New question about country of origin stamp

[Al Diehl]

Yesterday, I asked about why a Long Branch might be marked ENGLAND by the importer when clearly it's country of origin is Canada.
I think that consensus is that the importers hired help simply, mistakenly, stamped it ENGLAND.

Yesterday evening I thought long and hard and I could not remember ever seeing a surplus Long Branch with CANADA stamped on it as the country of origin.
My question is, "Has anyone seen one stamped CANADA?"

I only own one other Long Branch presently so, that is not enough to say, yay or nay.

The answer to the question is not "The end of the world" important and I hope that I am not wasting anyones time with it, I was just curious.
Thanks in advance guys.

Al

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.

[Thunderbox]

Yesterday, I asked about why a Long Branch might be marked ENGLAND by the importer when clearly it's country of origin is Canada.
I think that consensus is that the importers hired help simply, mistakenly, stamped it ENGLAND.

Yesterday evening I thought long and hard and I could not remember ever seeing a surplus Long Branch with CANADA stamped on it as the country of origin.
My question is, "Has anyone seen one stamped CANADA?"

I only own one other Long Branch presently so, that is not enough to say, yay or nay.

The answer to the question is not "The end of the world" important and I hope that I am not wasting anyones time with it, I was just curious.
Thanks in advance guys.

Al

Its because most (or all) of the original hundreds of thousands of surplussed Enfields came from British stocks in UK - mostly via Interarms.

Later surplus batches from Greece, India, Pakistan, Malaya, etc of course came onto the market long after the requirement for the "country of origin" dropped.

[Al Diehl]

OK, but, have you ever seen one of the early imports with CANADA stamped on it?

Al

[browningautorifle]

No, because they came from England.

[Lee Enfield]

OK, but, have you ever seen one of the early imports with CANADA stamped on it?

Al

Yes. I have? had one marked "Canada".

I sold one a few years ago marked "Australia".

[Al Diehl]

No, because they came from England.

More than likely but, that is not the country of origin.

Yes. I have? had one marked "Canada".

I sold one a few years ago marked "Australia".

Thanks, I would imagine that the one marked Australia was also mis marked by an unfamiliar worker.

Thanks guys.

Al

[Alan de Enfield]

Possibily part if the problem is / was the lack of desire, or ablility to travel, of many Americans (in 1989 under 3% of the population had passports compared to 75% in Great Britain) and therefore a limted understanding of the 'world' and the inter-relationships between countries

I found these suggestions as possible reasons that even today, Americans (as a Nation), do not travel widely

Sixty four percent of the population of the richest and most influential country in the world have never been abroad. Our citizens can be our best diplomats by showing the world who we really are, but we have to leave our own country first.

According to the State Department, there are 113,431,943 valid passports in circulation, which means 36% of Americans own a valid passport (and therefore 64% do not). Let’s assume that those with a valid passport have used it and those without have never been abroad — that means that a healthy majority of the population has never left the United States. Why not? How we decide to use our time and money are major factors in our failure to get abroad, as is a general lack of travel ambition.

Americans received an average of 12 days of vacation in 2012 (down from 14 in 2011), but used only 10. Moreover, 68% of American vacationers admitted to checking in with the office either “regularly” or “sometimes” during their vacations, which suggests that most Americans are still prioritizing work during their time off. Europeans receive between 25 and 30 days of vacation a year and typically use every day; few check back in with the office. From a practical standpoint, ten days just doesn’t offer a lot of flexibility for international travel — from a cultural standpoint, we Americans are clearly a little overly concerned with our jobs.

(Before you defend our vacation masochism and accuse the Europeans of being lazy, according to a mounting body of research, failing to take vacation is counter-productive; see studies from each of these: The Atlantic, Time, BusinessWeek, Harvard Business Review, Ernst & Young, New York Times)

Of course, there’s also the cost. According to the Department of Commerce, American international travelers spend an average of $1,351 per trip on airfare and $1,232 per trip outside of airfare, which means 52% of an international trip’s total expenditures are spent on simply getting there and back. A $2,583 trip would certainly seem a deterrent for the average American, who spends about the same amount on entertainment annually.

However, travel doesn’t have to be prohibitively expensive – with the internet, it is easy to find cheap accommodations and dining, which will be the bulk of your international expenses. Cutting on airfare is not quite as easy, but it is possible (here are some solid suggestions).

I’ve read a lot of opinion pieces that claim that Americans’ fear and ignorance of other countries deters them from traveling abroad. However, I haven’t seen one study supporting (or refuting) this claim, so I’m not going to include fear as a factor

However, I will accuse Americans of a lack of ambition. According to a 2012 LivingSocial study, three of Americans’ top ten dream destinations are right here in the United States, including Las Vegas and Disney World. Really? Of all the amazing places to go in the world, with seven continents and over 200 countries, we pick Disney World as a dream destination? Let’s dream a little bigger than that.

Mark Twain once said that, “Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness.” The planet has never been more interconnected and it scares me a little that 64% of the citizens of the world’s most influential country have never seen any other part of the world. On a less lofty note, international travel is so much fun and it’s tragic that so few in such a rich country have experienced it.[/I]

[Al Diehl]

Good point. You might be on to something there but, isn't that why supervisors are supposed to supervise?

The very fact that these stamps were supposed to placed on the rifle before import to the US would mean that the individual was either hired in the US and sent to where ever the rifles were (hence, foreign travel involved) or, they hired them local to the rifles. Either of which would negate whether or not Americans travel very much. That and the information and figures that you state are from 40 to 50 years after the rifles in question were imported to the US.

I think that it simply boils down to a bit of ignorance on the part of the one with the hammer and the stamp. Or, and this thought just occured to me, maybe that was the only stamp they had since all of the rifles were supposed to have originated in England.

As a side note, whenever the US Army stationed me in Europe and Asia they picked up the bill so, cost was never an issue for me.

Al

[Alan de Enfield]

The very fact that these stamps were supposed to placed on the rifle before import to the US would mean that the individual was either hired in the US and sent to where ever the rifles were (hence, foreign travel involved) or, they hired them local to the rifles. Al

Being based on this side of the pond I have no direct knowledge of 'ehat happened', but from what I have picked up over the years it appears that the US importers had two methods of 'marking' their firearms :

1) They would employ 'local' UK labour to mark them up - no doubt they were issued with 'stamps' and told to get on with it. I doubt that the 'educational level' of a 'metal stamping person' would allow them to know that a Longbranch was made in Canada, A Savage in the USA, a Lithgow in Australia ..........

2) The firearms arrived in the US and put into 'bonded stores' - the US Importers would then employ local labour, issued with 'stamps' and told to get on with it. I doubt that the 'educational level' of a 'metal stamping person' would allow them to know that a Longbranch was made in Canada, A Savage in the USA, a Lithgow in Australia ..........


In all probability the 'Supervisor' was employed at 'minium pay rates' and had no more knowledge than the 'stampers'

[jrhead75]

...maybe that was the only stamp they had since all of the rifles were supposed to have originated in England

Seems pretty likely. It seems considerably less likely that the poor fellow charged with marking thousands upon thousands of rifles is going to stop and say "Hang on...that one's Canadian." - even if he knew the difference.

The first batch of really nasty Khyber specials came in with their import stamps clearly stating origin in the UK...and there were some attempts to market them as such. Potentially a very dangerous state of affairs.