Field use of No.4 (T) kit, and LB-marking questions

[Maple_Leaf_Eh]

Gentlemen (m/f), I'm in the process of having a Long Branch No.4 Mk.1* ('43) fitted with a replica No.32 scope, cheekpiece, center swivel, M1907 sling etc.
The rifle has been deactivated for re-enactment purposes to fire blanks only. ...

It pains me to read that you are going to a lot of trouble only to fire blanks. However, there is a bright side. More civilians will get to see, hold and smell as near a firearm as many of them ever will. Maybe they will learn more about their history (and the history of firearms too).

I'm aware of the fact that I'm just trying to create a reasonable lookalike of an original (T), but it is for the sake of setting up convincing displays and of course a bit of personal satisfaction.

Were Long Branch rifles also marked 'TR' on the butt socked after acceptance range testing? If not, how were they selected, was the procedure different? Are there any other differences with the British made ones? ...

The only people who will inspect your display at 6" distance will be the most knowledgible of collectors. If your objective is public education, you should not give those guys a second thought. You have the rifle, not them. Any criticism should be redirected to reflect on their snob behaviour and attitudes.

The Canadian T rifles do not conform to the same marking scheme as Holland and Holland conversions. If you are starting with a 1943 dated receiver, you could truthfully say there were no special markings at that time, and research suggests only 71 Long Branch rifles converted in that very earliest batch. Take a look through this article: Is my Lee Enfield sniper rifle a fake? “Is my Lee Enfield sniper rifle a fake?” - Enfield-Rifles.com

While we are talking about period specific details, the centre swivel would not be appropriate for the middle war years. Similarly, the most appropriate No.32 scope mark would be a Mark I. And, an REL at that. However, that would be very fine details only a few very well read observers would notice. A Mark II or III scope could have been fitted at some point during the war to replace a damaged Mk I scope.

Then, the scope came with a brand new Case, STG. TEL No.8 Mark.I. It has quite a hefty and solid feel. It has some welded loops on it, from pictures it seems to be for a leather strap to secure the lids (?). Or is it intended for carrying purposes? I tried to insert a standard webbing strap but the brass ends do not fit the loops.
How did the sniper carry this case in the field? Stowed away in his small pack or strapped to some other gear? Or not at all, leaving it with the wooden chest? I noticed there is also a later webbing-like version.

Thanks for any comments on this trivial subject...

The "tin" should have leather straps to double safeguard against accidental opening. It is a very ordinary 1" wide strap about 60" long with a tongue buckle and keeper loop. There is a seller on eBay who will happily sell you one (or a set?) for about $80. As you suggest, the sniper would leave the tin in the wooden chest back with unit stores. Once the rifle is sighted in, no properly trained sniper would take the scope off the rifle. The tin is only for safe storage and transport in the chest.

The sniper employment doctrine was much less rigid than for line infantry. Commanders realized these guys had a very intense battle every time they went forward. Whether it was respect or professional courtesy, snipers could carry as much or as little as they individually wanted. If a sniper decided his mission required binoculars instead of the draw tube telescope, who was going to try quoting equipment scales or authorizations? If the local conditions required the guys wear leather jerkins or denison smocks or frizzy ghillie suits or regular battledress, that is what they put on.