EAL Type Longbranch Experts Weigh In

[Dogfish858]

Awful lot of matching stamps if it's a shop run. Ross is on CGN Surpmil, taking offers lol.

So, to recap:

Matching stamps forestock and receiver.
Matching numbers bolt and receiver.
Broad arrow barrel with correct sights.
Buttstock marked 130/Broadarrow/MK1 -- an official marking.
All pieces, including magazine, Longbranch.
All woodwork EAL, but stamped with Longbranch marks.

I also have visual proof of a Longbranch serialed EAL mapping rifle, and visual proof of a mapping rifle issued with an identical '2' stamp; if die steel is as hard as I think it is, would it be likely to have many laying around?

My point is that if this is a Longbranch built civvy bitsa, where did they get EAL wood manufactured post Longbranch, and stamped with Longbranch marks, esp. MK1? There is a multi year gap.




SS and proofs -- sold from service?



Replicated on forestock



Broad arrow on barrel

[Lee Enfield]

Awful lot of matching stamps if it's a shop run. Ross is on CGN Surpmil, taking offers lol.

So, to recap:

Matching stamps forestock and receiver.
Matching numbers bolt and receiver.
Broad arrow barrel with correct sights.
Buttstock marked 130/Broadarrow/MK1 -- an official marking.
All pieces, including magazine, Longbranch.
All woodwork EAL, but stamped with Longbranch marks.

I also have visual proof of a Longbranch serialed EAL mapping rifle, and visual proof of a mapping rifle issued with an identical '2' stamp; if die steel is as hard as I think it is, would it be likely to have many laying around?

My point is that if this is a Longbranch built civvy bitsa, where did they get EAL wood manufactured post Longbranch, and stamped with Longbranch marks, esp. MK1? There is a multi year gap.

...snip...
SS and proofs -- sold from service?
...snip...
Replicated on forestock
...snip...
Broad arrow on barrel
...snip...

It's just a case of EAL wood and barrel assembled onto an available No4MkI receiver, by "joe sixpack", not a/the factory...especially as the receiver isn't complete.

Not a big deal, one friend of mine has sold at least 2 1941 dated Long Branch receivers which were un-serial numbered...and never were...much like yours, in fact it might have come from the same source.

In my junk, I have spare complete stock sets for EAL "military" and EAL "commercial" varients...

I have an EAL with a destroyed receiver which I am just waiting for the right moment to transfer it's parts to an EAL receiver which came assembled (no not by the factory, I know who assembled it, and he is extremely active on CGNs Milsurp sales section and shows up here too) as a .22


If we want to continue playing fantasy games, I could assemble my EAL parts onto a Long Branch No4MkI*(T) receiver....hey it would be 100% Long Branch SAL/CAL and therefore correct right? It certainly would have military and factory inspectors stamped markings...

[Peter Laidler]

I was half sort-of following this thread and it took me back a few days/threads ago when something started to go round and around contrary to common sense or what my mum used to call 'the bleedin obvious'. Thanks for a bit of common sense - and straight talking Lee Enfield

[Dogfish858]

With due and honest respect, the EAL rifles were always and ever NOTHING MORE THAN EAL WOOD AND BARRELS STUCK ON LONGBRANCH RECEIVER. That point is moot. I can't emphasize though that I do mean that entirely respectfully.

Fact 1: No4 Mk1 receiver manufactured Longbranch after July, 1941.

Fact 2: Serial Number 02 and matching bolt.

Conclusion: A) The receiver serial is a fake (in which case, why, considering it was worth $10 in its time and faking serial numbers is fraud); B) this is the second receiver built at Longbranch, ever (which would be a big, big deal); C) that the receiver is actually 02, second of a series, supported by other matching two-digit serial numbers on other EAL rifles.

Fact 3: Almost all tooling was disposed of at the Longbranch factory in 1946 and the remainder was not used for Lee Enfield.

Fact 4: The EAL run was about 4000, worth about $280,000 if we cost the guns at $10 each and transfer to today's money ($1 in 1958 being worth approx. $8 now). Small potatoes.

Fact 5: Typical EAL receivers have the bridges milled, but

Fact 6: New tooling jigs cost money, as do mills; the work shown here could be done with simple tools

Conclusion: prototypes or early rifles would be built on unmodified used parts, because the tooling for metallic parts would not be economical for a small sporting goods store and shop prior to winning a contract, supported by

Fact 7: Actual machining upon winning the contract being farmed out to another shop, S.T. Francis and Sons, Toronto

Fact 8: Visual proof of Longbranch serialed EAL, 1943 series, with Longbranch serial plainly evident.

