Long Branch Mk I*: refurbed or original?

[Brian Dick]

This '42 LB is a Canadian FTR for comparison. Note the Canadian ownership mark on the right front of the receiver/body. The markings look slightly sand blasted over unlike Ridolpho's rifle which was the normal pre-phosphate prep. You can really see the contrast between bluing and the phosphate finish if you look at the C Mk.III rear sight leaf.

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.

[browningautorifle]

You can really see the contrast between bluing and the phosphate finish if you look at the C Mk.III rear sight leaf.

Well...I know we did lots of Parkerizing that came out clean and smooth and black...and looks like Ridolpho's rifle. Without in hand it's hard to see. Doesn't matter, still don't believe it to be original. Also doesn't matter. Looks like new and would love to have it.

[Brian Dick]

Yep, it looks like a beauty to me. The bluing can be inconsistent with color much the same as phosphate depending on the weakness of the bath and a few other chemistry related factors.

The Long Branch body is nice and smooth. Many look at Savage bodies and think they're phosphated because the bodies were sandblasted prior to finishing. It gives the Dulite an almost grayish tint. The durability of the phosphate finish is much better though.

There are really only two types of phosphate as mentioned before. Zinc, which is light grey and manganese which is a bit darker to almost black depending on the hardness and quality of the steel.

[Surpmil]

Probably been said already, but that is not the finish normally seen on 1942 dated Long Branch rifles. Nor would one expect a 1942 dated rifle to be in such pristine condition unless it was one of the New Zealand "time capsules". Looks to me like it was probably a Canadian arsenal refurb. Nothing wrong with that of course.

That being said, it is known what finishes Long Branch used, and at least one of them is still commercially available.

[Brian Dick]

Maybe it's my eyes Jim but the OP rifle looks blue to me, not black. The minty and correctly serial numbered forend is another indicator of an original rifle. It's in the correct font, size and exactly like a pair of unaltered LB No.4's, '42 and '43 date, i still have here. Forends weren't numbered at the LB factory after 1943 that I'm aware of. They didn't stamp serial numbers on the forends throughout the remainder of production, '49-55 at CAL either. Like you say, it doesn't matter. Just observations of mine.

[browningautorifle]

the OP rifle looks blue to me, not black

I meant as opposed to grey...ish. Nice rifle...

[Ridolpho]

Well, as usual, no easy answers when it comes to questions regarding originality. But very useful comments. I went back and reviewed a number of threads displaying NZ owned Mk I* rifles and am somewhat surprised to see finishes that in some cases look a lot like my rifle. None seem to display a bright, typical rust blued surface that some threads seem to suggest as characteristic of Long Branch bluing. In the NZ rifle threads I also see the characteristic forend numbering mentioned by Brian D. I also then stumbled into interesting older threads with some controversy about the actual existence of absolutely original No. 4 rifles- a debate that will likely never be resolved. In another great older thread about "originality" Peter Laidler mentions a minor modification done to No. 4 Mk I* rifles in service and which would likely be done to a LB refurbed in the fifties and I'm going to have to dig the rifle out of the safe again to look for that. Surprisingly and based mainly on Brian's opinion I'm now inclined to think there is a chance this rifle is "factory original". Does it matter? Well, to a collector absolutely. I'll post a few additional photos as time permits. Regards.

Ridolpho

[Brian Dick]

It's nonsense to state that completely original rifles don't exist. I think yours is one of them but that's only my opinion having seen hundreds of Long Branch rifles in all states of repair. I still have a few. Original Savage and Long Branch rifles are way more common than their British counterparts. They made more than the British did so it just stems to reason. The Dulite bluing process is a hot blue process and not rust blue. It can be a dull blue color to almost grey like on Savages that were sand blasted first, (only the body). If you have an original Savage, compare the body to the barrel finish. The barrels weren't blasted and the Dulite is there too so you can see the difference. As far as Canadian FTR manganese phosphate, look at the photos in thread #15. I can pull out a 1950 LB manufacture rifle, (yes, it's as new), and it's the exact same color but the surface of the steel wasn't blasted first. It's simply apples and oranges compared to bluing. Anyhow, I'll stick to my guns, (pardon the pun), on Ridolpho's rifle.

[boltaction]

If you sell it let me know as I would love to own that. I'm in BC so an easy ship....

Ed

[5thBatt]

1942 Long Branch No4 Mk1*

A 5L & a 15L 1942 Long Branch, couple of recent NZ finds, imo the finish is different to this one.