ron (Canada)