EAL Type Longbranch Experts Weigh In

[Dogfish858]

'02' serial number prefaced by two 1's laid short-short over each other. Marked Long Branch No4 Mk1 1941, no other serial markings, all metal I have seen on rifle is stamped Long Branch.



Broad arrow/LB stamp on wrist of EAL-style butt with Jostam pad, forend also EAL style, none of the 'snug' marks usual on old rifles like this that have been pulled apart 87 times.



Full rifle shows EAL style 200-400 sight inset, front sight as per EAL specs, a bit buggered. Barrel pristine.



So what do we have here? If it's a Bitsa rifle, then it's a very good bitsa rifle. The serial number doesn't add up, and it looks like they spot annealed it so it would take a stamp, and it has no trace of serial number anywhere else on the action. Barrel is Longbranch. It has every styling of the EAL rifle, front to back, except the charger bridge is intact. Further, it has the Longbranch stamp on EAL wood. And it's marked -02.

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.

[Peter Laidler]

No need to spot anneal or anything there as it's just plain old mild steel. In fact the butt socket is the place where Armourers are TOLD to mark the rifle

[Brian Dick]

Do you have a picture of the left side of the body?

[Dogfish858]

Thanks!

[Brian Dick]

That's not an EAL body. It could possibly be assembled at LB by a factory worker and taken home or by someone in the civvie world from surplus parts. Interesting, especially with a 1941 body. Lots of parts were sold at the auction in the 1970's so it's anyone's guess.

[Surpmil]

That's not an EAL body. It could possibly be assembled at LB by a factory worker and taken home or by someone in the civvie world from surplus parts. Interesting, especially with a 1941 body. Lots of parts were sold at the auction in the 1970's so it's anyone's guess.

I think you're right on the money. Some learner screwed up the grinding of the charger bridge and the action went in the spares box. No serial number and original finish seals it IMHO.

Whatyadoin' with that Ross by the way?

[Dogfish858]

Awful lot of matching stamps if it's a shop run. Ross is on CGN Surpmil, taking offers lol.

So, to recap:

Matching stamps forestock and receiver.
Matching numbers bolt and receiver.
Broad arrow barrel with correct sights.
Buttstock marked 130/Broadarrow/MK1 -- an official marking.
All pieces, including magazine, Longbranch.
All woodwork EAL, but stamped with Longbranch marks.

I also have visual proof of a Longbranch serialed EAL mapping rifle, and visual proof of a mapping rifle issued with an identical '2' stamp; if die steel is as hard as I think it is, would it be likely to have many laying around?

My point is that if this is a Longbranch built civvy bitsa, where did they get EAL wood manufactured post Longbranch, and stamped with Longbranch marks, esp. MK1? There is a multi year gap.




SS and proofs -- sold from service?



Replicated on forestock



Broad arrow on barrel

[Lee Enfield]

Awful lot of matching stamps if it's a shop run. Ross is on CGN Surpmil, taking offers lol.

So, to recap:

Matching stamps forestock and receiver.
Matching numbers bolt and receiver.
Broad arrow barrel with correct sights.
Buttstock marked 130/Broadarrow/MK1 -- an official marking.
All pieces, including magazine, Longbranch.
All woodwork EAL, but stamped with Longbranch marks.

I also have visual proof of a Longbranch serialed EAL mapping rifle, and visual proof of a mapping rifle issued with an identical '2' stamp; if die steel is as hard as I think it is, would it be likely to have many laying around?

My point is that if this is a Longbranch built civvy bitsa, where did they get EAL wood manufactured post Longbranch, and stamped with Longbranch marks, esp. MK1? There is a multi year gap.

...snip...
SS and proofs -- sold from service?
...snip...
Replicated on forestock
...snip...
Broad arrow on barrel
...snip...

It's just a case of EAL wood and barrel assembled onto an available No4MkI receiver, by "joe sixpack", not a/the factory...especially as the receiver isn't complete.

Not a big deal, one friend of mine has sold at least 2 1941 dated Long Branch receivers which were un-serial numbered...and never were...much like yours, in fact it might have come from the same source.

In my junk, I have spare complete stock sets for EAL "military" and EAL "commercial" varients...

I have an EAL with a destroyed receiver which I am just waiting for the right moment to transfer it's parts to an EAL receiver which came assembled (no not by the factory, I know who assembled it, and he is extremely active on CGNs Milsurp sales section and shows up here too) as a .22


If we want to continue playing fantasy games, I could assemble my EAL parts onto a Long Branch No4MkI*(T) receiver....hey it would be 100% Long Branch SAL/CAL and therefore correct right? It certainly would have military and factory inspectors stamped markings...

[Dogfish858]

Thanks Brian. I'm wondering, though -- and it's reasonable -- whether this is an EAL body before being ground down? What about the stock stamp where it has 130 over broad arrow over what looks like MK 1?

-- No proof marks or .303 stamp
-- No4 Mk1 but no normal serial number
-- Serial of -02
-- Inside butt socket unknown mark, circular, looks like machining but could be writing.
-- Stock stamp of 130>MK1?
-- All Longbranch parts
-- Every single part is consistent with EAL, except for the stamp and unmilled receiver, but the myth behind the legend is that EAL used surplus Longbranch receivers.

I recognize that there are no tolerance differences consistent with letters being ground out of the action at EAL. But would it make financial sense to manufacture new No4 receivers for a few thousand rifles, in a world where rifles built on surplus receivers were almost literally a dime a dozen?

[Ax.303]

Can we see a picture of the top of the action looking down?