Un-serialed LB Mk I

[Peter Laidler]

You can be rest assured Bolt Action that the 56 will NOT be a proof mark or, in my honest opinion, even an examiners mark. It's exactly what it says on the tin

[boltaction]

Tin? I don't follow.......

Ed

[Surpmil]

I've seen the "56" mark on other barrels, and it appears to be a proof mark, not a date stamp. I have another rifle with that stamp and a standard date stamp on it. Also, in the Knowledge Library there is another #4 Mk I LB and in photos 130, 131, 132 and 137 the same stamping can be seen, with the normal date stamp adjacent to it. This link might work (or might not)......
1941 No.4 Mk1 Long Branch Rifle

Ed

I see what you mean. Does this mean you have a very early production barrel and in that case, probably a rifle assembled in 1941? There must have been pre-production rifles without serial numbers, at least without numbers in the normal run of them.

[Peter Laidler]

Ah, yes........ what it says on the tin......... It's a phrase that says that a thing is exactly what it is! I mean if it says 56 on the barrel, then in my limited experience of seeing these things, then it's a date!

It's like seeing the Enfield DE mark on parts, such as DE72 on, say an L7 trigger. It indicates Enfield 1972 and to an Armourer, seeing F55 on a No4 would be Fazakerley 1955 and likewise LB56 is Long Branch, 1956. Just my experience as an Armourer

[gsimmons]

So, my question is. If it was re-barrelled in 1956, how did it retain all its early parts.

[Peter Laidler]

If it was rebarrelled in or after 1956 why WOULDN'T it retain all, most or even some of its original parts. If they weren't broke, why fix (or change) em'. Or am I missing something?

[gsimmons]

I thought when a rifle went through a workshop it was disassembled and parts not necessarily kept together, except the numbered ones. Or do I have it wrong? I guess I don't really understand how the system works.

[Lee Enfield]

So, my question is. If it was re-barrelled in 1956, how did it retain all its early parts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The real question would be if the barrel was replaced in 1956 why does it have very early inspection markings which were no longer in use past @1947?

[Peter Laidler]

The glib answer is this........, believe me, based on my very limited experience, if SM41= Singer 1941, DE72 = Enfield 1972, F56= Fazakerley 1956, P60= Poole 1960 then surely, LB56= Long Branch 1956.

I'm not going to re-read the thread but regardless of when the 1947 mark was stamped, it is still marked Long Branch 1956

My car was made in July 1968. But it wasn't registered until March 1969. Mk2 Fazakerley bodies were made in 1955 but not used or numbered until 1972. You just believe what you want to, or what it's convenient to believe............... But sometimes, you just have to be pragmatic

[boltaction]

I'm not sure, and since there seems to be little information on some of the LB markings, we'll never know. My rifle is a mystery, but given the exigiencies of wartime production, especially at the beginning when we were losing quite handily and the push would have been on to get as many rifles out there as possible, it seems unlikely that there would have been a separate "stash" of early Mk I parts, fully proofed and inspected, just lying around for someone to assemble in the 1950's. That makes zero sense. Also, it seems unlikely that Badger's rifle in the MKL, which has a 1941 date stamped on the barrel and also has the 56 stamp, would have also been rebarreled in 1956, and in any case, then it wouldn't still have the '41 date. If both rifles were FTR'd in 1956, then they both would not still be retaining all their early parts. Also, I have a 1942 date LB with the little flip 2 way rearsight etc which also has this stamp on the barrel. So, "56" has to stand for something other than the year.

Ed