1941 Long Branch

Lee Enfield

Lee Enfield

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
72   0   0
Location
Republic of Alberta
Does anyone have a 1941 Long Branch with a serial # which above 0L9999

My theory is that Long Branch serial #s started at 0L1 and when they reached 0L9999 they switched to 1L0 (similar to Savage after they reached the million).

Anyone agree, disagree?

My reasoning is based on the fact that 0L4### has a 1941 barrel, while 1L2xx has a '42 dated barrel.
 
I will disagree with your analysis slightly. After they reached 0L9999, the next gun was 1L0000, followed by 1L0001,1L0002. Only the first guns in the 0L series were numbered without the extra zeros.
I am going by what I have seen on Canadian Stens, which were numbered the same way. In your post you mention you have 1L2XX. Are you missing an X on the back of there?
 
Lee Enfield said:
Does anyone have a 1941 Long Branch with a serial # which above 0L9999

My theory is that Long Branch serial #s started at 0L1 and when they reached 0L9999 they switched to 1L0 (similar to Savage after they reached the million).

Anyone agree, disagree?

My reasoning is based on the fact that 0L4### has a 1941 barrel, while 1L2xx has a '42 dated barrel.
Click to expand...


While we're at it, I've been wondering, what's the highest number anyone has seen for a 41 No 4 Mk I?
What's the lowest number anyone has seen for a 42?

What was the s/n cutoff for the changeover?

I've been told they made both at the same time for a while to keep up production rates, also, the Canadian Army destroyed the No 4 Mk I receivers and converted the rifles to a new No 4 Mk I* receiver in the interest of standardization, thus, any survivors are somewhat rare as we know.
 
stencollector said:
I will disagree with your analysis slightly. After they reached 0L9999, the next gun was 1L0000, followed by 1L0001,1L0002. Only the first guns in the 0L series were numbered without the extra zeros.
I am going by what I have seen on Canadian Stens, which were numbered the same way. In your post you mention you have 1L2XX. Are you missing an X on the back of there?
Click to expand...

Yes, but the Stens started production in 1942 by which time No4 serial pattern was fixed (and well established).

No, the serial is not missing an x.

Also I was looking through the Gunboards serial survey and noted a similar serial being noted as a "late" 1941.

If I whine & snivell enough I should be able to access about 5~ 1941s to look at. Whether the owner will let me pull out a screw driver might be another thing.

The one thing I have noted before about 1941s is that the serials didn't seem to make any sense.

Has anyone seen a 1941-42 LB with serials in the 10-20,000 range??

Having had to come up with "serial numbers" at work, I know it can be a frustrating experience to come up with a system that works.
 
Lee Enfield said:
Yes, but the Stens started production in 1942 by which time No4 serial pattern was fixed (and well established).

No, the serial is not missing an x.

Also I was looking through the Gunboards serial survey and noted a similar serial being noted as a "late" 1941.

If I whine & snivell enough I should be able to access about 5~ 1941s to look at. Whether the owner will let me pull out a screw driver might be another thing.

The one thing I have noted before about 1941s is that the serials didn't seem to make any sense.

Has anyone seen a 1941-42 LB with serials in the 10-20,000 range??

Having had to come up with "serial numbers" at work, I know it can be a frustrating experience to come up with a system that works.
Click to expand...

I have a 42 in the 15L range. I've never seen a 42 with a 3 digit number after the L. But then, how many of them have I ever actually handled? Maybe 30 or so.

That 1L### rifle, is that a 41 No 4 Mk I ?

Hey, I just saw this from Limpetmine on Gunboards.(these s/n's attributed to Limpetmine)
1941 No. 4 Mk I / 1L882

Kind of answers my question and yours too, doesn't it??

Here's a low 42. 1942 MkI* 2L49xx , South African Prop-Marked.
1942 2L4150 earliest MK1*
1942 serial 2L1037
No. 4 Mk1 1L384 1941 Ha! Another 3 digit serial in the 1L 41 production.
 
