Unsporterize an Enfield No.4 Mk.1

[harlton]

Hi Seaspriter,

I really like your carbine, for my money, I would add a rear hand guard, just to save my fingers from getting burnt, that's just me. By the way what is the nose cap mat'l made from cast/machined steel or a sheet stamping, thanks.
On Long Branch jungle carbines, I was personally at an auction in Ontario, with a lead gunsmith from a very famous lee Enfield Shop here. He purchased the 1944 long Branch jungle Carbine. It looked genuine to me, but I didn't have the spare cash, he got it, and it went for a good dollar. No Bodged numbers, missing markings etc, plain LB wood with no metal cap, shaped right, with all the lightening cuts and stock dia flash hider.
I have no idea how many they made, I do own a LB marked 800yd J.C. sight, so maybe they made up parts, and some got made, but there are some out there. There's also the other longbranch, lightened rifle, but I've never seen one of those. If memory serves me right, I got the sight from Marstar, over 20yrs ago, when I was just happy to have the correct type sight on my own J.Carbine.

Regards Ian

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.

[Seaspriter]

I really like your carbine, for my money, I would add a rear hand guard, just to save my fingers from getting burnt, that's just me. By the way what is the nose cap mat'l made from cast/machined steel or a sheet stamping, thanks.

Thanks Ian. The carbine is actually a very attractive piece -- if you can get out of your mind what it looked like before being converted (something that is hard to do, especially for all of us who love Enfields).

Your idea of putting on a rear handguard, especially a grooved one, might be a very interesting modification of an sporterized model that has the barrel snipped and the foresight reconfigured. I wouldn't do it to mine because it would mean replacing the fore-end, which has been shaved down to make it more delicate. But it is certainly an option for those who just don't want the sporterized look and cannot justify the economics of a replacement barrel or a reconfiguration of the muzzle to original specs.

The fore-end is birch (Savage) and the nose cap is a stock Savage sheet-metal nose cap that has been reduced in length and one new hole repositioned for standard retaining pins.

If you check Long Branch - Linking Serial Numbers to Month of Production, you will see that LB didn't get a directive to start engineering on the No.5 until April 1945. LB could have used a 1944 barrel and receiver for their prototype, but logic would say that after making lightening cuts in the barrel and receiver, any prototypes would then be stamped "1945." It could be if you saw a '44 LB No.5 it was a retro-fake. However, I am not an expert at this micro-niche in LB's history, so I will defer to several others who are better informed.

Glad you got a rare LB 800 yd sight -- those can't be very common.

[harlton]

Thanks Ian. The carbine is actually a very attractive piece -- if you can get out of your mind what it looked like before being converted (something that is hard to do, especially for all of us who love Enfields).

Your idea of putting on a rear handguard, especially a grooved one, might be a very interesting modification of an sporterized model that has the barrel snipped and the foresight reconfigured. I wouldn't do it to mine because it would mean replacing the fore-end, which has been shaved down to make it more delicate. But it is certainly an option for those who just don't want the sporterized look and cannot justify the economics of a replacement barrel or a reconfiguration of the muzzle to original specs.

The fore-end is birch (Savage) and the nose cap is a stock Savage sheet-metal nose cap that has been reduced in length and one new hole repositioned for standard retaining pins.

If you check Long Branch - Linking Serial Numbers to Month of Production, you will see that LB didn't get a directive to start engineering on the No.5 until April 1945. LB could have used a 1944 barrel and receiver for their prototype, but logic would say that after making lightening cuts in the barrel and receiver, any prototypes would then be stamped "1945." It could be if you saw a '44 LB No.5 it was a retro-fake. However, I am not an expert at this micro-niche in LB's history, so I will defer to several others who are better informed.

Glad you got a rare LB 800 yd sight -- those can't be very common.

