Un-serialed LB Mk I

[madcratebuilder]

Fantastic rifle, DROOL!

[muffett.2008]

Replacing barrels was only second line repair, it may well have been done at Field Workshop level.
FTR's which were a total rebuild , were done at a Base Workshop.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that this barrel change was not a stand alone repair, common place within the system.
The other alternative is that the barrel was replaced by a civilian Armourer for target or general use.
Despite what ideas on this stamps originality are, it is a date stamp.

No unmarked receiver would have been returned from any Military establishment without a No. stamped on it, therefore, Civilian repair is the obvious conclusion.

[gsimmons]

Thanks for the explanation. That makes perfect sense!

[boltaction]

Replacing barrels was only second line repair, it may well have been done at Field Workshop level.
FTR's which were a total rebuild , were done at a Base Workshop.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that this barrel change was not a stand alone repair, common place within the system.
The other alternative is that the barrel was replaced by a civilian Armourer for target or general use.
Despite what ideas on this stamps originality are, it is a date stamp.

No unmarked receiver would have been returned from any Military establishment without a No. stamped on it, therefore, Civilian repair is the obvious conclusion.

Makes sense. What, however, is the explanation for Badger's MKL which has both the '41 date stamp and the 56 mark? Shouldn't it be either one or the other? Also, why is there no "hash mark" in front of the 56 as there is in front of the '41? Did they change their method of marking the dates?

Ed

[Lee Enfield]

Makes sense. What, however, is the explanation for Badger's MKL which has both the '41 date stamp and the 56 mark? Shouldn't it be either one or the other? Also, why is there no "hash mark" in front of the 56 as there is in front of the '41? Did they change their method of marking the dates?

Ed

I believe that your barrel was inspected by an internal LB inspector who used LB over 56 in 1941. The marking looks like the wood inspectors marking: LB over a horizontal line above 66 in this case.

My '41 dated barrel LB no4mk1 is also marked LB over 56, but it appears that the stamp was too big for the location and it was double stamped slightly offset.
Serial number is 0L26xx

I pulled my canadian owned no1mk3* Long Branch made barrel and it is marked LB over 0 and dated '42

[Peter Laidler]

Bolt action and Lee Enfield......... I'm sitting here with a 1972 DE marked, genuine Army L39 in my grubby little mitts and the body of which AND most of the parts are marked, large as life for the whole world to see and in no uncertain terms with marks that relate to that wonder of small arms manufacturing, Fazakerley in 1955. But there's a rub........ The rifle also bears the markings of Enfield in 1972. And to confuse matters even more, it carries a serial number that relates to 1972 too

Are you thinking what I'm thinking or have we flogged a dead horse for long enough................. Just personally speaking, it just looks like a case of what we call in Army technical terms '......the bleedin' obvious'.

[boltaction]

Could be, could be. However, in my line of work, it is not considered wise to assume that the "bleedin' obvious" is the truth. Personally speaking, I find it quite interesting that we have 3 (three) 1941 LB No 4 Mk I's all with a 56 stamp on the barrel, two of which also have a '41 stamp on the barrel. I also have a '42 receiver date LB with a '41 date barrel which ALSO has the 56 stamp on it. I have 11 other Long Branches 1943 - 1950, 3 of which are RCMP issue; just for fun I peeled them apart this evening and none of them have a 56 on the barrel, or anywhere else for that matter.

So, it is a minor point, but I think it would be rather odd to just assume that all 4 of these rifles which are either 1941 dated or made with 1941 parts just happened to end up with 1956 barrels, and still retain their 1941 date, or were reworked in 1956 for some reason but retained all their early parts. I have often considered military brass decisions to be inexplicable in the extreme, but the armourers are generally a very thorough, logical lot. Any Canadian/British rifles I've seen which have gone through some sort of official repair or had major parts officially replaced are usually so marked, or else they're refinished, or what-have-you.

It would be neat to get a poll of other folks who own Long Branch No 4 Mk I 1941s and see if their barrels are stamped with 56 as well or not. However, in the end, the discussion is probably moot, and clearly boring. Since we seem to have no official records of what inspection marks were used at Long Branch besides the LB mark, I doubt we'll resolve this one way or the other, and at the end of the day, who really gives a ****?

Cheers

Ed

[boltaction]

I've just pm'd another member who has a 41 LB in the 0L serial range, and he confirms his barrel also has an LB over 56 marking, as well as the '41 barrel date. Another member with a 41 Mk I notes his barrel doesn't have that mark, but it is a '42 date barrel. So, we now have several '41 dated LB barrels with a mystery 56 mark on them, which must be some sort of proof or inspector mark used only in .41 by LB. Either that, or all these Mk I '41 LB's went back to LB in 1956 and had a 56 stamped on their barrels, but retained their '41 barrels. That seems most completely highly unlikely.

Not a date stamp.

Ed

[superbee]

Just checked my 41 0L60xx
41 date barrel and the LB 56 is stamped above the serial # on the left side of barrel.
Must be some kind of proof mark for 41 barrels only.

[ickmann]

Both of these pics are of the same barrel on my early '41 LB.



Ian