long branch sniper ?

[Surpmil]

My '44 Long Branch doesn't have the "T" stamp. It's sn 71L0396, legit and very well used. It sports a mismatch REL bracket numbered 71L0314 and C No.32Mk.2 scope, sn. 508-C. The original scope was 505-C as numbered on the buttstock. The "T" stamp on yours is of British origin and added during it's service at some point which was typical. My uneducated guess would be that your rifle was culled at some point, stripped of it's original pads and then pieced back together again at some point post service. Just my 2 cents.

If genuine LB "T"s of this vintage are known without "T" stamps, I can't rule out the possibility that it might be as Brian says, a genuine rifle that was stripped and then bodged back together with non-original parts in the civilian world. The T stamp as much as we can see it, does resemble the T stamp that was retroactively applied to more than one trials No4(T) by some armourer(s), so that might have been applied in British service, and the ENGLAND stamp suggests this rifle was in UK service.

The holes drilled for the civvy scope base might be the reason the pads were removed as they would not clear it. I had a matching 1944 BSA some nitwit had done this to, in order to fit the two piece Parker Hale bases. Fortunately he didn't lose the pads.

So...the evidence seems to point to that conclusion, but those ain't the original pads. I hope you can locate them.

[Brian Dick]

Another interesting tidbit is that my 1943 50Lxxxx Long Branch has the "T" stamp on the side of the body and it's the Canadian font, not the British with serifs. The same as the 90L 1945! As with 1944 British BSA/H&H rifles, there are inconsistencies in production and markings. There was a war on!!

[Lee Enfield]

We're not talking about religion Paul; the facts are easily demonstrated. Look at the previous posts in other threads, and the photos.

LB No4(T)s in 1944 had a different "T" stamp and they all had one AFAWK. There was no brazing used on the pads. The top of the rear pads lined up with the shoulder on the receiver etc. etc.

You may have noticed that no one has come out and said they think this is a genuine rifle and lots of questions have been raised about various points. ...snip....

The ugly and sloppy rear pad installation is a feature of the Long branch No4MkI*(T) sniper. The only Long Branch snipers which I've observed which had nicely fitted rear pads which could compare to the H&H "standard" are the 90L rifles.


In my (obviously not so humble opinion) anyone comparing the fit and finish of a H&H No4T to a Long Branch No4T and deciding that the gun is a put-together because the LB is inferior in fit & finish really doesn't have any real experience with genuine Long Branch snipers.

I (like many other people obviously) put the Long Branch sniper on a pedestal above the British production snipers...imagine my shock when I finally obtained my first (as new in case CES by the way) Long Branch No4MkI*(T) and discovered that it was imperfect when compared to my beat up FTR'ed 1944 No4MkI(T) BSA/H&H.

My 1943 Long Branch No4MkI*(T) has the rear pad above the height of the rear rail, my 1944 Long Branch No4MkI*(T) has the rear pad BELOW the height of the rear rail (or vice versa as I'm far from home). If one searches the internet, and looks for this feature, you will observe it on non-90L rifles as being very common.

The Long Branch snipers also show 2 or more distinctive variations of shaping or machining of the cheek piece as well....I also discussed this with Dr. Payne some 10 years ago....

Long Branch snipers also show (at least) 2 distinct sizes of "sans serif" "T" markings, and it has been documented/reported that the early guns shipped without the "T" marking, cheek piece, lense cloth, ect.


OK since you haven't observed anyone to say it before, both JMoore's rifle (some pictures of which you seem to be mixing up with the OP's) and the OP's rifle are genuine Long Branch No4MkI*(T) rifles. I would be happy to own both, and would make a standing offer to both owners...

[husk]

The ugly and sloppy rear pad installation is a feature of the Long branch No4MkI*(T) sniper. The only Long Branch snipers which I've observed which had nicely fitted rear pads which could compare to the H&H "standard" are the 90L rifles.


In my (obviously not so humble opinion) anyone comparing the fit and finish of a H&H No4T to a Long Branch No4T and deciding that the gun is a put-together because the LB is inferior in fit & finish really doesn't have any real experience with genuine Long Branch snipers.

I (like many other people obviously) put the Long Branch sniper on a pedestal above the British production snipers...imagine my shock when I finally obtained my first (as new in case CES by the way) Long Branch No4MkI*(T) and discovered that it was imperfect when compared to my beat up FTR'ed 1944 No4MkI(T) BSA/H&H.

My 1943 Long Branch No4MkI*(T) has the rear pad above the height of the rear rail, my 1944 Long Branch No4MkI*(T) has the rear pad BELOW the height of the rear rail (or vice versa as I'm far from home). If one searches the internet, and looks for this feature, you will observe it on non-90L rifles as being very common.

The Long Branch snipers also show 2 or more distinctive variations of shaping or machining of the cheek piece as well....I also discussed this with Dr. Payne some 10 years ago....

Long Branch snipers also show (at least) 2 distinct sizes of "sans serif" "T" markings, and it has been documented/reported that the early guns shipped without the "T" marking, cheek piece, lense cloth, ect.


OK since you haven't observed anyone to say it before, both JMoore's rifle (some pictures of which you seem to be mixing up with the OP's) and the OP's rifle are genuine Long Branch No4MkI*(T) rifles. I would be happy to own both, and would make a standing offer to both owners...

Thanks for posting this reply, Lee-Enfield. Honestly, this thread has been irritating me for some time because the comments you mentioned have been made with great authority and yet are completely inaccurate. Everyone on this forum is too polite at times, which isn't a bad thing. I can provide a pic or two supporting what you say?

[Lee Enfield]

Thanks for posting this reply, Lee-Enfield. Honestly, this thread has been irritating me for some time because the comments you mentioned have been made with great authority and yet are completely inaccurate. Everyone on this forum is too polite at times, which isn't a bad thing. I can provide a pic or two supporting what you say?

I'm guilty of talking when I should be listening sometimes too....got my nose mashed once or twice to prove it.

The OP has already posted some pics which I recognize as being your 1943 LB(T)... but showing more would possibly be usefull.



The whole thing about this game is that we have to make up our own mind about originality, if we are not experienced enough, or willing to lose the $ involved, then we don't learn thru our own mistakes, but have to learn from other's experiences.

Also a lot of collectors learn from VERY small sample numbers and then ascribe those properties to ALL similar guns. for instance, I've only HELD the 1- 1943 dated Long Branch sniper, but thru the internet (and fellow collectors who've shared photos with me) I've been blessed with the examination of detailed photos of 7 to 10 other 1943 LB(T)s.



This is one reason so many people refer to pre-1944 H&H converted No4(T) rifles as being "fakes" or "put-togethers", the 1942 & 1943 conversions do not have all of the same markings that 1944/45/46 H&H conversions exhibit as those markings evolved during production...and the numbers which are available to collectors today reflect the surviving guns, most of which are conversions dated 1944, 45 & 46.

[Warren]

And to add to Lee Enfield (DV's) information, a good number of the early Long Branch snipers made more trips back and forth over the pond than Bob Hope. A number of the early LB snipers were problem units and many went back and forth numerous times from Canada to the UK via bomber ferry. I have some of the records and once I get them digitized so they are more readable I will share them. There were a lot of issued with the early T's, other than the waterproofing, that was not common knowledge so it is a crap shoot of what you will find as markings and assembly on many of the early ones. PLUS many were put together AFTER the war for friendly nations plus Canadian Forces base defense and do not fit the cookie cutter mold.
Canada went from almost a hunter gatherer type of society to a major war material manufacturing country in very short order. Canada had never poured a billet of optical glass until REL started and within a few months we were making optical glass to rival the great European makers. Movements were also quick in coming and became top quality in very short order. We made a tremendous amount of experimental optical devices, range proximaters and many secret devices, so the scopes were not of high priority. Sniper scopes were near the middle of the priority list but as always, the Navy got the cream. It is a shame that most of the REL records got destroyed in a flood and the resultant mess was sent to EB Eddy in Hull Quebec and made into paper products. One only has to use their imagination as to what paper products.

[Surpmil]

This might be a good place to reiterate that a certain retired RCOC armourer who is known to a number of us has stated that he saw "No.4 sniper rifles" being converted and assembled in the 1950s in the workshops in Montreal. There is therefore probably no way of telling what is a genuine WWII conversion and what was done up by an armourer of who knows what skill or knowledge long after WWII. As I recall my conversations with him, there was no suggestion of these conversions involving the machining of pads after they were fitted to the rifles. Indeed, unless the pads were made up during the period he mentioned, there would be no reason for them to be complete at all, as the final machining was done, at least in the UK, after the pads were fitted to the rifle body. We could hypothesize that the conversions done after WWII might show no "T' stamp, but that would be merely hypothesis.

