I picked this one up along with the 1941 Mosin. I have no interest in Enfields, but since both rifles were made in the same year, I had to buy one. Even to my non-enfield expert eyes, this rifle is not all original, but I am curious about what is and is not. The stock is refinished but original since I can barely see the last two digits of the serial number. The front band isn't(I have read some reference material posted in the sticky), so are the cocking piece and the butt plate. The bolt handle is force matched, however I don't see any FTR marks. Missing the adjustable rear sight? What is this thing worth?
1941 Long Branch Lee Enfield
- Thread starter dimon
- Start date
maple_leaf_eh
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
You have the unicorn of LB collectable No.4s. It has at least three unexpected things - the so-called waisted front sight, the marking is No.4 Mk I (not Mk I*), and the OL4xx serial number put it in the first 500 they made.
Contact Louthepoo here for advice.
Contact Louthepoo here for advice.
- Location
- WMU247 near Edmonton
nice score, as above that is an early longbranch with a few of the original hard to find bits still attached.
very collectable.
very collectable.
Nice piece too bad about the bolt being replaced ...as mentioned the bolt knob would be drilled out like a jungle carbine and it would have had the early cocking piece like a pre war and early WW2 No 1Mk 3 over all i would give a place in my LB collection ...really like the waisted front sight protecter ....as an aside if you ever wondered why the front top wood metal has a slot in the middle it was to go around the groove cut in the wood for the hinged front band ...yep it had a hinged front band
PaveHammer
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Kingston, ON
It was force matched - the rear of the bold handle has been machined down to remove the previous serial number, and the serial of this rifle was stamped on it, so not original.
So it would have been FTR'ed, or someone did it themselves?
Good find! I have a 1941 Longbranch in pretty much original condition, as in somewhat beat up. Hinged front barrel band, round cocking knob, and pretty sure it is matching numbers. Serial 0L7175. Poor old "smellie" nearly fainted when I took it down to Virden and showed it to him.
Darn I miss that old guy. Both George"smellie" and Wayne "buffdog" were an infinite source of information and encouragement. Glad I got to rub shoulders with those two men.
Darn I miss that old guy. Both George"smellie" and Wayne "buffdog" were an infinite source of information and encouragement. Glad I got to rub shoulders with those two men.Eaglelord17
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Sault Ste. Marie
FTR’ed or armourer replacement. The odds of it being a amateur is pretty low as they wouldn’t bother with such obvious fakery as grinding a pre-existing serial number and remarking it, it was also a standard practice for the military.
maple_leaf_eh
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
It is entirely possible the later parts were installed in the service by someone who inspected it, and decided to replace out of specification parts. There was no requirement for the armourer to go rummaging in the parts bins of early/late/Savage/LB/British parts to match the receiving firearm. If there were old pattern parts in the bin, they'd be suspect as 'not up to standard' too.
In Garand collecting circles, guys pay multiples of normal prices for rifles that were converted from the early gas trap deliveries, even though those parts got converted to railroad spike, or ship steel during the war. The value for those collectors is the serial number and any early bits that can be scrounged up.
Eaglelord17
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Sault Ste. Marie
Collectors sometimes forget that these were service rifles not just show pieces. A functional part was a functional part whether it was a LB, Savage, or Maltby made part. They were all designed to be interchangeable (to a degree, hence the fitting as needed), not treated as some sacred thing that must be kept together as a package.
Generally speaking the all matching from factory examples are usually the ones that saw no service.
US collectors tend to be the ones who lose sight of this the most. They get so obsessed with having the ‘correct’ patent numbers on their rifles they will take all the authentic to service parts off it and replace it with random parts which never served with it. Other than a few very specific examples (such as the British return Garands which saw no service) there basically is no such thing as a factory correct example which hasn’t been humped.
If anything it is a testament to the quality and capability of manufacturing the US employed to have such fully interchangeable parts.
I think that’s a little sweeping. The US did not rebuild rifles needlessly and a fair few good condition rifles survived in service without being rebuilt.
I’ve owned many as-manufactured m1 and 03-a3 rifles over the years. It’s pretty easy to find a non- refurb h&r or ihc m1. Same for m1 carbines.
Lots of these guns went to other countries and were re-imported having never been rebuilt as well.
Personally if I own a gun with a worn out part, unless that part is really rare, I change it for a serviceable part. If I can get the right markings on it, all the better. If someone rebuilds a mixmaster to look more period correct, I’m totally ok with that too. For example, re-installing a cutoff plate on an SMLE that has the slot is just fine in my books.
Another conundrum. I’ve owned Enfield with matching font serial numbers but that were clearly rebuilt in service. Many of the factories used the same stamp fonts. You see apparently matching enfields all the time where the individual part proofs betray it was rebuilt. Is that a bad thing, or just keeping good rifles in the field. Personally I think a properly fitted part that was remembered in service is fine and doesn’t ruin a rifle for me. I would even extend that to remembered parts in non Brit fonts if the rifles served elsewhere. Might lower value a little, but still just fine to me.
But to say every matching US gun is humped… no sir, I do not agree.
Eaglelord17
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Sault Ste. Marie
Standard practice for American GIs when cleaning their rifles was to throw their parts in piles, clean them, then reassemble. They didn’t care about the ‘proper assembly number’ when putting the rifles back together. Generally speaking when it is a ‘all matching factory correct’ Garand someone changed out something. Especially the earlier you go. Your not going to find a 1940 Garand which is all matching without being humped.
With the Enfield mentioned it just shows the difference between ‘all matching’ and ‘factory correct/original all matching’. ‘All matching’ simply means all the serial numbers are matched to that particular rifle by the manufacturer or a armourer, be it in rebuild, the field, or the factory. ‘Factory correct/original’ means it is correct as to how it left the factory.
Reinstalling parts is altering the history of the firearm, its like those that remove and dowel the Ishapore screw. Your changing the history to suit what you envision it being, as opposed to it’s reality.
There is a massive difference between doweling an ishy screw (a dumb idea) and changing out say, an EFD marked part on a BSA SMLE. Not the same thing at all.
A properly fitted correct part is fine, doesn’t destroy any history, and isn’t humpimg a rifle in most people’s opinions.
What is humping a rifle is to re-mark parts to have rare markings, re-numbering a part with serial fonts intended to deceive a buyer, etc.
A properly fitted correct part is fine, doesn’t destroy any history, and isn’t humpimg a rifle in most people’s opinions.
What is humping a rifle is to re-mark parts to have rare markings, re-numbering a part with serial fonts intended to deceive a buyer, etc.
