long branch sniper ?

[Brian Dick]

David, All but my 90L '45 date rifle have mismatch scopes and brackets,. Even my TP is partially restored but I'm proud of the result. Thanks again DRP for the help on that one. I had another well used but all matching TP from the late Bruce Gorton in New Zealand that we were suspicious was one of only a few trialed in England and it does reside in Virginia now on the Blue Ridge topside of the Shennandoah Valley! I get to visit it once in a while. My spare matching LB "T" rifles were sold after the divorce in 2012 along with a couple of my remaining L42's. Guess where they went? Back to Canada!!

Brian

[husk]

This 1945 LB T is included in Mr. Laidler's list ( in the sticky above on 90L Long Branch rifles) as having been " Observed in British Service ". The scope, mount and Canadian scope case are all matched to the rifle. Anyone familiar with No 4 snipers will recognize the labels attached to the scope case as being British. The front pad screws show bright tips, with no effort made to blacken them. I think it's obvious that at some point in the production of these rifles, the workmanship became sub-standard with regard to pad installation. It involved enough rifles for collector's to have taken note.

[husk]

Teltec01- If you read this thread from the beginning, you'll get the gist of what we are talking about.

[Surpmil]

I suppose the next logical step would be to log the dates and serial numbers of as many LB No.4(T)s as possible and note which dates and serial ranges show these poorly finished pad fitments.

From that a pattern might emerge which could be correlated with other known events.

It definitely seems there is more we don't yet know.

The fitting of pads to rifles is such a trifling matter compared to manufacturing the actual No.4 Rifle to the standard that was obtained at LB, that it is very peculiar that is should have presented any problem at all. Look at the products that were designed and manufactured elsewhere in this country during WWII: R.E.L. being a prime example - there were plenty of original minds about, able to tackle complex technology and bring it to production with a mostly "unskilled" workforce in a short time and to a standard as high as any other Allied country.

There is something odd about this and the only explanation I can see is that the whole venture was assigned a very low priority initially; the only piece of evidence I can think of at this moment is the known low priority assigned at R.E.L. to the production of the No32 scope, and yet they still managed to be the first to introduce 1 minute index plates in the C No.32 MkIA scopes. Furthermore, consider the design and manufacturing effort that was later expended on the various unique sniper rifles, scopes and mounts in 1943-45!

It sounds as though there may have been a lack of information on the fitting of pads and in particular the fact of the mating surfaces being machined after the pads were fitted to the rifle. It would be interesting to know what the exact problems were with the LB rifles supplied to the UK that led to this gent from H&H being sent over.

Has anyone ever seen an unfinished LB-made pad?

[jmoore]

Note that the front pad of what LB (T)s is not made the same as the British version. DRP was one of the first to point it out online, but there are noticable machining and design differences that weren't known generall for some time. And at least one major difference is barely visisble with the pad attached. Too, are the various identifying markings that are found only on selected LB rifles. So, again, it's a package deal. Not just indiviual parts, etc.

Observe as many rifles as you can, pull apart what you can lay hands on, and form conclusions over time. No instant gratification with LB (T)s, me thinks! Wish I had the funds to squirrel away that have come my way. Especially that one with the special butt and rail mount (no scope)! Now in Oz, for about ten years now, unless it has since moved along.

[Peter Laidler]

REL were the first to fit 1moa index plates (RH, thread 105)! Where on earth did you get that from Surpmil? These were being discussed when the first ex-Bren Mk1 telescope was put onto the first rifles! While Canada chose to retro fit the 1moa clicker plates to Mk1's and call them Mk1A's, we simply used up existing stocks of Mk1's and continued into Mk2 production with the 1moa clicker plates and modified drums at the same time. Think of the logistics of retro modifying all (?) of the Mk1's already out there...... Nope, start anew I say!

