No4 MK1 T

[Surpmil]

Yes, I think you've probably nailed it there - I was forgetting that Rose Bros. were in Gainsborough.

But it's also quite possible that this is a letter code for another foundry that gives no clue to its name or location, which was the purpose of such codes after all; "JG" and "N92" being the obvious examples.


Quite likely the Indian divisions "overseas" took their weapons back with them at the end of the war, it would have been a simple way of getting rid of the stuff while giving them an update over the weaponry they had before WWII.

No doubt their small arms, including No4(T)s were issued from the same sources as what the Canadians for example received, and therefore the same potpourri of manufacturers.

IIRC there's photographic evidence of No4s on issue in India by 1944/45, though can't be sure about formations without checking.

[Roger Payne]

It could be a different foundry, but the castings marked with the GF do not look any different to me to those made by Rose Brothers that do not bear the GF. However, I have never made any proper study of them, but they appear to be 'run of the mill' RB products. I suppose it could be that RB provided the tools, including molds, for a subcontractor, or perhaps a subcontractor did some of the machining of the castings. And sometimes, manufacturer's add certain markings to only a specific percentage of what they make. I've sometimes mused (what a sad life I lead!) why Rose didn't mark their castings with their officially allocated factory code, in the same way that Dalgleish were allocated N92; presumably RB would have been allocated a code starting with M followed by a number as Gainsborough lies in the north east corner of the Midlands. Yet they didn't, they seem to have marked a few brackets with the roundel containing R B G single digit number, or more commonly JG or KD. Again, it's only speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised if the latter two aren't the initials of two of the inspectors working at the factory.

Someone will probably turn up some documents next week confirming beyond any doubt that GF means Gujarat Forces......

[Alan de Enfield]

.........… presumably RB would have been allocated a code starting with M followed by a number as Gainsborough lies in the north east corner of the Midlands.

M632 = Rose Brothers

[Surpmil]

Without digging out my copy of the Little Green Book, someone remind us of what "JG" stood for and why "M632" doesn't appear on their brackets?

[Roger Payne]

That's what I was getting at.......why Rose Brothers never did use their allocated factory code, unlike Dalgleish (N92), rather just using the JG or KD marks. AFAIK nobody knows for sure what they stand for, but I rather wonder if they may be the initials of inspectors there.....though I have not a shred of evidence to back that up. If anyone knows for sure please chime in!

[Surpmil]

Next question: how common a practice was it for contractors to leave off their code markings?

Or was it done in this case as someone thought soldiers might be confused by the "M632"? Seems improbable, but not impossible.

Or was it actually Rose Bros. at all who made them? Things have been known to change after contracts are issued...

[Giove]

Is this the Belgian mark?

[Seaforth72]

Yes, the circular mark appears to be a Belgian mark. I had the same mark on a Long branch No. 4 Mk. I* (T) in the same position. That rifle had the metal refinished in the grey such as the Belgians are known to have used. A similar monogram mark was used for Liege years ago on firearms.

The "K B" marking s found on some Long Branch made rifles and appears to be a 1945 marking, probably by an inspector.

The "16" is likely a rack number for use by the storesman. I have not seem such a marking in this location before.

Your example appears to be on a Canadian made Long Branch. Can you tell us the rifle's serial number?

[Giove]

Thank you Seaforth.

The fore-end is the only Canadian part of the rifle.

The rifle is a 1944 BSA.