WW2 vs Post-war Long Branch rifles
- Thread starter CMichaud
- Start date
The date on the left side of the receiver. I think you'll find most wartime examples are two groove barrels and tend towards two position or stamped rear sights instead of machined ones (early Long Branches notwithstanding) though often these have been changed. Wartime finish can be rougher and wartime stocks can be maple instead of nicely done walnut. I can't recall any difference in the shape or details other than that.
Not many 1950 C No 4 Long Branch rifles had 6 groove barrels they are quite rare ..rifling done on a bren gun rifling machine ...if you have a 6 groove LB barrel there will be a small number 6 on the left I beleave bayonet lug ... 1949 C No 4s are quite rare as well approx 5000 made ...the quality of post war rifles is beyond rival even during the war quality was superb then again we were not being bombed..
This/\
The post war 1950 rifles tend to have better tolerance standards than late war rifles, as well as better finish. That being said, I've seen some very nice late war production LB No4 MkI* rifles.
It's a toss up, if they've been FTRed. If the work was done in the UK, they might have the Mk1/3 trigger variation as well. There is a good chance the barrels will have been replaced as well.
I have a 1950 date LB, No4 MkI* that I purchased many years ago, new in grease. It has a beautiful parkerized finish that could easily be mistaken for a lustrous blue finish. The stock is straight grained black walnut and it shoots better than my aging eyes can hold. Easily a moa rifle with ammo it likes.
Bore dimension is .311 on the nose. It shoots everything I put through it well.
Many of the war time production rifles had bore dimensions right on maximum or maybe slightly over tolerance bore diameters.
I had a box of LB replacement barrels that was labeled "not for combat rifles"
There were 10 barrels in that box, I bought it from International Firearms out of Montreal back in the late sixties for $20. They were in the white and beautiful. The issue with them was they all had .315 diameter bores. The box was dated 2/45.
Back then, .315 diameter bullets were still available from CIL so they would be OK as long as the handloader knew what was going on. I suspect many rifles went out with those barrels when production numbers were very important and tolerances were allowed to be generous.
I used one of those barrels and sold the rest. The rifle I put that barrel on would shoot .312 diameter, factory ammo into appx 4 inches at best. I reluctantly pulled that barrel and used it for bedding pillars.
I have also seen post war LB, No 4 rifles with Maple stocks. They were beautifully finished and if you liked the color, they worked fine. Many of them ended up as sporting rifles because they were pretty.
About the only issues that will make any difference between No 4 rifles is the quality of the wood, and tolerances in the chambers and bores.
If you happen on a rifle with tight tolerances in the metal, along with decent straight grained wood, there is a good chance it will be very accurate.
I was lucky and was able to pick through a very large number of rifles until I found them with minimum spec tolerances. Most people don't get that luxury.
Thanks for the info guys. Re the "bren tooled" barrels. I have seen these on the odd EAL rifle. They were marked CMK4 if memory is correct.
I was also reading a site that discussed the top wood ribs. It implied that the post-war stocks were fitted with "no groove" top wood? The discussion did not say that all WW2 production were grooved - something about the later war rifles doing away with it and carrying on as such after the war
I was also reading a site that discussed the top wood ribs. It implied that the post-war stocks were fitted with "no groove" top wood? The discussion did not say that all WW2 production were grooved - something about the later war rifles doing away with it and carrying on as such after the war
