Unusual Long Branch No4 .22 cal

D

dhw56

Member
Rating - 100%
139   0   0
Location
Southeastern Ont.
I just picked up a new to me Long Branch 22 cal No 4.. Its is identical to a No7 but with no markings at all. No serial number, no caliber, nothing other than,

No4 Mk 1*
Long Branch
1942

on the left side of the receiver.

The mag is the same as issued with the No7's, the rear sight is different than normal No7's, it is a fully adjustable Parker Hale.


Any ideas where this came from ???
 
Probably made up from parts by a civilian gunsmith or a slim chance it was built by Weapons Techs at unit or depot level.
 
I've seen a couple .303's sleeved into cadet/No.7 target rifles. Pretty easy and cheap I'm told. I'd like to have one. It'd be a fun cheap shooter made out of a rifle with a bad bore.
 
I have a Le-nfield .22, but min is marked simply

LONG BRANCH
.22"
1944

I believe that the official designation for the Rifle, .22", C Number 7 did not come in until after the War.

My rifle, I know for a fact, was built in the Armourers' Shack at the Nationals in Ottawa, back about 1961. To date, it has had close to 100 rounds through it; I don't think I'm going to wear it out at this rate. It is marked only with the initials of the man who built it.

It is accepted that Long Branch made a production run of.22" rifles in 1943; there are a few around. Considering the NEED for such rifles at that time, it makes sense that a few pilot rifles could have been made with Number 4 markings, using unnumbered Bodies from regular production nd extemporising, if you will, a needed rifle prior to the laying-down of an official Pattern.

The rifle would need to be examined by someone with a lot more knowledge concerning these things than I possess.

I would suggest posting a series of good-quality close-up photos of details of the rifle here and also in the Lee-Enfield forum over at Milsurps dot com. Between these two locations, you will be able to get opinions from MOST of the people who really KNOW these Canadian rifles.

They sure shoot nice; I will say that much for sure!
 
smellie said:
I have a Le-nfield .22, but min is marked simply

LONG BRANCH
.22"
1944

I believe that the official designation for the Rifle, .22", C Number 7 did not come in until after the War.

My rifle, I know for a fact, was built in the Armourers' Shack at the Nationals in Ottawa, back about 1961. To date, it has had close to 100 rounds through it; I don't think I'm going to wear it out at this rate. It is marked only with the initials of the man who built it.

It is accepted that Long Branch made a production run of.22" rifles in 1943; there are a few around. Considering the NEED for such rifles at that time, it makes sense that a few pilot rifles could have been made with Number 4 markings, using unnumbered Bodies from regular production nd extemporising, if you will, a needed rifle prior to the laying-down of an official Pattern.

The rifle would need to be examined by someone with a lot more knowledge concerning these things than I possess.

I would suggest posting a series of good-quality close-up photos of details of the rifle here and also in the Lee-Enfield forum over at Milsurps dot com. Between these two locations, you will be able to get opinions from MOST of the people who really KNOW these Canadian rifles.

They sure shoot nice; I will say that much for sure!
Click to expand...

The 22 enfields started in 1944. They used converted smle and cooey rifles in 1943.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom