1941 Long Branch

[spinecracker]

Thanks, John - would you happen to have photos of your own Long Branch beauty?

Any help I can get from forum members regarding the missing parts would be gratefully appreciated, because I'm feeling slightly out of my depth lol (2 months ago, I didn't have a single rare Enfield, now I have 2 of the buggers lol)

By the way, did they fold over the lips on the older magazines after they installed the spring and follower? I am having 1 heck of a time getting the follower and spring out - but it may just be due to trapped crud.

[jmoore]

No, you just have to cross your toes the right way, and out it pops! (Depress the rear of the follower, twist a bit, get the spring to the front of the mag, and feed it out the top a bit at a time. Some are easier than others, depending on the follower tabs underneath the platform.)

[spinecracker]

Well, on a scale of 1 (easy) to 10 ("get the blowtorch, Mildred - this sucker is toast!"), the magazine follower scored a 9 to get out. If it is as difficult to get in as it was to remove, I might just leave it until I really have to put it back together. Looking at the crud in the magazine, I don't think the follower and spring have ever been removed lol. It also looks like the magazine was the drawn type (no welded seam on the inside).

[jmoore]

"LB" on the follower?

[spinecracker]

Not anywhere I can see - oh, well lol.

[Surpmil]

spinecracker

I don't know if you noticed but it looks like your fore stock was regulated by Fultons. Your trigger guard bushing was removed and the wood around the bushing has been cone shaped.

That's standard on the MkI forends Ed. Notice the relief for the magazine cutoff on the forend in your photo.

Someone has definitely hobbed out the barrel channel 'with extreme prejudice', no doubt having bright ideas about free-floating the barrel.

And not being satisfied with that, then attacked the exterior.

[Edward Horton]

That's standard on the MkI forends Ed. Notice the relief for the magazine cutoff on the forend in your photo.

Someone has definitely hobbed out the barrel channel 'with extreme prejudice', no doubt having bright ideas about free-floating the barrel.

And not being satisfied with that, then attacked the exterior.

I stand corrected and now wonder why the older mark fore stocks were enlarged at the bushing area???

Thank you Surpmil

[spinecracker]

Ed, I did note the cone-shaped hole, and was going to ask about it. Unfortunately, I somehow think the forestock no longer has any real value after being sanded down so much.

I think the order in which the rifle should be restored is to get the hardest to find wood part first (e.g. correct fore-end with the lower right hand wall), then find and colour-match the rest of the wood parts (hand guards, buttstock). As correct fore-ends for 1941 Long Branches do not grow on trees (well, ok, they do, but you know what I mean), I think I am in for quite a wait lol. The only other part that I think will prove to be elusive is the LB-stamped Mk.1 micrometer sight - I am not holding my breath. If anyone on the forum has leads on these items, then please let me know

[spinecracker]

Added new photos at:

http://s1016.photobucket.com/albums/...Long%20Branch/

[jmoore]

That's standard on the MkI forends Ed. Notice the relief for the magazine cutoff on the forend in your photo.

"Canadian" Mk.I versus Mk.I*, yes?

Although early British rifles seem to have the same "cone", I don't know if that feature was eliminated at the same time as the cut-out area for the magazine cutoff. Still, there ought to be a sleeve in between, unless the Canadian forestock is different. Having not seen the "innards" of such an early example before (Earliest I have is a "3L" w/o the "low wood" fore stock), I really am not knowing!