If you collect Lee Enfields long enough you'll come to know that there is a lot about original finishes, etc, that remains unknown, even to the high end collectors. There is actually one manufacturer of No. 4's that is known to have used a different stamp font on receiver and bolt at time of original manufacture. That manufacturer is not Long Branch. Long Branch also didn't make an obvious "FTR" type stamp on refurbed rifles. However, I've seen a few probable refurbished rifles from Long Branch that utilized a font somewhat similar to the rifle in question on bolt and/or receiver. The rifle may well be a proper arsenal overhauled rifle but good luck confirming that. To be sure a No. 4 is demonstrably "factory original matching" requires a bunch of photos and knowledge of whether a particular factory stamped the serial on items like the barrel shank and on the wood, under the forend tip, what the original bluing (or other finish) looked like, etc. Often when you have a rifle you think to be all original, if you put together a detailed photo post on a major forum, you'll get a lot of feedback and, usually, some surprises. As someone pointed out above, these rifles have generally been through some sort of repair or refurbishment. There are some excellent condition, non-refurbished Long Branches out there- I once owned a '43 that I was 98.5% convinced was all original. However, some of the more original pieces I've stumbled upon were heavily used and never refurbished. I have a '42 Maltby that has original barrel and bolt but the wood, while it looks appropriate in condition, is un-numbered. Did Maltby number their forends in '42? No clue! I have a '41 Maltby that does have matching numbered forend but the whole rifle has the appearance of an FTR but no "FTR" stamp. I guess my point is that there is no alternative to demanding piles of photos and reaching your own (possibly) incorrect conclusion about a specific rifle.
milsurpo
