Longbranch No.4 Mk1*(T)

[Amatikulu]

Here is the rifle that I bought over the phone, with the milsurps library article on Longbranch snipers open. Based on the article, I judged this genuine but submit it now for expert critique. The only unusual thing I noted was the back of the front pad, that had a lack of finish. Comments?

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.

[jmoore]

Looks likely! unfortunately, Iwon't be able to compare w/ mine till friday. I'm also scopeless (S/N c270). The front scope pad screw ends are not as well finished on the Canadian snipers I've seen as the Hollands'.

[Lance]

Looks good, have fun with her!

[Amatikulu]

Does anyone , by any chance, happen to have REL made No.32 Mark 3 scope serial numbered 191-C

If you do, I know the perfect home for it

[Roger Payne]

Looks as good as gold....
Is there a small radius to the front edge of the front body pad (you'll have to look at the rifle from the front to back - you'll see it where the pad mates up against the receiver ring). Another little LB quirk - at least on later conversions...

ATB

[Lee Enfield]

Here is the rifle that I bought over the phone, with the milsurps library article on Longbranch snipers open. Based on the article, I judged this genuine but submit it now for expert critique. The only unusual thing I noted was the back of the front pad, that had a lack of finish. Comments?

Congrats on your LB (T).

You're @5 away from my 90L, and my scope is in the 340 range.

[Amatikulu]

Roger,

I went to the gun room and took a look at the front pad. I wasn't sure exactly what you were referring to, but when I compared it with a BSA No.4 Mark 1(T), the difference was obvious. On the Longbranch, the radius on the front pad makes the top edge, side profile not mate as closely with the receiver ring, as on the BSA. It's more pronounced and appears as a shallow groove on the Longbranch when viewed from right to left across the bolt body. The BSA is perfectly mated with the receiver wall with no groove evident.

[No4Mk1(T)]

Roger,

I went to the gun room and took a look at the front pad. I wasn't sure exactly what you were referring to, but when I compared it with a BSA No.4 Mark 1(T), the difference was obvious. On the Longbranch, the radius on the front pad makes the top edge, side profile not mate as closely with the receiver ring, as on the BSA. It's more pronounced and appears as a shallow groove on the Longbranch when viewed from right to left across the bolt body. The BSA is perfectly mated with the receiver wall with no groove evident.

Amatikulu any chance of a photo comparing the two pads?

[Amatikulu]

Sure, I'll start work on it tonight. I also have an Enfield conversion so will see if that's got any significant differnce worth adding to the comparison.

[Amatikulu]

I've taken the best photographs I can, comparing the fit of the front pad to a Longbranch and a BSA (H&H work) No.4 Mk1(T). I think the pictures are pretty clear on the differences.