Longbranch No4 Mk1* grip mark

[Brian Dick]

As far as the "CANADA" stamp goes, the easiest thing for you to do is read post #2 again. AdE has nailed it simply and easily. I won't complicate things for you any more. You should purchase "The Lee Enfield" by Ian Skennerton and read the chapter on Long Branch production. Since you're in Ottawa, you could also take a trip over to the Canadian War Museum and ask them about British contracts for Long Branch service rifles. They should have all the documentation you need.

By the way, I have an Australian butt in my spares marked "AUSTRALIA" in the exact same place. Good luck in your research.

Brian

[doca]

I have read quite a bit on Long Branch. I began about 10 years ago, when I started researching my EAL. Regardless, I now have a Ranger saying yes, and Ranger saying no. So, if you still won’t provide proof of your claim, you may be right, you may be wrong, but we do know that you don’t know for sure. If you did, you would have provided it and I’d have stopped talking.

I have seen a few references to ENGLAND being an export mark. Which means if it left the UK, they would have marked it.
I’ve also seen a number of references talking about how the US required the importer name to be stamped. I’ve found nothing about the country being a requirement.

[Alan de Enfield]

I have seen a few references to ENGLAND being an export mark. Which means if it left the UK, they would have marked it.

We have no requirement to 'export mark' anything we export, it is the laws of the importing country which affect the 'marking'.
"ENGLAND" is definitely NOT an export mark.

Some of the US Importers hired bonded warehouses and local (UK) staff to mark up the rifles before being loaded onto the boat, but this was to facilitate the passage thru US customs / import requirements, not as a requirement of UK customs / exports.
Other importers had their rifles held in US bonded stores until they could get them marked up with the country from which they were imported by local (US) labour, this was apparently often done by youngsters with a 'Saturday job'.

[Roger Payne]

Even if there had been a requirement to export mark firearms when they left these shores, I am afraid it would not have been 'England', it would have been 'United Kingdom', otherwise you'd also expect to see 'Wales', 'Scotland', & 'Northern Ireland' on rifle butt sockets periodically..............!

[doca]

I disagree. There’s many examples of the England export mark and, the UK isn’t a country so I don’t think it would be stamped as such. I’ve spent over an hour looking for a single example of a UK marked firearm, modern or historic, and came up donuts. Do you have an example? On the other end of this, I still can’t find a single US imported rifle marked only by country of source, less those marked England before heading west on the Atlantic and reportedly, that’s an export mark.

I’m hungry for crow; somebody show me one of what must be 100’s of thousands of pre-68 US imported firearms. Surely there must be more than two that someone decided to stamp with country only, and surely there must be a lot from other countries. If I’m wrong about that, I must be the king of the internet because I found the only two in existence and, they both came from Canada.

You need to understand that random dude saying something on the internet means nothing. Repetitive insistence of something that you heard at some point from somewhere does not validate it as a fact. Doing so makes your case look worse, especially when unwilling or unable to support it. The problem compounds when people regurgitate the unsupported fact and attempt to defend it with “some guy said”. If one can’t substantiate the claim of it being a pre-68 US import mark, one shouldn’t be claiming it however, it’s perfectly valid to say that while possible, it’s speculation.

So, except for stopping the England theory because it doesn’t yet make any sense, we haven’t moved forward at all and, the facts we have:

1. It exists in on only two examples, 2019 and 2021.
2. Us legislation (pre-68) shows that an importers name must be marked.
3. The import stamp theory is only supported by a handful of internet people, the rest refer to those people.
4. There are no examples of any pre-68 US imported firearms showing such a mark other than those marked ENGLAND.

Here’s a little leg work I managed to do. The rifle in question was acquired in 1957. That means it can’t be a Ranger rifle (damn you first Ranger resource, lol; see what happens when you believe random dude?). Note that it also doesn’t make that guy wrong because maybe his unit had CANADA branded rifles. It also means that it was probably in the Korean War, which ended in 53. This is suggested by the rack number written in the butt, hand guard and… eeep.. etched on the receiver. That wasn’t previously said, but it wasn’t relevant at the time. The CAF started replacing the No4 with the FN in 1954ish… that means at most, there’d be a 3 year window for it to have been exported and re-imported. As we know how military contacts and distribution works, and how the government to surplus market works, to say three full years is extremely generous. Realistically, we’ve got a solid year and change for this cross-cross to have occurred. Not impossible, but it’s doesn’t seem probable.

The issue I have with the crisscross is that my grandfather was posted to the US in the mid-60’s, 63-65 I think. We were not, and are still not, excluded from import laws for duration. I have his firearms and neither of the two that were there are marked as being US imports.

[Roger Payne]

I cannot state categorically that these two rifles were stamped 'England' pre 1968, so they may not interest you, but I have certainly owned them both personally for about the last thirty years. I had to look through about a dozen rifles to find these two, & I have seen many more over the years. I have had no reason to doubt that they bear the country mark as a US import requirement, & that they likely were marked pre 1968. (And that those that I have seen were re-imported back into the UK at some point). However, I am not as fascinated by the subject as you doca, & have been happy to accept perceived wisdom as it fits in with my limited experience, so good luck with your research & please do keep us informed of what you discover. I'm sure we'd all be interested to see what you manage to find out.