Conclusion: the presence of Longbranch markings on receiver, or absence of EAL markings, indicates nothing, especially in early series. This is contrary to popular wisdom, but true.

Fact 9: All parts used conform to EAL norms, including

Fact 10: Furniture built in new and far less complicated manner, supporting Fact 3, which shows that the original No4 furniture was in my limited experience the most complicated and costly furniture ever produced, economical only in large quantities with expensive now-sold machines, in this case, enormous copy routers using steel models on graduated reducing styluses.

Fact 11: Markings on receiver and woodwork correspond, including MK1 stamp on buttstock.

Conclusion: All parts assembled at same time and new rifle had yet to be renamed, using new furniture.

Common sense, which we all love, dictates that this is actually #02 of the EAL rifle. Essential Agencies was a civilian supplier of psuedo-civilian rifles for the Canadian government, and they used whatever was expedient: simple furniture, sporting recoil pads (Jostam recoil company was sold in 1955 and moved from Illinois to Texas; I would bet EAL bought their stock), sporting sights, and surplus parts. Common sense dictates that it is unlikely that this is the second receiver ever built at Longbranch; common sense dictates that forgery was pointless, penalized by the gov't and worthless in practice. Common sense also dictates that much of the information available on these rifles is incomplete and or incorrect, and can be proven as such.

The more research I do, the more I am convinced this is EAL #02 -- second of the last run manufactured of the No4 Mk1. For the record I bought it as a bitsa.

[Lee Enfield]

It's not an EAL. Pics of EAL receivers are easily available.

[Dogfish858]

Pics of EAL receivers with no EAL stamps are also easily available.

---------- Post added at 02:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:20 PM ----------

To be precise: EAL mapping rifles with Longbranch serial 1943 series, low two digit serial on stock matching font as the two digit serial on mine.

[Brian Dick]

Umm, I'm not sure where you're getting your facts. I don't think the tooling was disposed of at LB/CAL in 1946 considering they built another 50,000+ rifles in 1949-1950 and rebuilt rifles well into the 1960's there too. They also did DCRA conversions to 7.62 into the 1970's if memory serves. There were tons of surplus parts sold off at auction in the mid 70's when they were finally closed down. I guess you're convinced but I still think it's a rifle assembled with surplus parts on a No.4Mk.1 body. The EAL design called for a lightened body so it doesn't make sense that one would be built on a standard No.4 receiver. Just my 2 cents.

[Dogfish858]

"The post-war arsenal scheme recommended by the Joint Arsenals Planning Board was approved by the
government to incorporate Canadian Arsenals Limited to deal exclusively with small arms (Secretary of
State of Canada, 1958). The machinery and equipment not required by Canadian Arsenals Limited were
transferred to War Assets Corporation for disposal. Canadian Arsenals Limited employed 200 people who
continued to supply arms to the Canadian Army (Weeks, 1990). These included components for the C1
submachine gun, the Browning HP pistol, the Canadian Army standard FN rifle and Bren DMG’s
(Mississauga News, 1970). Additionally they also produced crank shafts and connecting rods for the
Koehler engine for high RPM snowmobiles (Weeks, 1990)."

Heritage Mississauga.

C.A.L. was a separate company from Long Branch and employed 200 vs 5500, turning out over 30,000 units per month.

I get you, but regards lightened design -- which would make sense for air crews -- it wouldn't make sense to go to the expense to mill out a unit if it was a one-off to win a minor gov't bid. If they had a mill on hand, wouldn't they have used it instead of farming out the work?

If it was a surplus bitsa, then there's still the 02 serial, which would indicate the second No4 ever made at Long Branch.

[vintage hunter]

I am convinced this is EAL #02

the second No4 ever made at Long Branch.

You're grasping at straws with both hands now

[Dogfish858]

No I'm not.

Look: I said "Either this is 02, EAL, OR it's #2 ever made at Longbranch -- highly unlikely -- or it's a forgery, which would have been pointless.

The 2 stamp precisely, exactly, without deviance or trace of slant, slander, or cant, is exactly the same as another two-digit EAL serial number I have a photo of -- a rifle that isn't supposed to exist but does.

Nobody can prove that I am wrong, they only say that I am wrong. I have offered proof repeatedly, and the only reason I don't show the photo is by request of the lender. Nobody has been able to refute me, and the evidence used to refute me I can prove to be usually correct, but sometimes wrong, and in the context of early series rifles, often wrong.

Honestly, by all of your logic, if what I have is not EAL, then it is Longbranch (which is isn't, because Longbranch started with EX) or a forgery, and it's highly unlikely to be either of those.