My 43' LB - First (ever?) Teardown

[doca]

Greece, maybe, sure and why not, but there is nothing that suggests that its true. Other reading I've done talk about the Greek 4's coming through Belgium (all of them somehow marked) and being British Enfields, less those references on this site by the same folks speaking of it here. Also, I've only noted one importer of Greek 4's, a US importer and as we know.... the whole thing would be marked up if that occurred.

I'll have to dig into export records to see if/what/when we sent them.

Long Branch started Parkerizing in 1950 in the 93L serial range

This fits as well, because there are no parts or marks that suggest anything other than LB and, if it was redone at LB 1950+, they'd probably have CA stamped and parkerized it.

The best part is that none of us will ever know for sure.. unless I can figure out that G2, maybe.

[Brian Dick]

Lots made it back. All of the Greek returns I had sported British commercial proofs on the barrels since they were sold by Charnwood Ordnance. None had any other Greek markings other than the odd stickers I mentioned before. The more i look at yours, the more I'm convinced it's a Greek or other European nation return.

I've never seen a C Mk.3 sight on a factory original 1943 Long Branch. There were two earlier stamped Canadian variants. One mismarked Mk.II and the other marked Mk.III that are original on some LB 1944-45 production rifles. I have two 1944 rifles with the mismarked variant and one 1945 with the latter. You can tell the Canadian made stamped sights because the base fits all the way across the body unlike the British ones that have a washer to fill the gap. CAL replaced the Mk.2 flip sights with the later C Mk.3 post 1950 if memory serves. They were standard on the 1949 and 1950 production rifles.

The cocking piece and bolt head are LB but is the bolt body? Maybe so or maybe not but it's still a legit replacement as done in an Armourer's workshop regardless.

[doca]

WW2 surplus of Canadian Enfields were stored by the War Assets Crop until late Sep 1947 when they were sent for destruction.Quite specifically because of not having buyers (guess the Brits and Yanks unloaded first). Seeing as the reason Greece bought a bunch of surplus rifles was for the Greek civil war, 1944-1949, it’s not possible because the remaining CDN 4’s were in active armories until the end of the Korean War, when they were replaced by the C1. These 4’s were then distributed to the Rangers en-mass, and remaining other thousands(?) were sold…post 1954.

Much later edit: I’d really appreciate if crackpot theories were to be avoided. First the swear up and down that it was British (other thread with the IMPORT mark you can’t prove, can’t show examples of and for which the 4 I have found aren’t even in the US- guess where they are) and now its Greek. Neither have evidence to support and if anyone has it, pony up. I love crow sandwiches…. provided that I learn.

I’ve never even heard a of a two piece bolt body. Sounds really flimsy to separate the cocking handle from the rest of it. Can’t imagine what would happen over time as the unbalanced pull rips at the pin. Otherwise, you’ve already seen it, to the left of the SN, post #8.

This C MK3 are easy to tell from the British one because it’s marked CMK3. Here’s a bit from Stratton; note the C MK3, used at Long Branch 1943-1944.
Attachment 122015

@browningautorifle Lol, ok, big guy. Tell me why there’s two marks on the inside of the hand guard, identical to the four marks on outside of the same piece. Now, do you understand why I don’t just buy garbage? - there’s speculation, then theres assuming and regurgitating fact without evidence; guess which one I run into lot of here. Hope the above stated facts didn’t offend anyone.

[doca]

I never intended for this to begin how it did. Started off great. A few pics, a nice exchange about being sure I was handling it well. Then it went off the rails with this guy at post #16. Sorry for questioning you on something I’d first agreed was likely, but quickly had seconds thoughts because it no longer made sense. Seriously, who shows off their kills on the inside of a forestock and if that’s not it, why do they match the ones on the outside?

I disliked the direction this thread took since post #6, it wasn’t what this thread was intended for. Regardless, I’ll still dig for solutions to the spin class that followed and post relevant findings to the Greek question, and any other development with this specific rifle. With evidence closing the sight matter, I thank you for no longer contributing to the speculation, Jim and whoever else doesn’t like questions, facts or rebuttal.

