Question on Long Branch #4 (T)

[boltaction]

I have come across an LB #4 (T) which has me somewhat puzzled. The rifle is a 1945, all matching, in that the bolt, receiver, stock, magazine and scope mount match each other and the scope number in the mounts matches the number stamped on the top of the butt stock, etc. The rifle is in pristine condition, and was obviously sent to England at some point, as it is stamped England on the receiver. However, what puzzles me is that
a) it rides in a British transit case (3 screw hinges, folded not stitched leather handles) and the scope rides in a metal tin more commonly seen with the Brit snipers as opposed to the Canadian softie case. However, the tag tacked to the transit case has the scope and rifle number on it, and the tag stuck inside the scope tin also has the scope and rifle number on it, with a packing date of 1962. The fellow who had the rifle got it at Milarm in 1977, and it came in that box.

b) the rifle has C Broad arrow stamped wood on it, which is in pristine condition, but the buttplate is the Brit looking brass type, not the more typical LB buttplate.

Were some of the LB's sent to England, and put in stores there, then perhaps put into British cases if the Canadian ones were trashed? The purists would say that this needs to be in a 4 screw Canadian chest and proper Canadian scope case, and would be correct, but this one has been matched to a British case and British scope tin, with appropriate armourer tags on them. Has that been observed before, and is it considered still "matching"? My other LB rides in a Canadian chest but has the wrong card. This one rides in the "wrong" type of chest and scope tin, but they are matched to it. Also, were any of the 1945 LB's fitted with the British "brass" type buttplates--I didn't think LB was using those then. This rifle looks like it was hardly if at all used, and the wood is original Canadian (with all the little tiny proofs etc nice and crisp), but I don't get the buttplate thing....

Interestingly, the case also contains a sniper veil and a 1942 dated copy of a book called Fieldcraft Sniping and Intelligence by Major Neville Armstrong, with inscribed names inside of Arnold Hopkins 1942 and Capt. CM Stevens, Seaforth of Canada.......... I would assume that the book was added later, but it's a nice touch.

Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. If folks want me to post a bunch of pictures, I can take some when I have time.

Thx

Ed

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.

[jmoore]

By 1962, it's reasonable to expect any number of changes, if not a few complete rebuilds. The chest and tin would be perfectly appropriate for a rifle that had been in British service, regardless of it's origins.

"V. Ball" inspected?

The gunmetal buttplate is off putting, but it's impossible to know when it was changed. Someone might have just done it for appearances.

[tiriaq]

That batch of rifles (90L serial prefix?) went to the UK. Were not used by Canada. What you observe likely happened there.

[Peter Laidler]

I am a British Army Armourer and I can assure you that contrary to popular belief, we didn't go trawling through trays of parts just to find a LB or S or any other matching part and don't believe anyone who tells you otherwise. 9 rifles held in the battalion came with 9 transit chests and until they were painted up to match the rifle to be issued to an individual sniper, it was just another transit chest - and they all fitted!

If a mazak (a sort of sintered alloy) butt plate snapped/cracked across the heel screw, which they were notorious for and regularly did, then it was replaced with - have a guess.............., yep, got it in one - the next one in the tray. And if it was brass, that's what it got. Mind you, fitting a new butt plate was another of those hand fitting jobs to do properly. Making sure that it fitted correctly underneath (yes, we did.....) and along the sides

I'd say that from your description, your rifle is as original as the day it left service

[boltaction]

Thanks for the replies. Tiriaq, it is a 90L. It doesn't look like it's ever been used, but it isn't rebuilt or refinished either that I can see. Is it possible it didn't see service? That would be odd, wouldn't it? Or maybe it was just REALLy well taken care of...... The only blemish of any kind on the rifle that I can see is the scope number on the top of the buttstock; it's fainter than I would expect. It was late at night when I was looking at it, so it took me longer than it should have to figure that one out-it's had the felt covered retainer block from the transit chest resting right on it for a few decades......

Peter, the buttplate is very nicely fitted, but the wood around it is a bit "proud", so perhaps the original one was just replaced as you postulate.

Would anyone be interested in photos, or is everyone fed up with photos of #4 (T)s?

Ed

[jmoore]

Photos of the rifle are ALWAYS welcome! Solves many mysteries.

[spinecracker]

Would anyone be interested in photos, or is everyone fed up with photos of #4 (T)s?

Ed

Are bears catholic? Does the Pope..errr...I may have got that backwards....

ANY Lee-Enfield photo is always welcome here, especially if it is of my new holy grail...

[Peter Laidler]

The wood around the butt plate SHOULD be a bit proud

[tiriaq]

The 90L rifles were assembled after hostilities in Europe were over. They went to the UK, never saw service in Canada. Held in stores until sold off surplus in the '60s, thus the fine condition. Often documentation detailing inspection and preservation over the years while in stores is in the case. When these rifles have m/m scopes, etc, it happened when in dealers' hands.

[muffett.2008]

[QUOTE=spinecracker;200264]Are bears catholic? Does the Pope..errr...I may have got that backwards...

You just gotta ease back on those meds....