Longbranch No4 Mk1* grip mark

[Alan de Enfield]

As time goes by, more and more errors are found in ALL technical books, these include both Stratton & Skennerton, as new information comes to light with the ever increasing release of time-locked documentation, old 'well known' facts are shown to be incorrect.

This is why such as Skennerton need to release updated issues of their books, correcting previous errors (information 'correct' at the time) and adding new additional information.

Possibly one of the biggest internet myths, now corrected, is the fact that Ishapore used 'superior / better steel for their production of the 2A / 2A1 rifles'. They didn't.

[Brian Dick]

I reckon 25 years in the firearms import business won't convince you that I know just a little bit about it. Just for fun I'll reiterate one more time that it's a pre-1968 export/import marking for the country of origin. Yes, it was probably done in a bonded warehouse either before or after shipment to the USA. There's nothing military about it much like post-1968 import markings or British commercial proof marks. It's very simple. End of story. Good luck in your research.

[doca]

@Brian Dick: You're probably correct about the CANADA being an import stamp, but I guess as time goes by, less and less people will know because there's only verbal evidence. And no, lol, I still don't (and never will) just take the "facts" of someone random on the internet.

I found a fourth with the exact same mark. This one, like the other three, is in Canada. I guess that's the crux of the back and fourth over this; surely there must be a pile of CANADA stamped riles in the US, but I can't find any so I research and debate because, as said above, new information comes to light over time. So, being a paper trail kind of guy, with no any evidence to support the "known fact", I ran with a few other leads, with mixed results, but feel like I got a little rougher than intended with some here and, I apologise for that. I can be pretty blunt, especially when bouncing between a number of things.

The good news (for me) is that I finally located and purchased one that fits the bill; a beautiful 1943 Long Branch, supposedly originally assembled (I hate buying things unseen in person), 2 groove 1* with all CDN markings.
Scoring that, I quickly acquired a MII bayonet and scabbard, also LB and C board arrowed.

I'm looking forward to my first tear down and documentation before the introduction to its cousin(?), my E.A.L .303 (prob-poss RCAF contract, but that's a whole other unstable debate)
Scheduled for a 14 Dec arrival, I'll post appropriately once given a go over.

[Surpmil]

One can think of other scenarios in which such a stamp might be applied, such as intended exports that never were exported for some reason, or rifles overhauled for NATO (or non-NATO) allies etc. In the latter case, as so many Long Branch produced weapons remained in UK hands, among others, such a mark might have had a purpose in making clear that the weapons had been supplied from Canada, and not some other source.

As for the purported destruction of large stocks of weapons before the Korean War, I am highly skeptical. I know someone who worked in a facility in the late 1950s and into the 1960s where huge quantities of Long Branch No4s, Stens and Inglis Brens were comprehensively overhauled, refinished and repacked for supply to Turkey, Greece and probably other countries, and these were all or almost all WWII production weapons.

[doca]

Yea, we exported a bunch but the War Assets Corp. destroyed WW2 surplus.

At the time of destruction, LB was still making No 4's mainly for export, as I understand it. Pakistan, India, NZ for sure ended up with thousands, but that mass exportation occurred after the CAF dumped the 4's altogether in 1954, with the issue of the C1 FN. I remember reading that 10,000 4's were sent to India, or was that Pakistan. Regardless, it fits well with your friend who saw them in the late 50's.

From what I could see, the only LBs left in England post-war were those left behind in part bins, or acquired by allied troops and likely written off.

One other thing you clipped was the NATO marking.

As I said before, the CAF has marked every rifle marked with CANADA since the FN, for sure. I see no reason why the CAF wouldn't stamp CANADA on rifles from the Korean war (UN) period. Especially if you consider that the No 4's were still the main battle rifle and that we sent less than 27,000 people, including a bunch who bunch would wouldn't be carrying a battle rifle; cooks, chaplains, officers, admin staff, machine gunners, anti-armour and the list goes on.....

While a lot of those Korean 4's could easily have been exported to the US, they'd already be marked from the UN mission. This would explain why the 4 I've found (only on Canada from BC to NS) are all marked in exactly the same place, with the same uniformity. That doesn't smell like an import stamp to me because it implies uniformity across US importers, before any was mandated. Alternatively, they were Korean wartime and never exported. In the end, who knows; I just can't conform to the impression that is an import stamp because while some personal opinion supports it, there's actual evidence that suggests more logical hypothesis.

[Surpmil]

From what I could see, the only LBs left in England post-war were those left behind in part bins, or acquired by allied troops and likely written off.

The fact that so many went through UK FTR in the 40s and 50s, including to Mk1/2 status, proves that was not the case.