Last edited:
cantom said:
snip....

the Canadian Army destroyed the No 4 Mk I receivers and converted the rifles to a new No 4 Mk I* receiver in the interest of standardization, thus, any survivors are somewhat rare as we know.
Click to expand...

I know where that story came from and it's BS. The Canadian Army listed the No4 MkI & No4 MkI* concurrently in the stores lists well into the 1950s.

I have had Canadian marked No4MkIs and have seen many.

ALL 1941 No4s are uncommon, they saw the whole war after all. In addition the plants were all commissioned in 1941.

The British plants started their lines by assembling 1930s trials No1Mk6 and No4MkI parts from stores.
 
Well I stand corrected on the 3 digit serial number thing. I have kept an eye on the early stens, which as you mention, are 1942 and later, and they only used one, two or 3 digits on the 0L batch. After 0L999, everything was 4 digits after the L.
 
stencollector said:
Well I stand corrected on the 3 digit serial number thing. I have kept an eye on the early stens, which as you mention, are 1942 and later, and they only used one, two or 3 digits on the 0L batch. After 0L999, everything was 4 digits after the L.
Click to expand...

That's why it's so interesting.

I think it would explain why there seems to be so much confusion about the number of LB No4MkIs, everyone agrees that the total was under 20,000, but the serials don't SEEM to exist.

So my theory;

Long Branch:

0L1
0L9999
1L0
1L999
1L1000
2L0000

Known Savage:
0C1
0C9999
1C0000
99C9999
0C00001
 
Last edited:
cantom said:
snip...

Hey, I just saw this from Limpetmine on Gunboards.(these s/n's attributed to Limpetmine)
1941 No. 4 Mk I / 1L882

Kind of answers my question and yours too, doesn't it??

Here's a low 42. 1942 MkI* 2L49xx , South African Prop-Marked.
1942 2L4150 earliest MK1*
1942 serial 2L1037
No. 4 Mk1 1L384 1941 Ha! Another 3 digit serial in the 1L 41 production.
Click to expand...


So according to my theory that 1L882 would be 10,882

and 1L384 would be 10,384

I guess my theory only holds until 11,000 comes up though?

That should be an 1L1000 right? Still would leave a 9000 number gap....
 
Last edited:
Lee Enfield said:
So according to my theory that 1L882 would be 10,882

and 1L384 would be 10,384

I guess my theory only holds until 11,000 comes up though?

That should be an 1L1000 right? Still would leave a 9000 number gap....
Click to expand...


I wonder if LB jumped up to 2L0000 to start 1942 production, and didn't just start from 1L etc?
 
cantom said:
I wonder if LB jumped up to 2L0000 to start 1942 production, and didn't just start from 1L etc?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I thought of that also, in the 1960s when the C1A"2" (8L C1a1) debuted it did so in a new serial # range.

Ok, No4MkI with '42 dated barrel
No4MkI* with '42 dated barrel

we know that the receiver production outstripped the barrel production by a wide margin, perhaps as you have suggested No4MkI*s were serialed from 2L0000 on while the No4MkI receivers in the bin continued in the 1L series until they ran out of receivers.

Ie) as the bin emptied another No4MkI receiver got found, assembled and numbered into the earlier sequence (we are told that serial numbering was the final operation AFTER assembly).

The only problem with that is that No4MkI receivers SHOULD then appear with much later serial numbers, as humans make mistakes- and someone always misses THAT memo.
 
Lee Enfield said:
Yeah, I thought of that also, in the 1960s when the C1A"2" (8L C1a1) debuted it did so in a new serial # range.

Ok, No4MkI with '42 dated barrel
No4MkI* with '42 dated barrel

we know that the receiver production outstripped the barrel production by a wide margin, perhaps as you have suggested No4MkI*s were serialed from 2L0000 on while the No4MkI receivers in the bin continued in the 1L series until they ran out of receivers.

