Target MP Long Branch with front sight base on backwards?

[Cantom]

I just bought an RCMP Target rifle. I thought the front sight base was British as it didn't show the front male screw to tighten the sight element. Then, I suddenly noticed that the front sight base is on backwards, it is a Long Branch sight base and does have the screw, it faces the upper handguard.

Was this an armourer's trick to get a better sight picture? The sight element is turned the normal way, just the base is reversed.

There was a Long Branch rifle for sale on the CGNTZ EE a month or so ago also with this base reversed.

Anyone know the why's of this? Do I need to correct this or leave alone? Were other RCMP Target rifles similarly set up?

Also, did Long Branch make 6 groove barrels?

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[tiriaq]

LB made 6 groove barrels in the 50s. They were popular with target shooters. Rifled using Bren machinery. Don't know why the front sight base would be reversed; this would expose the top of the front sight to the shooter, and this would not help the aim.
That looks more like a SMLE cocking piece than the early No. 4 version.
The RCMP were issued a quantity of No. 4 rifles, and some of these were set up for competition use, in the days when the RCMP fielded teams.
The dowels set into the sides of the stock were to stabilize the bedding.
The sling most often used was a wide Parker Hale canvas sling. The M1907 US pattern sling would not have been used; wouldn't be rigged like that if it were.
Rifles used for target shooting were subject to all sorts of fiddling.

[Cantom]

LB made 6 groove barrels in the 50s. They were popular with target shooters. Rifled using Bren machinery. Don't know why the front sight base would be reversed; this would expose the top of the front sight to the shooter, and this would not help the aim.
That looks more like a SMLE cocking piece than the early No. 4 version.
The RCMP were issued a quantity of No. 4 rifles, and some of these were set up for competition use, in the days when the RCMP fielded teams.
The dowels set into the sides of the stock were to stabilize the bedding.
The sling most often used was a wide Parker Hale canvas sling. The M1907 US pattern sling would not have been used; wouldn't be rigged like that if it were.
Rifles used for target shooting were subject to all sorts of fiddling.

Should I flip the frt sight base back around or leave as is?

[Cantom]

LB made 6 groove barrels in the 50s. They were popular with target shooters. Rifled using Bren machinery. Don't know why the front sight base would be reversed; this would expose the top of the front sight to the shooter, and this would not help the aim.
That looks more like a SMLE cocking piece than the early No. 4 version.
The RCMP were issued a quantity of No. 4 rifles, and some of these were set up for competition use, in the days when the RCMP fielded teams.
The dowels set into the sides of the stock were to stabilize the bedding.
The sling most often used was a wide Parker Hale canvas sling. The M1907 US pattern sling would not have been used; wouldn't be rigged like that if it were.
Rifles used for target shooting were subject to all sorts of fiddling.

You do know your stuff, I compared the cocking piece with my 41 Long Branch and it is different, it is the same as my SMLE.
Would an SMLE cocking piece fit on a No 4 firing pin and work? I'm just wondering what kind of n-rigging I'm looking at here...was this sort of thing common in target rifles?

[Cantom]

LB made 6 groove barrels in the 50s. They were popular with target shooters. Rifled using Bren machinery. Don't know why the front sight base would be reversed; this would expose the top of the front sight to the shooter, and this would not help the aim.
That looks more like a SMLE cocking piece than the early No. 4 version.

Since it just did not look right, I have flipped the sight base back the way it was supposed to be. It looks much better.
I also dissassembled the bolt and inspected everything, and cleaned up the nasty grease that was inside it. I may try to swap cocking pieces although not decided yet. It would have to be heavily blued and dressy looking to match. I suppose function wise it makes no difference.
I removed the 1907 sling, which is a new repro NM sling from Morgan in Ohio and reinstalled it per this site.
http://www.rollanet.org/~stacyw/us_1907_sling1.htm

I put a couple of CLP soaked patches down the barrel from the breech- what a beautiful bore! This is the first 6 groove I've owned.

[Claven2]

If the rifle was at the RCMP, then it's likely some armorer stuck it on backwards at one time or another - probably to better fit a parker hale front tunnel sight.

[tiriaq]

What is the date on the rifle? Many MP marked ones are wartime. Unless the rifle is dated in the 50s, the barrel is a replacement, which is entirely possible if the rifle was set up for target shooting. I do not know for a fact that they were more accurate, but they were peacetime production. Many years ago, I saw a Battery Sgt. swap a bottle with an armourer for a brand new 6 groove barrel. I would suspect that the cocking piece got fitted as part of a trigger pull tuning. I'd leave it, its part of the rifle's history. You could contact Paul Reibin at Range Sports Unlimited in Kamloops; from time to time he has the correct Parker Hale web slings, for two point sling use.
A PH tunnel sight was not permitted during the height of SR(a) and SR(b) competition, but could have been fitted later, when the rules were changing, and non service pattern target rifles were appearing.
In general, target rifles were subject to all sorts of experimentation and whatever modifications depending on what was permissible at the time. An ex-target rifle is less likely to be "correct" as far as issue configuration than a regular service rifle. Replacing the cocking piece and forend would restore the rifle to "issue" condition, but would eliminate evidence of its actual use.
When the RCMP sold off their No. 4s (members had first dibs, then they just got sold) the issue No. 4 was no longer a standard target rifle, so in all probability yours was set up while it was stilll RCMP property, and not after it had been sold. That is, it is probably not an ex-RCMP rifle adapted for target shooting after it left the force.