Peter has mentioned that a fitter was sent over from H&H to LB to assist in the setting up of the assembly process. It seems unlikely that the poor quality work shown in some cases would be contemporaneous with that effort. Particularly not in view of the high quality of the fit and finish on other LB rifles and No4(T)s of the period. Care taken extended even to the lining up of screw slots judging from some published photos.

So, to reiterate, it simply doesn't make sense to say that bodged up abortions and finely fitted pads came out of the same factory at the same time. The only thing that could explain such a scenario IMHO, would be a large and abrupt change over of personnel causing a need to "relearn" all the same lessons.

Much more likely that these lower quality conversions represent the work of armourers in the 1950s who had only a vague idea of what was involved and who were using pads removed from worn out or condemned rifles of WWII vintage, and fitting these to new stock No4s as best they could.

It would be interesting to know if any of these "poor quality" fittings are ex-UK service rifles, since those are the only rifles we can pretty conclusively say were done during WWII and not later.

As mentioned above, I don't include the OP's rifle in that since it was apparently in UK service since WWII ("ENGLAND" stamp) until its disposal, and the I am now convinced it probably is the remains of a WWII No4(T) conversion, but as mentioned above, I don't believe the pads are original to that rifle.

And as I was convinced of that, I'm open to being convinced that other, verifiably WWII LB No4(T)s show poor quality fitting, but I remain skeptical in view of the overall very high standard of fit and finish maintained there.

[Brian Dick]

I looked again at my LB '43, '44 and '45 date rifles. The quality of pad fitting far exceeds the one discussed here on all three. It's not even close.

[snipershot1944]

Brian. You are from South Carolina, not Canada. Why don't you send one of those Long Branches up north.........to Virginia?

[Peter Laidler]

Mmmmmmmmmm. You know that there is a degree of scepticism coming up now. Not just a degree, but a LARGE degree of scepticism and truth telling. I have been half watching this thread and some things simply just do not ring true.

And the first is this....... Sorry, but the notion that the RCEME Armourers at a workshop somewhere were making these up after the war is really so beyond my understanding of belief and depth of knowledge regarding the conversion process makes such a notion, well......... I simply do not believe it. Repaired or rebuilt, yes but made up to any form of sensible, useable standard......... Nope! I would certainly like to fire off a few questions based on my knowledge is all I can say. I will believe that when I see it written down officially somewhere and not before.

That notion would be like me telling you that 50 years ago I saw some Armourers making up L4 7.62mm Brens from .303" Brens

I appreciate that dog doesn't eat dog, but there's something else too. Let me put it this way. If the inspector/line supervisor (and not a fitter incidentally.......) at H&H was sent to Canada on a returning troopship, then I soundly dispute that defective No4T's were returned as air cargo. I mean....., air cargo on the hazzardous atlantic crossing......... We reeserved air cargo for chromium and stellite - strategic raw materials fromn Sweden! And air cargo for why I am bound to ask............ It's not as though the production of No4T rifles from H&H ever failed to meed the output deadlines. If it were to happen, they'd have geared up the other gunmakers to pile in surely, just as they did with telescope production.

If a few dozen No4T rifles from Canada were defective or found wanting in quality or quantity, then surely, it'd be a wise move to send someone over from the UK to oversee the line , chivvy a few up, kick a few bottoms and get it done correctly AT SOURCE instead of flying the bloody rifles back. And guess what - that's JUST what they did! We could simply repair them here for heavens sake. Following the formation of the REME in early '42 ALL allied repair facilities upwards of the unit level Light Aid Detachments (the LAD's) were pooled.

I will believe that when I see it written down officially somewhere and not before.

Sorry chaps........ Oh yes, and another thing.......... If the pad doesn't fit perfectly along its mating surface, and that means NO gaps between it and the body, then it's useless for mechanical reasons that I won't go into. That's the reason they skim the body....... Top get it parallel to the bore AND FLAT!