Ie) as the bin emptied another No4MkI receiver got found, assembled and numbered into the earlier sequence (we are told that serial numbering was the final operation AFTER assembly).

The only problem with that is that No4MkI receivers SHOULD then appear with much later serial numbers, as humans make mistakes- and someone always misses THAT memo.
Click to expand...


But I wonder what percentage of these rifles remain in existance? Probably a very low number...some were sporterized like my first one, some were used up/destroyed in the war, some sunk by submarines, some FTR'd in India with the numbers scrubbed, some destroyed by overzealous Liberal oriented officers etc. Probably a lot of rifle numbers are missing for reasons like that.

Note that some of the 41's have quite crude looking number stampings, and the Long Branch No 4 Mk I 1941 engraving looks quite crude, almost like it was done by hand.

BTW, look at the serial number on this rifle- 1L25! 2 digits! BTW, I have this photo on my computer in very good resolution if anyone wants it emailed to them, you can zoom right in on it.

LB411.jpg

LB414.jpg
 
Last edited:
Beats me. My oldest 1941 No4MkI is 0L244. Can't remember the numbers on the other 1941 or my 1942 No4MkI or No4MkI*.
As far as I understand the rationale, the 'L' was just a location identifier for Long Branch, the same way the American Savage No4 rifles made at their Chicopee Falls site have a 'C' in their numbers.
The letter isn't part of the serial numbering sequence at all, meaning 0L25 is the 25th rifle made, 0L9999 is the 9,999th, and 1L0001 is the 10,001st. (Have to dig out Stratton's books to be sure.)
The sequences ran continuous from beginning to end, without changing the number range as a new year began. The barrels & receivers were dated with the year each were made, though there is always the possibility of mixed barrel & receiver dates for rifles assembled around the new year. Of course there's always the possibility of later barrel replacements in service or otherwise. I have even heard situations where for whatever reason all other parts were saved but a receiver was scrapped: the receiver was replaced with a factory 'spare', which as manufactured was marked WITH the year it was produced, but WITHOUT a serial number. After replacement it would then be serialised to the rifle that the scrapped reciever came from. I once saw an example like this at a gunshow: a very early serial number Long Branch. All numbers matched, and the number should have put it in early 1942 as a No4MkI. The receiver was a later-dated No4MkI* ? Only some government accountant could make sense of the idea of a receiver being replaced but the rifle staying the same.
---------------------
 
----Oh, come to think of it, 1L25 does seem a bit odd to me? I have some 0L-serial numbered rifles with 3 and 4 digits after the 'L', but all of my 1L-numbered rifles, and all others I've seen have four digits after the L ?
Cantom: any history on the rifle in your pic? The safety-selector looks okay for the period, as does the rear sight. The bolt cocking-piece looks like the second pattern, which isn't unheard of. The parts marked as 'LB' ? Does the bolt &/or barrel match? Looks nice from what can be seen. How's the rest of it?
 
Lee Enfield said:
If I whine & snivell enough I should be able to access about 5~ 1941s to look at. Whether the owner will let me pull out a screw driver might be another thing.

The one thing I have noted before about 1941s is that the serials didn't seem to make any sense.

Has anyone seen a 1941-42 LB with serials in the 10-20,000 range??
Click to expand...

You could always pay $5 with a FOI request and get the registrar to supply you with all the serial numbers of registered Long Branch .303 rifles. The reason I would ask for .303 only, is otherwise your results will be contaminated with Cno7 serials which also were in the 0L and 1L serial range. You might also do well by asking for verified rifles only. I was just looking at that Ottawa Citizen database, and there is so much crap in there that any data would be almost useless. You might be able to ask for the same info from the dept of Natl defense, who still have a few thousand 303s in stock.
By the way, that database also shows a 3L391 (1942 dated) rifle. If that serial is correct, then maybe LB continued to not use the 0s in the low serial numbers of each L series.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom