My 43' LB - First (ever?) Teardown

[doca]

Looks like the site lost all my pics with that update, last month.

I've been searching to support the theories presented here, and so far have nothing. The only reason I'm writing today is to address a few things I read this morning and to re-state some facts.


1. "doca, I realize that you desperately want your 1943 Long Branch No.4Mk.1* to be a factory original, Canadian owned and marked rifle."

- You're still misunderstanding the situation. The issue has never been a want, it's been about unsubstantiated claims of provenance, based on speculation, misdirecting errors and misinformation, by members of this forum.

- I have some bad news for you. With all parts accurate to a LB assembled No 4, and lots of Canadian ownership marks, only (see number two, below), it is an original factory, post-war CAL FTR, with no links to export, because there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Don't worry, I'll blow your mind about the Greeks further below.

- So, do we now all understand why this statement was inaccurate? Good. Now stop misleading readers.


2. " If it doesn't sport the "C-Broad Arrow" ownership mark, (not the little ones on all of the small parts and wood), on top of the breech or right side of the buttstock, it simply isn't so."

- How many times do I have to tell you or show you that it has the C broad arrow in all the correct spots, including the buttstock, receiver, barrel, front sight, bolt and more and, there are no other identification marks anywhere, less previously identified LB and CA marks, and the mysterious "G 2", as previously stated and as seen in the posted pictures of post number one and two, in addition to the typical inspector and Canadian proof marks..

3. "Page 312 of the chapter on North American production. I can sell you a copy of the book"

- US law permits the sharing of this compartmentalized information from the source document for publication here, under the terms of fair use.

- I'm not paying you to backup your own claim, but I do have to wonder why my reference, references your reference as a "technical reviewer of the final manuscript", but apparently got it wrong. In short: your reference gave the thumbs up to my reference and, if my reference is wrong, your reference can't be accurate.


- The good news is that you don't have to scan it. Just take a digital photograph.

4. "Besides, if you look at the back of the leaf, it will have the post 1946 CAL stamp, not the wartime LB stamp."

- Thankfully, the point I was making had nothing to do with the original assembly; it was about the correct sight for the 1943 production date.

- All my sources state that the C MKIII was first used in 1943; I've seen no statements to the otherwise, beyond your posts here. Mine clearly was not 1943 because there is a CA stamp on the sight, which means it's production was after 20 Sep, 1945. Note that I never said 100% original assembly; even in post one I suggested it was a stupid concept.

5. I'm not even bothering to ask for evidence of the following, but I will follow-up each with a brief statement:

a. "... as doca's rifle originally had a Mk.II 300-600 yard flip sight as I already said"

- Speculation. You've provided no evidence to support, and my published evidence identifies the C MK3 rear sight was used in 43-44 LB No4. Mk1* production. Again, your reference was as a technical reviewer for my reference.

b. "It's pretty obvious that Canada sold rifles to the Greeks during the Korean war"

- Either Canada did or Canada didn't. Pick one and stand by it.

- I've found no record of such, but I have found a pile of LB No4's, FTR'd from UK part pins, that were sold under the well documented British sales to Greece, during the civil war.

- I've also found New Zealand, Indian and Pakistani sales in the 1950's, but all of these firearms are expected to have obvious signs and again, mine has no signs of exportation, period.

c. "Doca's was repaired/rebuilt in overseas workshops"

- Speculation based on no evidence and, contrary to all existing evidence.

d. "That's why doca's has a renumbered bolt body, replacement rear sight and dip blue finish instead of CAL Parkerizing."

- We already know it was reworked by Canadian Arsenals Ltd, after 20 Sep 1945, just I always said.

- Sorry... blue finish? I have a wonderfully blue EAL 303, but guess again. The receiver was clearly parkerized using either magnese or iron phosphate because it's very dark grey, or actually black. I don't know where to draw the line between a very dark grey and black.

- Does it not make sense that when it was CAL FTR'd, its likely that's when the bolt and sight were replaced and, is it not less likely that it was done by some foreign location that just happens to have boxes of LB parts, and only uses LB parts on a LB firearm?

- Brian, in post nine you said, "Long Branch started Parkerizing in 1950". We know it was reworked post-war; lacking evidence of border hopping and FTR date, it was more likely done in Toronto than Athens, circa 1950 (if you're correct on that year). The observation is supported by your own statement in post 12, "CAL replaced the Mk.2 flip sights with the later C Mk.3 post 1950 if memory serves." Regardless of sight production dates, does it really not make sense to you that if LB was post-war FTR'ing, they would have dipped it at the same time? It does to me.

In summary:

- We've always known it was reworked post-war. I just assume all at LB because almost everything is marked as LB or Canadian owned and, there isn't a single characteristic to suggest otherwise. Maybe there's a screw that isn't from Toronto, but the only country I know that even bothers with inspection marks on screws, was the Germans.

- There are broad arrow C, LB and CA marks everywhere one would expect to find them. I'll need to tear it down again, but I was surprised at how many small parts have LB on them.

- There are no non-Canadian marks on it, whatsoever.

- While there is actual evidence to suggest a (reasonably) cozy domestic life, there is no evidence suggesting an exciting international experience or mass parts-bin refurb. Why? Because the only markings that distinguish it from 100% war time assembly are the CA stamps, clearly applied later, below the Canadian government ownership broad arrows on the butt stock and forestock, and the post-20 Sep 1945 rear sight. Otherwise, it barely has a scratch.


Bottom Line

My No 4 was Canadian military issue rifle, in whole, until sent for refurb post-war. Then it got a new bolt and rear sight, packerized and stamped with the Canadian Arsenals Ltd mark. That's all anyone can currently prove about this particular rifle. For all we know, based on visual wear, it was one of a refurb done by the Canadian military, who then stored it. Who knows, but I do know there is no evidence to suggest it ever left Canada so, stop making it up.

- - -

Look; I just wanted to share a cool piece of history, learn some more and enjoy one of my few passions. All your information about these firearms may be accurate, but you need to understand that there are multiple reasons why any one particular rifle may be what it is today. I'm just asking you to deal with the facts are they are available.

I've presented a logical argument based on facts, to counter hearsay as forum members try to pigeonhole this particular rifle to a story that even they cannot validate. I don't care if you don't agree, but you should care that so far I can discredit all your fantasies.

- - -

P.S. I also have a lead on the mystery "G 2" stamp on the wrist. I don't like it because it's as thin as a bowl of gulag soup however, it is suggestive of what it is, rather then where it was and who carried it. My research also suggests that the soup my be a little thicker due the geolocation of other period Enfields marked "G 1" and "G 2", but you know, speculation. At least I own it.

If anyone has information about similarly G stamped WWII era-firearms, specifically current and service location, make/model and anything you may know about it, I'd really appreciate it. If its speculation, please just be clear because I don't want to replicate my experiences here.