[Brian Dick]

Hi Doca, We're here trying to help you in the study of your rifle. I've tried and tried to tell you what I know, (it's not speculation), from the experience of handling more than one or two Long Branch No.4's during my time in this trade and before to be honest. I also have a reference collection here of at least one of each date and duplicates of several plus snipers, etc.. I've collected Long Branch No.4 rifles and Inglis No.2 pistols for more years than I care to admit now. I am a US importer who brought in 200 of the Greek owned Long Branch rifles back in 2001 as I've stated but you either aren't reading my posts carefully or just don't want to believe what my and others' opinions and facts are. Guess what? Many rifles have been exported from Canada to the USA and then reexported back to England, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Europe. Guess how I know? I've been an exporter since 1997! Some of the folks reading this around the world own and shoot these rifles as purchased directly from me in years past as well as from other dealers in the UK I've done exports for. I'll give you some advice if you choose to take it. Set Stratton's little book back on the shelf because it's full of mistakes as you were told before by AdE in the last fiasco of a thread and buy a real book like Skennerton's "The Lee Enfield". I think I mentioned it before too. No book is perfect but it's the definitive read if you think you want to collect rifles of the Lee Enfield pedigree. The $100 you'll spend on it is well worth it. Buy one of the Small Arms ID Series booklets on the No.4 rifle too, also from http://www.skennerton.com. It includes the real Illustrated Parts catalogue. Then you will understand the nomenclatures of the parts your rifle is comprised of, (including the bolt assembly). Anyhow, I'm not trying to offend anyone here. I stick to every bit of what I've said about your rifle and still think it's an honest example that's seen service in multiple Armies and been worked on just like 99.9% of the No.4's out there. All the best. Brian, (aka: random internet guy crackpot!)

[doca]

It's not that I don't appreciate help, but I don't appreciate speculation presented as fact because of what comes down to "I said so".

When I ask for references and evidence, only to be provided with 'I'm experienced' or 'I'm an expert', it means nothing because that person's experience or expertise may be based on someone else's falsehoods. When unable to provide substantiation for input, it's value is naught and, the longer and louder that person (and friends) scream about how correct they are, without passing any real evidence to support it, the less credible they appear.

I can do a lot of work on my vehicles, but should anyone take my word on driveway maintenance/repair, or should I provide them a document? A brake job is the same on a Mazda as it is on a Ford, right? Well, no, it's not. So, if I tell someone how to do a brake job on a Mazda, when they have a Ford, they'll at least use the wrong fluid and my knowledge is labeled as garbage, even though I was correct. However, if I show them the mazda service manual, they might identify that for its the wrong vehicle and that can be corrected.

The biggest difference between the above example and this rifle discussion is that a vehicle's brake job is easily researchable and, doesn't have such a muddy and mysterious history as these firearms.

I am reading your posts, you have many and I can't find all the relevant ones, and that's part of the problem. From what I've found, it's all your word and no facts to support. I'm just the only guy to not put up with it. You have many posts so, gimme a break and point to significant posts where evidence is supplied.

I'm very aware that firearms, just like other goods, don't only go one place. However, that does not mean they all bounce around the world before ending up near where they began. To assume such a thing is reckless, just as its reckless to 100% identify this No 4 as having been a Greek rifle based on colour alone, when Canada didn't sell any to them. I'm still digging though export data to make sure, but you'd think it would be as easy to find as the others.

If you go back to the other debacle of a thread, you'll see the reference for the University of Winnipeg. I'd already mentioned this publication, but within it you'll find a reference for letters between the RCMP Commissioner and the WAC VP. A letter, dated 30 Aug 1947, states:

"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."

ref:[url="https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?

So, if Canada destroyed all those declared surplus, beginning Oct 1947, how did we export wartime produced rifles to Greece for their 1944-1949 civil war? We have seen British FTR w/LB parts in Greece, but that also speaks to my comment in the other thread about why so many LB parts were in British bins.

In short: Canada didn't send rifles back across the Atlantic for repair during wartime, because it's dumb; they'd go to British facilities, get torn down and rebuilt with other British parts. The same probably would have happened to those returning damaged when the European theatre closed; why ship broken guns we don't need or want? In reality, no one is going to dig through bins to find CDN parts (from furniture to receivers and everything in between) to repatriate post-war; that's why there are/were so many LB parts and FTR'd rifles in England, a country, BTW, who everyone knows sold many 4's to Greece.

According to another research paper, Canada did sell a bunch, to India and Pakistan for military use. India (unknown number) and Pakistan (100,000) didn't request to purchase any until late 1948, but were soon approved for sale.
ref:https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/handle/1880/111845/ucalgary_2020_montagnes_joel.pdf?sequence=2

However, we also know that LB produced new No 4's for a number of years after the war, and probably FTR'd CAF's until the FN's came.

The above forces a few conclusions:

1. Those declared WW2 surplus were destroyed in Oct 1947+.
2. Those declared CDN surplus after the initial destruction may have ended up in
a. India
b. Pakistan
3. India and Pakistan must have received newly produced LBs, at least amongst any lingering WW2 era rifles.

However, we also know that these Pakistan and India exports were marked, because there's many traced examples. Also, thinking about it, there's a post here about LB production numbers and the math does not work. If we sent 100,000 to Pakistan alone in 1948-1949, where did the ones come from to go to Greece and what about all the post-war, LB productions that went to NZ?

