1944 Long Branch No.4 Mk1* Jungle Carbine Prototype?

[Badger]

I separated this thread from the other one titled 1944 Long Branch No.5 Mk1 Jungle Carbine (click here), primarily due to the confusion of the photo shopped picture where someone had "touched up" the receiver to make it look like it said "No.5 Mk1" Long Branch.

Anyway, a member on CGN showed some pics of a No.4 Mk1* Jungle Carbine that is purported to be a Long Branch prototype, described by its owner as being one of ten made, with a second one claimed to be in England.

The CGN member Cantom who photographed it, also provided this description to go with the photos shown at the bottom of the thread..

Bolt handle is curved as on the Lightweight rifle. Rear sight is LB 1300 yards. Buttplate and flash hider appear to be British. (not worth gearing up to make 10 pieces). Wood is the normal gorgeous Canadian walnut. Receiver was machined and then case hardened I was told.

The forend is not cut for the lockout block, is not low cut, and is not cut for the British bolt head release.

We compared the machining side by side with a British Jungle Carbine. The lightening cuts and profiles are definitely different. It is not a clone of the Brit rifles.

A gent who was there has seen it disassembled. He is 100% convinced it is totally genuine. He saw the lightening cuts in the forend and on the barrel, very nicely done and obviously not No 4 parts.

s/n is a contract number and is on the receiver and bolt.

As I mentioned in the other thread, I can't find any reference to an official Long Branch No.5 Mk1 Jungle Carbine, any No.4 Mk1* marked variant ever being produced, although I can find a reference to an experimental one being produced using a No.4 Mk1* receiver.

According to Skennerton's newest publication The Lee Enfield on page 319 ..

"At least one prototype .303 N0.5 jungle carbine was produced at the Long Branch factory, the illustrated specimen is from the Canadian War Museum collection. This example utilized a 1943 vintage No.4 Mk1* receiver with No.5 type barrel, flash eliminator assembly and fore-end. The backsight is s No.4 Mk3, re-graduated to 800 yards, which makes it similar to the British-made No.5 Mk2 sight. The carbine is stocked to within 6.25 in. of the flash hider, similar to the ROF Fazakerley and BSA Shirley-produced No.5 model."

The photograph from Skennerton's book referenced above also appears on page 319 and shows it marked as a 1943 No.4 Mk1*.

So, that's about all the information I have on this old girl displayed in the pics below. I'd like to thank member Cantom for his keen interest in wanting to research this piece, as well as granting his permission to use his photographs displayed in this thread.

So, what do you all think now?

Time to add another page to the many Lee Enfield research books that have been published, just an over active imagination on the part of some talented home basement gunsmith?

Regards,
Doug

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.

[tiriaq]

Cantom reports that according to the owner, the lightening cut in the forend is not in the same palce as on a No. 4 forend. That is harder to fake than the metal work.
I have not inspected the rifle.
It could be the real deal.
And if someone wanted to make a fake, it would look very much like this. I've been studying the lightening cuts in the receiver from the standpoint of how they were made. I have inspected one of the late LB halfstocked light weight experiementals, as illustrated in Skennerton, and the milling for the receiver lightening is more professionally done than on the No. 5.
The provenance of the piece is very important.

[Cantom]

It would be nice if the version supposed to be in the hands of the Canadian War Museum matches this one. Hoping for a positive on that. If I hear anything I'll update this space.

[B & B ARSENAL]

Definitely worth a KING'S RANSOM or should I say a QUEEN'S.

[muffett.2008]

doubtful.

[Badger]

As I commented to Cantom in private correspondence, given the current knowledge we have and just the pics above, in my opinion the piece has marginal value at best in the collector market …

As they say, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", but with no provenance, pedigree or official documentation published by authors, or accompanying the piece, I wouldn't assign it much more then novelty value for the collector who has everything and money to burn.

In any event, there sure has been a lot of these strange pieces surfacing lately. I had one individual who approached me with a 1941 No.4 Mk1 with no serial numbers on it anywhere, but looked like it was fresh from the production line. He said it was the front office's display piece and he wanted thousands of dollars for it. I told him that to me it was simply worth the price of a regular 1941 LB and possibly less, because there was no serial number to validate it's year of manufacture. I think I insulted him and I never heard back…

To get this new genre into the Enfield validated "book of records", or consider it to be authentic, I'd want to start by seeing some very good pics (close-ups) of the one said to be in the War Museum in Ottawa, comparing it to the pics of the one presented in this thread. I'd also want to see real closeups of the serial (contract) numbers marked on both.

Anything is possible, but I find it hard to believe that there's no Long Branch (or government) documentation anywhere supporting the prototyping of possibly up to 10 of these 1944 Long Branch No.4 Mk1* "Jungle Carbines", such as the one shown above.

I say that because there was plenty of Long Branch and other government documentation located and published by our Advisory Panel member Clive "service pub" Law, in his book Without Warning" (pages 56 thru 64) - ISBN: 1-894581-16-4, regarding the 1943-44 Enfield No.4 Mk1* Experimental Long Branch 'Scout' Sniper Rifle (click here), where Long Branch only manufactured 20 of those prototypes.

Anyway, it would be fantastic and rewarding to discover something new in our hobby of collecting Enfields, but until more empirical data becomes available, I'd still place this piece in the category of a "unknown origin" and would value it accordingly.

Just my two cents …

Regards,
Doug

[Peter Laidler]

The acid test so far as I am concerned would be to metallurgy on the barrel. I think that it'd be simple to convert a No4 body to No5 spec (conversions is alll they were by the way..........) but machining the breech end of a barrel is more difficult and a faker would just insert a standard but cleaned-off factory barrel. So I'd look at barrel metallurgy as to whether it's British made or Canadian made steel.

For a prototype, I don't think that they'd cast flash eliminators either but machine from scratch OR import from the UK - as happened with Bren legs etc etc

Just my two pence worth

[Cantom]

The flash hider has to be British. There is no sight blade tension screw on the front as Long Branch did them.

Yes, I'm really interested to see what the Canadian War Museum comes up with.

[Ian Skennerton]

To offer an authoratative opinion one would need to examine the rifle alongside a contempory Long Branch rifle and British No.5 to examine each component for the machining, cuts and finish. Wood and metal alike. Unless it were a tool-room one-of, there would have to be 10, 12 or 20 produced so we would need to compare the only known sample (not saying that is kosher either) at the CWM. Special parts like the flash hider, barrel, rearsight (would have been graduated to 800 years, surely), &c.
Also consider the requirement of the Canadian war machine at that time. Would they have needed a jungle carbine? With two factories churning them out in England, I doubt that England would have considered an order on same from Long Branch.
CWM sample has the action body made in 1943, another point for consideration. And a folded sheet metal rearsight rather than the machined Mk I Singer type. At least it is marked to 800.
We really need to see some documentation from Long Branch to certify either/both. Other projects had drawing numbers such as the J-5550 series. Would there have been any point in fabricating a jungle carbine type for comparison with the Lightweight rifle? And if so, it does not appear in any of the extensive reports on the Lightweight, duplicated at Aberdeen, England and even Australia, where some Lightweights have showed up.
Bear in mind that people tend to believe what they want to believe so there should be some scepticism applied.
What of the alleged paperwork some member claims to have but not have enough time to dig it out?
Ian Skennerton

P.S. Doug's thread with quote from p.319 L.-E. book (Skennerton) should read 'No.4 Mk I*' rather then 'No.4 Mk II*'.

[rgg_7]

Enfield variants are surfacing from collections that were assembled decades ago. Recently I 've had the opportunity to examine 3 rare Long Branch No4's.....a CNo67, a light weight and this "Jungle Carbine". Shortly after after acquisition the Collector arranged for me to visit with the intention of examining the rifle. Here's what I observed;

Barrel - '44 marked on the right side of the knox form. 4 symetrical lighting cuts on the knox similar in size to the British No5. Barrel was lathe turned to meet the diameter of the flash hider. Flash hider appeared to be British. It also had a lathe turned finish and no markings. Finish was Long Branch bluing.

Bolt - Numbered to receiver.The bolt was identical to the forged Light Weight profile. Handle was swept forward and hole drilled in knob for ligthening. It was compared to a light weight bolt and was identical except the numbering.

Receiver - 1944 Long Branch marked. No evidence of serial number ever being removed from butt socket. Contact number stamped on sn location with rifle number. Right side below had the reinforcement block just behind the receiver milled off. Above the stock line there was a lighting cut at the rear lug similar however smaller than the British No5. Left side had the dish cut just ahaed of the safety identical to the Light Weight. The under side was more interesting......the draws and the flat section forward the draws was milled for weight reduction identical to the Light Weight. The receiver had be case hardened due to amount of material removed and was showing the "purplish" hue that you only get over time.

Stock - Jungle carbine profile in Canadian Long Branch walnut. The forend was one of a kind. Two lighting cuts in forend ...one long and one short...do not line up with standard No4 cuts. Receiver inletting was tight, no fillers. No evidence of a British rework. The tie plate was Long Branch. The machine cut was idectical to what we see on LB stocks...special tool needed for this. Butt similar to a Brit. No evidence of a rear swivel in fill...very unique. Pad metal housing was not marked, components were phosphated. Inspectors mark on wrist as shown in Cantom's pic's.

My advice to the Owner ....."contact the Canadian War Museum for a description of their JC including its serial number. Also any document that they may have"

Do any of our members have the serial number of Ottawa's JC?

These are my observations and intended to answer some of the questions put foth by folks.

Ron