Hi Seaspriter,

Your carbine reminds me of the old lee speed rifles, which I really like, I own one complete lee speed rifle, others on the way. My Rifle has been nicely worked over, by some long gone Canadian Smith, and when I was more foolish. I let a really nicely engraved, and Ribbed carbine go, from accuracy Plus in Peterborough, Ont, for the princely sum of $150.00 about 2yrs ago, I don't even like owning up to it.
I'm wiser now. and A great shame that a lot of these Guns, just don't get the respect they deserve, they handle really nicely. That Carbine is one of my biggest regrets, fantastic rifle. In certain circles they are starting to rise, price wise, a youtube video circulating about values one at $2000.00, at a show, but these are old pre WW1 rifles. I don't think the wait on these later ones will be so slow, as their quickly disappearing one way or another,as Donors.
I'm afraid, that I'm fairly lacking on the factory record aspects, and #'s in circulation regards, the three guys bidding on the Jung, wanted it bad, it was at a high end, international auction. Offering many fully auto old WW1 & 2 guns, all still fully auto, and still in mint condition, ranging from a lewis gun, which I have a thing for, and was pictured holding one, Through Vicker's, Bren's, sten's, and SOE stuff. Then the same type of range of German arms, was on offer too.
To be really honest, I didn't appreciate the LB jungle carbine at the time. The guy who purchased it, was there for that gun, I was after a W&S scope.
As I said, it looked to be very honest to me, I don't have an explanation, all I can say is, all looked un-fudged, and all matched up, like 44 No's and correct inscription etc. The chap who purchased it, was very very knowledgeable, so I don't see that he would:- wait all day to purchase a fake and drop that kind of cash, he knew what he wanted, and I remember the date on it well, due to all the early run features.
Not at those prices for me. I don't want to mention who, and where they work exactly, I've said to much already, but they don't get any better on Enfields.
I just liked the rifle period, I own a P.H. a worked over, 1947 Faz model, and I love it. So when I saw the earlier kind , it was a case of, wouldn't it be nice to have an earlier one, the all wood type, and especially a Canadian one. Sorry to confirm my lack of Knowledge, but I won't forget that now.
I have, a nice early 43 No4* with cut-off marks started on the R.H. side , all parts are matched and marked with a sniper type T, under the 5 groove barrel, the receiver and all the trigger parts, also have a small C surrounding an Arrow, with the T and a S, the mag is marked for special work too. Theirs a T on the Knuckle beside what looks like an 8 or an R and a F16 with a line thru it, but it stops there no further conversion. Also has a big T on the Barrel a big S and an R, It's # is 30lxxxx, fully listed in one of my other ramblings.
That all aside, I think Bruce in Oz has a valid point, really nice professional conversions can be had for a song, right now. Who would have thought just a few years ago, we would have to spend the kind of money we do for a stock Enfield's.
Those Marstar Lithgow's sold for $75.00 and some for $50.00, I still have them, One Brand new, never fired, and a real nice one, with a central rear sight setup now, I paid $100 for the complete kit. Sorry I've gone on so long, but I do like those carbine/Rifles thou, regardless of generation and always thought PH was the IT.

[Peter Laidler]

I wouldn't go so far as to call that monstrosity an Officers carbine or even a tanker but I would go so far as to call the person who dreamed it up a…………., er…………., a tanker!

Sorry to say it but to me the concept of that tanker or Officers carbine is akin to flogging a dead horse……. Purely personal of course

[browningautorifle]

A neat sporter but that's about it. And THAT would only be in the eyes of the beholder...

[Seaspriter]

I would go so far as to call the person who dreamed it up a…………., er…………., a tanker!

You'll probably have to cuss on some fellow from Parker Hale who's now in his grave.

A neat sporter but that's about it. And THAT would only be in the eyes of the beholder...

Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder. My father thought it was one of the most attractive of the "demilitarized" weapons of war. It reminded him of the muskets of an earlier century (he had a rather large collection). The only WWII weapon he brought back with him was his Colt 45 ACP -- the only memory he wanted to bring back from the Battles of Okinawa and Iwo Jima. He loved British Brown Bess's, owning five of them, one of them a reproduction he used in Revolutionary War reenactments. This Enfield was a tribute to his love of Great Britain. Again, it's all in the eye of the beholder. If I had my choice between this rifle and the cut-up sporterized version, this is the one I'd chose (and I did). :-)

And if you have an Enfield with the front end lopped off and a P/H foresight mounted, you just don't have a lot of good economical choices.

Thanks for your comments -- I always get a charge out of hearing people's response to the unconventional.

[Surpmil]

I suspect some of the reactions are based on the fact that there were no high quality commercial variants on the No.4 as there were on the No.1 and "long Lees", hence no "brand recognition". If I were to post a recently built copy of a B.S.A. pattern carbine or a "Lee Speed", built on a chopped up CLLE for example, I doubt the reaction would be the same. But it must be said that there is something lacking from the No.4 aesthetically compared to the No.1 and earlier actions. I suspect we are also just so used to seeing them in either the normal sporterizations or else full wood that anything else jars. I had to look at the photo for a few moments and try to free myself of those perceptions!

[Flying10uk]

I agree with Vincent; it would make a good No5 Jungle Carbine lookalike/clone. Didn't Long Branch do their own Carbine version of the No4 rifle or did they only produce a few prototypes???

[Seaspriter]

Didn't Long Branch do their own Carbine version of the No4 rifle or did they only produce a few prototypes???

According to the Long Branch documents by T.H.Marshall, the Production Manager who wrote up the factory report upon closing in 1946, Long Branch had done all the engineering for the No.5 expecting a post war order. More than likely they made a few prototypes. However, they never received an order, and closed the operation in August 1945 with no No.5's produced.

Here's what Marshall said in his report:
1945 - 1st Quarter:
During the first quarter of 1945, instructions were received to proceed with the engineering, planning, and tool change necessary to produce the No.5 Rifle at a rate of 8,000 per month. No orders were received for actual production, but the engineering work pertaining to planning the conversion was in hand. Production of this rifle was not considered a major project, as most of the components in the No.5 rifle are common to the No.4 Rifle.
2nd Quarter:
Engineering, planning, tool procurement and tool proving were temporarily suspended on the No.5 Rifle to allow speedy processing of an order received for Mauser firing pin and extractor components. The company was advised that the No.5 Rifle(British Lightened Pattern) would not be considered for production in Canada at this time. Consequently, no further action was planned for this project by the company. All tooling and ‘tool proving billets’ were placed in stores and recorded.

[Surpmil]

According to the Long Branch documents by T.H.Marshall, the Production Manager who wrote up the factory report upon closing in 1946, Long Branch had done all the engineering for the No.5 expecting a post war order. More than likely they made a few prototypes.

There is at least one indisputable photo showing a Long Branch built No.5