1941 LB and a 1923 SMLE Mk V

[boltaction]

Good morning:
I wanted share some photos of a couple of recent acquisitions.

This is not my first 1941 LB, and unfortunately (but not surprisingly) it has undergone upgrades at some point in its life. It still wears its matching 1942 dated barrel, but the stock is a later pattern, and it does not have the waisted foresight protector, hinged barrel bands, or the early pattern cocking piece. Still, it is an early production unit and in nice shape. I think it should shoot well! It certainly conforms to the early pattern serial numbering--just two digit.

Attachment 67158Attachment 67159Attachment 67160Attachment 67161Attachment 67162Attachment 67163Attachment 67164Attachment 67165Attachment 67166


I've run across and owned a few Mk V SMLE's before, but never a 1923 dated one. This one is matching and in very nice shape, so it is a definite keeper!

Ed

Attachment 67167Attachment 67168Attachment 67169Attachment 67170Attachment 67171Attachment 67172Attachment 67173

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Surpmil]

Congratulations, that must the lowest numbered Long Branch outside of a museum, and I'm not even sure about the museums.

The 42 date on the barrel raises some questions though, since we've seen 41 dated barrels on rifles with much later serial numbers.

Perhaps there were some QC problems with some early barrels that required refits before they left the factory?

[boltaction]

Not sure. It's a 1L remember, not a 0L. I have a 0L which has a higher serial number, and has a '41 dated barrel as one would expect for a first run. This is the lowest 1L I've seen, but those are later than the 0L of course.

Ed

[boltaction]

Forgot to mention it is also a 2 groove barrel.

Ed

[Lee Enfield]

That Long Branch is serial number 10,025 which would explain the 1942 dated barrel and "later parts".

The serial numbering system of the early Long Branch guns causes a fair amount of confusion.

0L1 would theoretically be the first serial numbered Long Branch. 0L100 would be #100, 0L9999 would be 9,999, 1L0 would be 10,000, 1L1 would be 10,001, 1L900 would be 10,900.

2L1 would be 20,001 however we don't know exactly when they started to just stamp the extra zeros, so we don't really know if 20,001 was marked as 2L1 or 2L0001...although they seemed to have adopted the "conventional" serial numbering system somewhere around the 15,000 serial range.

[Surpmil]

Not sure. It's a 1L remember, not a 0L. I have a 0L which has a higher serial number, and has a '41 dated barrel as one would expect for a first run. This is the lowest 1L I've seen, but those are later than the 0L of course.

Ed

Ah! What is read in haste may be repented at leisure!

[Seaspriter]

Beautiful rifles, thanks for sharing.

From my research on Long Branch Production (based on Skennerton & Stratton), in Dec'41 (which links to the 0L75XX to 1LXX probable serial numbers) there was a shortage of barrels, rear sights, & cocking pieces which prevented final production. In January Jan'42 ( which links to the 1L20XX) many earlier serial numbers have 1942 Barrels - must be considered 1942 production. It was apparently in Jan '42 that Long Branch also made the switch over to Mk1*