As the Long Branches flood in...

[Cantom]

Today I bought a 1945 Long Branch at the gun show. It's a beauty...that gives me one of every year up to and including 1950. I kind of doubt I'll ever get anything newer than that but you never know...

As I once said, sometimes Bubbas are more interesting than scoring a perfect standard specimen...what's to say about an almost perfect stock rifle?
I wish to thank Bob, who made this available to me.








This rifle is fitted with a LB Mk I rear sight, which isn't right, but who am I to hold it against it...it's my favourite sight anyway.

[Cantom]

I guess I'm done for now. Here are 6 of them lined up from right to left, from 41 to 50, the 49 is away getting the Bubba scope mount holes I Bubba'ed in it welded up so they're lined up in a bit of a missing man formation...

[Claven2]

Nice looking 45! Now you need to find a C-> MkIII sight for it. That Mk1 sight is really only correct for a 1941 or early 1942 LB rifle

[koldt]

OK, so then is this MkIII sight correct for my 20L 1942? It's LB and C/|\ marked as well.

[Cantom]

Nice looking 45! Now you need to find a C-> MkIII sight for it. That Mk1 sight is really only correct for a 1941 or early 1942 LB rifle

I just got one (Mk III, not CMK3) from ebay on Thursday, and I installed it on my 44 LB last night to replace the Mk II sight on it since apparently it is also correct for a 44. I'm not sure who put the Mk I on the 45 but I'm not complaining about it... Easy enough to change someday...

I'm not sure what year they switched to the CMK3 sight, my 49 and 50 both have them.




Here's a few of the variations. The Brits had the Mk III with no solid base, it was hollow.The Canadian sight looks tons better. Just like our rifles eh??

[Claven2]

Klunk:
Is the rifle blued or parked? If parked, it's a refurb and anything's correct A 1942 PROBABLY was built with a MkII flip sight, but if it's a late '42, it could posibly have also have a MkIII sight, though they tend to show up most in 1943 and later.

[Cantom]

[QUOTE=koldt;3301]OK, so then is this MkIII sight correct for my 20L 1942? It's LB and C/|\ marked as well.


I think that 42 should have a Mk I sight.
That's also the later "slipper" safety design, the third variation for LB AFAIK. You need the round one.

[koldt]

I think that 42 should have a Mk I sight.
That's also the later "slipper" safety design, the third variation for LB AFAIK. You need the round one.

I've heard that before about the safety, however I've heard and read that this variant was possible. There is absolutely no signs of disassembly or screws being touched, so it appears this is original to the rifle, and the wear, etc is consistent as well. Who knows, may have been changed sometime later as well, post war??

Boy, these pics with the flash make the finish appear somewhat worse. I usually try to get shots without using flash. But I was in a hurry and didn't want to wait till morning.

[Cantom]

I've heard that before about the safety, however I've heard and read that this variant was possible. There is absolutely no signs of disassembly or screws being touched, so it appears this is original to the rifle, and the wear, etc is consistent as well. Who knows, may have been changed sometime later as well, post war??

Boy, these pics with the flash make the finish appear somewhat worse. I usually try to get shots without using flash. But I was in a hurry and didn't want to wait till morning.

I know what you mean. On my 41 it looks rusty in the pics but in reality it's not.

[Claven2]

Blueing is, after all, a form of rust and sometimes the flash brings that out