72L Longbranch with Griffin and Howe mount

[Roy W]

There seem to be several outfits in the UK keen to peddle various "lash-ups".

Some admit what they are and some pretend not to know.

You're not wrong there! Even when they are challenged they argue the toss.

I know of three rifles sold recently, which have been through the hands of several dealers, one of which I purchased which had no proof marks whatsoever. Sold by RFDs who would have you believe they are knowledgeable

[Badger]

Check the Canada - Milsurp Knowledge Library (click here).

There's an "all correct" example along with an excellent additional 197 pic photo montage of a .....

1944 Enfield No.4 Mk1*(T) Long Branch TP Sniper Rifle Serial # 74L0318 (click here)
(Mfg by Long Branch Arsenal, Leaside, Ontario, Canada)
c/w matching Telescopic, Sighting C No.32, Mk.I(TP) (Trade Pattern)
Scope Serial # 4392S (Mfg by Lyman-Alaskan)

(Click PIC to Enlarge)

Read the article extract by "Clive Law" and using the photo montage, compare the correctness of components and markings to the one you picked up.

The sights were marked and numbered in the commercial range and the military designation was not shown. The approximate range of serial numbers is believed to be between 4340S and 4690S. The range is based upon observation only as no records have survived. It is the author's belief that these were originally mounted on a block of No.4(T) rifles numbered from 740001 to 74L0350. Most of the scopes also display the British "Broad Arrow" Ordnance mark. This may have been applied at Lyman on their own initiative when they saw the order was for the Canadian army - however this is purely speculative. The contract between the Department of Munitions and Supply and the Lyman Gunsight Corp., did not call for any special markings to be applied.

Hope that helps ...

Regards,
Doug

[Brian Dick]

There seems to be some confusion about the mount bases and rings on the TP vs C67 and experimentals. The TP rifles had mount/ring assemblies made by SAL Long Branch and the later C67 and experimentals had Griffin and Howe produced bases and rings. They are similar but not at all interchangeable.

[Roger Payne]

Re post #11. Roy, I don't know how much the situation has changed amongst newer dealers, or if new guidance has been received, but there was always an unwritten agreement that firearms being transferred from dealer to dealer would not be expected to be proofed, so long as the dealer at the end of the chain got the weapon proofed before it was sold to an individual licence (FAC) holder. I suspect the literal letter of the law does not say this, but this was accepted. I have bought a lot of rifles over the years from a few of the bigger dealers who import them in large batches with the intention of deactivating all or most of them, or, they sell to other dealers who will do the same. To get a rifle proofed & then deactivate it a month later is a waste of time & money, & even the proof house tacitly recognised this. I'm not trying to excuse selling an out of proof firearm at all, not a bit, but it simply requires the dealer at the end of the line to remember to do it!

[Roy W]

Re post #11. Roy, I don't know how much the situation has changed amongst newer dealers, or if new guidance has been received, but there was always an unwritten agreement that firearms being transferred from dealer to dealer would not be expected to be proofed, so long as the dealer at the end of the chain got the weapon proofed before it was sold to an individual licence (FAC) holder. I suspect the literal letter of the law does not say this, but this was accepted. I have bought a lot of rifles over the years from a few of the bigger dealers who import them in large batches with the intention of deactivating all or most of them, or, they sell to other dealers who will do the same. To get a rifle proofed & then deactivate it a month later is a waste of time & money, & even the proof house tacitly recognised this. I'm not trying to excuse selling an out of proof firearm at all, not a bit, but it simply requires the dealer at the end of the line to remember to do it!

Hi Roger

My example was sold by an RFD to me, hence the requirement. I think the fact he hadn't even checked was inexcuseable. It was only that the RFD he posted it to noticed that meant it went off to proof.

[Strangely Brown]

Hi Roger

My example was sold by an RFD to me, hence the requirement. I think the fact he hadn't even checked was inexcuseable. It was only that the RFD he posted it to noticed that meant it went off to proof.

