Canadian Lee Enfield No. 4 Mk I (T)

[Giove]

Hi all,

I saw this Lee Enfield sniper; il's a 1942 Long Branch and has a british scope (an Mk I). I am very suspicious on it originality, but I know very little on the canadian Enfield sniper rifles.

What do you think about it?

Thank you.
G.Carlo

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.

[Lee Enfield]

The rings are definitely reproductions which have been "modified" to appear more real.

I would like to see better views of the pads and from both sides of the receiver wall.


I will say that there is one aspect of the front pad which absolutely screams that it (the pad) is fake to me.

There are a few other things which I look for specific to Long Branch snipers, but no I'm not going to share them in a public forum.

[Roger Payne]

I would agree with Lee Enfield on the request for more views of the pads, without the scope & bracket on, but if more pics are not available I'd stick my neck out & say it's made up. The scope & scope tin are genuine & the cheekpiece could be genuine Canadian or a good repro. The bracket is a modern copy & the bolt has been renumbered to match the rifle.

[Lee Enfield]

I would agree with Lee Enfield on the request for more views of the pads, without the scope & bracket on, but if more pics are not available I'd stick my neck out & say it's made up. The scope & scope tin are genuine & the cheekpiece could be genuine Canadian or a good repro. The bracket is a modern copy & the bolt has been renumbered to match the rifle.

I believe that the bolt is correct and has not been re-numbered. If you look to the bolt root, the inspectors markings are still intact and the flat appears in modified.

I'd suggest the receiver may be renumbered however.

[Roger Payne]

My eyes are not good enough to make any pronouncements on the rifle body numbers - I'd need better pics, but I am still suspicious of the numbering on the bolt body. The style of the numbers looks pretty right but the radial machining marks present on the root of the bolt handle where it attaches to the body are polished out where the numbers have been applied, yet there is a small swell of welt surrounding the '1' if not the other numbers, suggesting the flat was cleaned off after manufacture, but before it was numbered (or renumbered). I don't have Lee Enfield's wealth of experience on specifically Canadian rifles, but from what I've seen most factories did not polish machining marks out before numbering a bolt.

But regardless, I think the message to the OP must be beware..........unless it's very cheap.

[Peter Laidler]

All you need to know is that it is a fake. I am not as diplomatic as the others..............

[superbee]

I thought the first LB snipers were dated 1943?

[stencollector]

The first snipers may have been done in 43, but they may have used earlier rifles. Problem is there are so many fakes (like this one) with early numbers, they skew any hope of forming a list of correct ones.

Agree with Roger on the bolt handle....it was the first thing I looked for. The serial number has been polished....you can still see some of the machining marks right up until the serial number starts. That is not to say that the army didn't re-number bolts, because they certainly did. I recently picked up about 80 LongBranch bolt bodies that came directly from Cdn service. Of those, maybe 25 had been renumbered, and it wasn't pretty either. The area was left in the white after grinding.

The serial number on the repro/doctored scope mount also look very suspect to me, as would be expected on a fake scope mount. However the numbers on the receiver wrist look fine.

[limpetmine]

Yes. In the 40L block. I've never seen or heard about a '42 LB sniper that wasn't a fake.

I thought the first LB snipers were dated 1943?

[Lee Enfield]

Yes. In the 40L block. I've never seen or heard about a '42 LB sniper that wasn't a fake.

one of the Long Branch No4 T's which was converted to L42 status was a 1942 dated action according to its recorded serial number.

one of the other ones would have been a 1941 dated action assuming the serial number on the list is correct.

Having said that several of the recorded L42 serial numbers are incorrect or incomplete - the guns (and in one case the transit chest) having surfaced for examination.