Do me a favour; I assume you have Skennerton's book, crop out what it says about the C MK3 and post it as a reference note. I can work with that, but until then its no more than a Get Along Gang scenario where the guy who disagrees get shamed by the rest until he complies, for right or wrong.

For the record:

1. I saw the bolt handle resurfacing, but wanted to see what reaction I'd get by asking. Why? Because of the characteristics of my other thread.

2. I don't think you, as an individual (or anyone else here) actually is a crackpot. The theory itself is crackpot, less evidence. Evidence of which my particular 4 carries none of, pending the "G2". I think cracking that nut will open the doors.

[Brian Dick]

Page 312 of the chapter on North American production. I can sell you a copy of the book if you like as i still have a couple left in stock from Ian's last visit here. Merry Christmas.

Brian

[limpetmine]

Pictures not visible?

[Brian Dick]

Since limpetmine is asking, this about the Canadian sheet steel fabricated rear sights from "The Lee Enfield" by Ian Skennerton. I'm not going to break the back of my copy scanning it.

"The Canadian patterns were developed late in 1943, and the following year samples were forwarded to England; the alternatives were approved and incorporated into Canadian production. A pressed steel buttplate was also approved as an alternative for Canadian production and changes were made to fittings such as the foresight protectors, trigger guard, safety catch and upper and lower bands."

To put it simply: There ain't a snowball's chance in Hell that a CMk.3 sight was fitted on doca's rifle at the factory in 1943. Besides, if you look at the back of the leaf, it will have the post 1946 CAL stamp, not the wartime LB stamp. Check it out.

My observations of factory original wartime rifles with Canadian stamped rear sights that I own.

1. 1944 71L0808 - Mk.III, (early mismarked Mk.II)
2. 1944 78L7814 - Mk.III, (early mismarked Mk.II)
3. 1945 87L4573 - Mk.III
4. 1949 91L0950 - Mk.III
5. 1949 91L2448 CMk.3 - six groove rifling
6. 1950 93L2531 CMk.3 - six groove rifling
7. 1950 94L8015 CMk.3

The majority of the Greek owned rifles I imported from England via Canada were 1950 dated along with many like doca's that had been through workshops and repaired. Your CMk.3 sight was a replacement as doca's rifle originally had a Mk.II 300-600 yard flip sight as I already said. All of my factory original 1942 and 1943 rifles are fitted with the simple Mk.II. My single 1941 sn. 0L880 has a Canadian Mk.1 rear sight. It's pretty obvious that Canada sold rifles to the Greeks during the Korean war, possibly even later along with spare parts to maintain them. Doca's was repaired/rebuilt in overseas workshops. No one seems to know exactly where as it's been discussed on this forum long before these threads. I lean towards Greek workshops but could be wrong. That's why doca's has a renumbered bolt body, replacement rear sight and dip blue finish instead of CAL Parkerizing. As a note of interest, the Greek Armourers were trained by REME and RCEME. They shared workshops as British and Commonwealth soldiers do. I don't need some reference material to tell me that because all I have to do is look at the quality of the work which is generally fantastic. You also see these type British/Commonwealth repairs on Springfields and M1 Rifles returned from Greek stores that were sold off by the Civilian Marksmanship Program here in the USA.

doca, I realize that you desperately want your 1943 Long Branch No.4Mk.1* to be a factory original, Canadian owned and marked rifle. If it doesn't sport the "C-Broad Arrow" ownership mark, (not the little ones on all of the small parts and wood), on top of the breech or right side of the buttstock, it simply isn't so. I have two of them here both 1942. One that's pretty much original but worked on, (God forbid), that's marked both on top of the breech and on the side of buttstock. The other is a CAL FTR, Parkerized and only marked on the side of the buttstock. As I think I said before, CF owned rifles are scarce because the Army is and always was small.

I'm ready for incoming. I have my Canadian Mk.II (?), (can't remember as I'm not a helmet collector), helmet ready doca. I don't care if you buy the book from me or not but BUY THE BOOK. These guys are tired of me preaching about buying books. You've got a good 30-50 years of catching up to do to many here. The only reason I'm feeding you is because you're a Canadian like me. Well, I'm an American now but my birth certificate says Ontario, Canada!

Brian

PS, I have two cousins buried in Europe. One in France and the other in Belgium. Both were Canadian Army, one Infantry and the other Armour from SW Ontario, Kent and Essex counties. Both were killed in 1944. There's a reason for my study of these things since my teen years.

[Wernher von Beige]

I hope you read up on the proper disassembly procedure, especially removing the forend. It's all here in Peter Laidler's articles.

Hi, Brian.

I know I've seen the disassembly instructions somewhere. I looked at the index of Peter Laidler's articles but nothing jumped out at me as being disassembly / forend-specific instructions. I've set up a folder where I dump potentially useful articles, but I don't see it in my own folder either. Pardon the dumb question, but which article is it?