Would be interested to see reproduced whatever evidence there is that War Assets Corp. destroyed large numbers of No4's etc. in the immediate postwar period. There's good evidence that large quantities of older arms were destroyed: Rosses, pre-SMLE Lee Enfields and perhaps SMLEs as well. From reports I've heard years ago, there was a surprising amount of pre-WWI weaponry still on hand even after WWII, and most of this went to the smelters.

[doca]

The fact that so many went through UK FTR in the 40s and 50s, including to Mk1/2 status, proves that was not the case.

Would be interested to see reproduced whatever evidence there is that War Assets Corp. destroyed large numbers of No4's etc. in the immediate postwar period. There's good evidence that large quantities of older arms were destroyed: Rosses, pre-SMLE Lee Enfields and perhaps SMLEs as well. From reports I've heard years ago, there was a surprising amount of pre-WWI weaponry still on hand even after WWII, and most of this went to the smelters.

Actually, I think it suggests validation of my thought.

With no evidence to support, other than logic, I guarantee you that LB, CDN issue rifles that were damaged during the war were not sent back to Canada for repairs; they would have been repaired in British facilities. This suggests that British parts bins would have had copious amount of LB parts in part bins before the war even ended. With the end of the European theatre, it seems more likely that broken/damaged CDN issue rifles would end up in British parts bins rather than shipping them back to Canada, who wasn't interested in refurbishing or storing WW2 hardware.

So yes, I'd expect there to be thousands of LB parts and, many hundreds of LB receivers, laying about British FTR facilities because something else on the rifle wasn't up to standard before the war ended.

After the war, no one is digging though bins to find Canadian parts for shipment back home so, I'd expect that they'd just get written off in the same manner as the ones that may one day be found somewhere in Europe under a foot or two of soil.

Sure thing (I'm surprised no one googled it already, but maybe someone did and that's why the heat dropped); note that it references correspondence between the WAC VP, H.R Malley and RCMP Commissioner, S.T Wood. It's not much, but it's the only pen-to-paper in this, or my other thread.
https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewconten...72&context=etd

"Since Malley?s attempt at liberalizing selling restrictions for service rifles failed
and no legitimate international clients were found, the WAC had no other choice except
to underwrite the cost of destruction. Whenever firearms were destroyed detailed
procedures were employed to ensure that the weapons were confined to specific
localities, sufficiently mutilated, and that the destruction process actually took place (so
no weapons mysteriously vanished). Surplus weapons in the hands of the WAC were all
destroyed in a similar fashion as the stock of 8,000 machine guns ?of various types in
storage at Lauzon and St. Johns, Quebec? that Malley mentioned in his 30 August letter
to Wood (82). ... All small arms declared surplus were mutilated under the supervision of a WAC
representative.

82-Ibid, H. R. Malley to S. T. Wood, 30 August 1947."

The document refers to some private sales, but that does not tie that mark to a US import stamp. If I found 400 with that mark, that would make a difference. I've only found 4 and I'd be interested in finding the US citizen(s) with such a connection at the WAC that they were able to acquire a handful on their own.

[limpetmine]

What is your documentation for the purported destruction of rifles? Never read that, never heard that, not once. You ask for "proof". Let's see yours.

Yea, we exported a bunch but the War Assets Corp. destroyed WW2 surplus.

At the time of destruction, LB was still making No 4's mainly for export, as I understand it. Pakistan, India, NZ for sure ended up with thousands, but that mass exportation occurred after the CAF dumped the 4's altogether in 1954, with the issue of the C1 FN. I remember reading that 10,000 4's were sent to India, or was that Pakistan. Regardless, it fits well with your friend who saw them in the late 50's.

From what I could see, the only LBs left in England post-war were those left behind in part bins, or acquired by allied troops and likely written off.

One other thing you clipped was the NATO marking.

As I said before, the CAF has marked every rifle marked with CANADA since the FN, for sure. I see no reason why the CAF wouldn't stamp CANADA on rifles from the Korean war (UN) period. Especially if you consider that the No 4's were still the main battle rifle and that we sent less than 27,000 people, including a bunch who bunch would wouldn't be carrying a battle rifle; cooks, chaplains, officers, admin staff, machine gunners, anti-armour and the list goes on.....

While a lot of those Korean 4's could easily have been exported to the US, they'd already be marked from the UN mission. This would explain why the 4 I've found (only on Canada from BC to NS) are all marked in exactly the same place, with the same uniformity. That doesn't smell like an import stamp to me because it implies uniformity across US importers, before any was mandated. Alternatively, they were Korean wartime and never exported. In the end, who knows; I just can't conform to the impression that is an import stamp because while some personal opinion supports it, there's actual evidence that suggests more logical hypothesis.