[Alan de Enfield]

The simple country of origin marking prior to *GCA '68 which curtailed surplus firearms imports into the US for years. Later followed by the "billboard markings" on firearms which have been evolving in size and placement since they were once again allowed in 1986.

*GCA '68 = the US Gun Control Act of 1968.

Suggest you look up the requirements of the CGA.


Some other than 'England' or 'Canada' US Pre 1968 imports markings in complaince with CGA'68.
They took about 30 seconds of Googling :

[Alan de Enfield]

There’s many examples of the England export mark

As far as I know there are NO examples of the 'ENGLAND EXPORT' marks as there is no such thing - what you are seeing, but not accepting, is that these are US required (under the CGA'68 rules) IMPORT marks showing the country they have been sourced from (NOT the country that manufactured them - one of the pics I posted above is of a UK made BSA that was imported into the US from Australia)

[Alan de Enfield]

A couple of screen shots of a presentation by 'Forgotten Weapons . Com"

[doca]

@Roger: Ive seen a variety of ENGLAND marked on surplus rifles, but they were always on the metal, not wood. I can’t speak to the second example and, pending legitimate documentation, I don’t know for sure why your 42 Savage would be marked with it but it does suggest two possibilities:

1. It was commercially exported to the US and either stamped before or after the voyage, then returned to England; or
2. It was stamped after production, but before being issued by the British military, or as per above, having been declared surplus.

It really doesn’t matter which one it is. The crux is this is is the fact there’s only 2 known to be marked Canada, while there’s many marked England.

I don’t think I ever will, but if I get traction, I’ll happily add it.


@Alan:
—-
Edit: you last posted while I was writing. I’m well aware of that slideshow. The thing I was looking for wasn’t that a country name be marked. I asked about a country being marked on the wood; which you later sent.

—-

Its not that I’m not accepting it, it’s that you seem to think its a 68+ US import for some reason. If it was, it would have more on it than just some country. I just think it’s irresponsible to drop the hammer on speculation that it’s a US import mark when there nothing else to support it. Sure, the US stamped an import source country, but that does not mean this is a US import mark and because there was no standard format, it’s impossible to just presume it. I won’t get into how hauntingly familiar that specific Canada stamp looks to other government markings of the time; largely because I currently can’t back it up. Stand by…. I’m tryin, lol.

I easily found the 1968 GCA, several days ago, and read it enough to understand it’s requirements however, as stared above, it means nothing to this event because its verified in Canadian hands since 1957. There are no marks found on this rifle that suggest it may have been anywhere but in a CAF arsenal until it was acquired in 1957 by the guy who sold it to his gunsmith, and who I was going to buy it from. I’m much more interested in US law between Sep 1947-end of 1957.

Why Sep 47 and end of 57?

First, because the guy had in it 57.
Second, because the War Assets Corporation (Canadian Crown company) took control of post-war surplus weapons and not a single one was moved from storage until late Sep 47’ when the corporation ordered their destruction. The RCMP wanted to sell them. This destruction included the stock of surplus Enfield Rifles.
Ref: Peace Divided, The War Assets Corporation and the Disposal of Canadas Munitions and Supplies, 1943-1948, Western University, 2016.

This radically changes the likelihood of export-import surplus, Canadian No4’s because they were destroyed. So, when could they hit market again? No earlier than 1954, after they were the CAF’s battle rifle in Korea and, when the CAF adopted the C1A1, FAL. Now we’re back to a max 3 year window, assuming the Canadian government dealt with the collection, cataloging, repairs, tendering and distribution in a timely manner unprecedented and unrepeated by a government body since. So, we can safely narrow the US import data search to legislation between 1954-1957.

Thank you for the pics. I knew someone had to have one. I don’t know if that a pre or post-68 import, I suspect post because the receiver has the county and caliber. However, it’s good to see it stamped on the wood. Sincerely, thanks for that. Your pics don’t show it, but does that Aussie rifle have the rest of the mandated import markings?

I’d be negligent to not point out that your wood stamped Australian mark is uneven in spacing and position, while Canada mark is consistent. This doesn’t mean a lot, but it does tell you that either someone had enough coming in to have a one-piece manufactured Canada stamp, while whoever stamped Australia did not, or its a plain language government ownership mark, just like we still do today. Not a big deal, just an observation.

I have to wonder about that stamp because, I can’t remember right now, but I know one of the US laws mandated imports to be by a legitimate import broker only; was that 68, later or earlier? If it was 68+, I wouldn’t expect to see a professional one piece stamp in Bill’s hardware shop for what may be a handful of Canadian firearms they’d get. Not impossible, but legitimately questionable.

Again, thank you for the picture. Its a visual on the fact the 68 mandated import marks were not required to be on the metal. That’s what I was looking for. It also writes off the English import theory, but it doesn’t address pre-68 marking requirements. Do you have anything about marking requirements from for the period of 47-57? Yes, I’ll still work with the larger range even though it doesn’t make sense.