Because we modified the clicker plates as well as the range and deflection turret part at the same time (to make the new Mk2 telescope) in order to prevent Mk1 and 2 interchangeability and maintain standardisation we also allowed manufacturrers other relaxations in standards too, it made the Mk2 a different scope - albeit only slightly

I'm not tooooo sure that I would agree about the other products either. Although regardless of that, REL telescope output was always short of requirements, hence the use of the absolutely dire Lyman (I say dire in UK Military trials terms only and not in general laymans use terms of course) and the No67/Mk4 was developed in order to use other lenses currently in greater production. It did say binocular lenses in the papers somewhere but I don't believe this due to the prismatic nature/system of bino optical systems - but I suppose it could be interpreted as 'similar to current' binocular lenses

[Peter Laidler]

Further to Surpmil's Q on thread 107. The H&H line supervisor wasn't sent to correct a rifle problem per-se, he was sent over to get the rifle conversion PROGRAMME up and running from piecemeal bit-part production to a full production line as at H&H using the experience, tricks and shortcuts learned/gained at H&H. Out inspection was a job for the Out inspectors.

I have only noticed a few Canadian No4T's and a few more L42's in UK service and have to say that I didn't notice any poor workmanship.

Added later: Now that I think about it, if any of the rifles from H&H or LB had been below the required standard, then they would simple have been rejected outright by the Govt inspector or any other inspector/examiner further down the food chain. It really is as simple as that!

[Lee Enfield]

...snip...I have only noticed a few Canadian No4T's and a few more L42's in UK service and have to say that I didn't notice any poor workmanship.

Added later: Now that I think about it, if any of the rifles from H&H or LB had been below the required standard, then they would simple have been rejected outright by the Govt inspector or any other inspector/examiner further down the food chain. It really is as simple as that!

I don't think anyone who has actually examined a LB sniper said "below standard", I said "fit and finish" is "ugly" as in messy, or sloppy in appearance compared to H&H.

[Peter Laidler]

I appreciate that Lee, but the spec usually dictates the standard of finish. And sloppy and messy would not be included in it. A play on words, but you get my drift

[Surpmil]

Peter, thanks for that further info. I should have said "I believe" REL was first to introduce the 1MOA plates!

Regarding the "using up existing stocks" as opposed introducing changes to production as early as possible, the negative would be that the troops would not receive the updated version until considerably later, unless the earlier marks in service were withdrawn and replaced. I don't remember ever seeing a photo showing the No32 Mk3 in combat use in Europe in 1944/45. Presumably because the new rifles to which they were fitted were held in store until "required" due to the loss or damage of the rifles then in the hands of the troops (or the equipping of new formations). The earliest photo I've seen is in Capt. Shore's book showing a sniper course in Holland in late 1945 or 46 (can't remember which now) using No32 Mk3s. The scopes were being produced in 1944, but must have spent the rest of the war sitting in stores. BTW, has anyone else seen a photo showing the Mk3 in use during WWII?

"Without Warning":

By December 1943, according to the montly letter of the Director of Small Arms & Ammunition, REL was "also issuing some which are half way between Mk.I and (the proposed) Mk.II." This was the Canadian Mk.IA.

So REL production of the Mk.IA would probably begin in the final quarter of 1943.

Do you know when exactly the H&H chap was sent over? Are there any records or correspondence relating to this? Any records showing what information or drawings were sent to Long Branch initially?

"Without Warning", says this:

"REL was provided with the relevant drawings by the War Office to allow it to undertake the necessary production. Unfortunately most drawings supplied by the British assumed a level of journeyman's knowledge to fill in the blanks - knowledge that was lacking at REL. In considering the production of the No.32 Mk.I scope the engineers at REL felt the design was outdated, complicated and required too many steps to produce.

Now one would expect that engineers able to appraise the worth of a design are easily able to "fill in the blanks" that a "journeyman" tradesman might be able to, and furthermore it is not the job of "journeymen" to "fill in the blanks"(!) when it comes to preparing a design for manufacture - that is the job of the engineers! (Assuming any were available) The wording leaves me wondering what was provided if the engineers had trouble "filling in the blanks"!

I don't have the Report of the Minister of Munitions and Supply handy, but IIRC it says one of the first production projects at REL was the Admiralty Fire Control Predictor, an electro-mechanical computer and about the most complicated piece of equipment then in use. The point being that their resources, and brains, were obviously prioritized. REL also produced a whole range of electrical products, which are also poorly documented.

This is a bit OT, but odd that so many photos were taken at Long Branch, including even films, while almost no photos of the inside of REL seem to exist, this of a complex "occupying 750,000 square feet and employing over 7500 persons."

(If I remember "Without Warning" correctly it says that the C67 lenses were from unspecified optical equipment then in production, rather than binoculars specifically.)