The first smellie I ever bought in the Pavilion at Bisley was lacking proof marks; something I hadn't even thought of checking for.
I have since found out that it was a new build and hadn't been sold off by the Irish republic as the dealer claimed.

This was around 25 years ago and many of us then had a distinct lack of knowledge about these things.

[Roger Payne]

Hi Roy/Strangely Brown,
I heard an (anonymised) account from mutual dealer acquaintance recently that sounded very similar to your (Roy) experience. It's surprisingly common; within the last few months I have bought a P'14 & a SMLE from private licence holders that had never been through civilian proof, so somebody(ies) goofed a while back. The cost of proof is now not inconsiderable. It used to be a minor consideration, but prices have rocketed over the last ten years or so. It now costs nearly 40 pounds to get a 303 proofed at Birmingham, & I assume London's prices will be pegged at the same, or very similar.

[Roy W]

Hi Roy/Strangely Brown,
I heard an (anonymised) account from mutual dealer acquaintance recently that sounded very similar to your (Roy) experience. It's surprisingly common; within the last few months I have bought a P'14 & a SMLE from private licence holders that had never been through civilian proof, so somebody(ies) goofed a while back. The cost of proof is now not inconsiderable. It used to be a minor consideration, but prices have rocketed over the last ten years or so. It now costs nearly 40 pounds to get a 303 proofed at Birmingham, & I assume London's prices will be pegged at the same, or very similar.

I suppose some older rifles have an abundance of stamps which confuse some people. I am led to believe that the 19T marks on 7.62 Enfields are not proof marks per se and do not mean that the rifle can be sold without further proof.

I was at an RFD recently (possibly the same one you speak of Roger) when someone came in with an L39 where the bottom lug of the bolt had sheared upon firing, fortunately no injury. The only marks on the bolt and body were the 19T marks. Hence, not in proof.

[Buccaneer]

I heard an (anonymised) account from mutual dealer acquaintance recently that sounded very similar to your (Roy) experience. It's surprisingly common; within the last few months I have bought a P'14 & a SMLE from private licence holders that had never been through civilian proof, so somebody(ies) goofed a while back. The cost of proof is now not inconsiderable. It used to be a minor consideration, but prices have rocketed over the last ten years or so. It now costs nearly 40 pounds to get a 303 proofed at Birmingham, & I assume London's prices will be pegged at the same, or very similar.

This forum is often asked to identify the various marks that appear in great profusion on military rifles, it is hardly surprising that the normal FAC holder can get confused. In most case when I enquire about a private sale and ask the question "is the gun in proof" the seller has no idea what I am talking about.

Like Roger I will buy "out of proof" rifles from other dealers and from the FAC holding public, the sad thing is when you point out to the seller that the rifle that they might have bought years ago at considerable cost now needs to go to proof and therefore is only worth a fraction of what they paid for it they think that you are trying to rip them off.

Buying out of proof firearms is always something of a gamble as if they fail you just end up with a pile of spares, it is illegal to remove a "failed proof" label from a firearm once applied by the proof house until the fault has been rectified and the gun is then returned for reproof, something that can get very expensive which is why the price offered for an out of proof gun can be so low.

It is interesting that military firearms that only have military proof marks need to good through reproof but if as was the case many years ago when you were able to buy "volunteer" or "territorial" pattern rifles these might already have civilian proof marks and not need to be reproofed.
I must admit that if I find a rifle that does not have current British proofs marks or those from CIP recognised countries then it gets sent for proof, I would would much rather spend a bit to be sure than have a problem or worse still a serious accident further down the line.
Indecently I believe that if a rifle is sold out of proof then the seller could be fined up to £1000 per transaction although I have never heard of any such fine being imposed.

[englishman_ca]

As I understand, the requirement for a fire arm to be in proof goes way back to early days of armourers making swords. To keep the sales of foreign made swords out of the market, there was a law created that every sword sold in England had to be in proof.

The sword makers' Guild came to an arrangement with the crown that there would be a royalty paid on every proof. An official stamped marking was applied. The penalty for selling a sword out of proof was death. Clever sword makers!

Perhaps somebody could check the statues to see if this penalty has been amended?