Longbranch No4 Mk1* grip mark

[doca]

Definitely a lot of confusion here. Doesn’t matter much. Due to the receiver etched rack number, I moved on from the otherwise beautiful one I’d scoped (almost bought it anyway and regret skipping it).

Just a few last calls before I abandon this.

1. I wasn’t confusing pre and post 68’ requirements: for some reason it just keeps being brought up. Constantly telling me there’s a difference does no good, because it does not apply to this. It does not apply to this because, since before post #1, I knew it wasn’t 68+ import because…. See posts #6 and #20.

2. Thanks for editing your post about LB production; here’s a very slim read about it: Long Branch Lee Enfield Sniper Rifles - Calibremag.ca

3. @Roger Payne and @Alan de Enfield: The English export stamp is a real thing. Ref: British Enfield Rifles, Volume 2 2nd Edition Revised, Lee-Enfield No* 4 and No* 5 Rifles, Stratton, 2003

“BRITISH EXPORT MARKS
On many No. 4 rifles (and conversions) and No. 5 rifles, one finds the word "ENGLAND" stamped in letters 0.08-inch high on the top of the receiver ring or on the left side of the buttstock socket. This indicates that the rifle was approved for export. Such rifles also generally carry the British Nitro-Proof stamp—a crown with the letters "BNP" beneath—on the barrel, the receiver ring, or both.”

My take away from this point is that the reason we don’t see Canada marked on all those English imports is because they’re not marked for import. They were marked by the Brits before they got in the boat. That must have complied enough with the sporadically adhered to US import law, I guess.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see that Australia, being a commonwealth, had something similar. Us? We destroyed what we didn’t keep or sell to other governments (NZ, India and Pakistan for sure). The next known batch of wartime produced No.4s wouldn’t have left Canadian military depots until 1954.

4. At least I now know that NZ got a pile of LB No.4s. Don’t know if AUS did, but it’s no stretch to imagine that a good chunk of the 50,000ish they imported for the NZ military (LBs are reportedly the most common still found in NZ, 2012) probably went to AUS when they retired from service in 1954, when they bought the same rifle as Canada. http://www.armsregister.com/arms_reg...field_no_4.pdf
Attachment 121738

5. @desperatrdan: Thanks, I’ll read up on the McKinley Tariff Act, but I’m still suspicious that that stamp is in fact a US import mark. However @Brian Dick, thanks for the example of a one piece Australia’s stamp, but I’m still suspicious (mainly because of above #3, last para and, random guy’s PowerPoint and unvetted internet claims mean nothing to a fact based individual).


I’m currently chasing one in England, one with a CDN out of service mark and , one with a War Assets Corp. stamp on the Knox (still researching, be kind).