1941 Long Branch

Interesting. Like all other registry data: if correct? I haven't searched that Ottawa Citizen publicity-gimmick much, & didn't know you could check serial numbers. Privacy concerns aside, that's interesting for research, if only we could be sure the data was accurate.
 
You generally can't check serial numbers on the ottawa citizen database, but some guys put the serial numbers down as the model numbers....after all that registration form said to write whatever was on the side of the gun. If one were to check the EAL rifles on the database, many of them had the serial numbers written down as part of the make.
That is the reason why I suggested a FOI request for only verified rifles. They would be more likely to have relatively proper data. There are so many flaws in the un-verified guns as to make that data useless. There are a couple semi auto Lee Enfield no4s listed on there, and nobody knows how many are listed as model 2.22 tons.
Even the verified guns won't take into account things like re-serialised receivers, or mis-read serials. I have more than my share of mis-identified rifles in my collection which were sent to me as verified by the dealers.
 
:D
smoothbore75 said:
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.
---------------------
Click to expand...


42 No 4 Mk I??? Gotta see that...:D That would be highly cool. Is it in the 1L series by any chance?
 
smoothbore75 said:
----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?
Click to expand...

Sorry Smoothbore, it's just a pic I got somewhere on the net, not my rifle, wish it was...yeah it does have the later bolt head. I was most interested in the s/n as it supported Lee Enfield's thesis.
 
1941 is the only year LB I have not actually owned, though I've handled about 6 of them now that weren't for sale.

Part of the reason they are so rare is pretty obvious - many are at the bottom of the atlantic. I suspect entire serial ranges are there.

In 1941/1942, the U-boats were having their "happy time" and were sinking several ships from every convoy. A ship could have been (and often was) loaded with a couple-thousand consecutively-serialized Savage and LB No.4's in crates.

It accounts for so many serial number gaps today :)
 
BadgerDog said:
I tried to my friend ... ;)

http://www.milsurps.com/vbclassified.php?do=ad&id=485

Regards,
Badger
Click to expand...

I saw yesterday that Warren pointed it out on Jouster but couldn't find it on Gunboards.
Glad you tried...I just love that, he won't sell a Canadian rifle to a Canadian. :mad: I can well imagine your frustration.

Pity about the import marking. Pity it didn't come north.
That is a pretty high serial number, higher than any other I've seen for a 41.
 
Last edited:
cantom said:
Badger- Weren't you just saying you wanted one???? Did you score one???? :D
Click to expand...

~Angel~ finally found a beauty for her Enfield collection ... :D

With thanks to Advisory Panel member Lance, we've added a new entry to the Canada - Milsurp Knowledge Library (click here) http://www.milsurps.com/forumdisplay.php?f=10

A rare 1941 No.4 Mk1 Long Branch Rifle (click here) ..... http://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=3447

This is a fascinating rifle to study its markings and components in detail, with some interesting oddities and variations from the standard No.4 Mk1* noted in the "Collector's Feedback and Comments" section of the main Knowledge Libary entry. There's also information with pictured examples of how to check for a correct front waisted sight protector, versus a home made, or possible fake.

Regards,
Badger
 
The 1941 No.4 Mk1 Long Branch MKL entry has been updated with additional "Comments and Feedback" (Notes #4 and #5) from Lance.

For additional comparisons by collectors, he's added pics of "waisted" front sight protectors mounted on a SMLE Mk VI Trials rifle and a No4. Mk1 Trials rifle.

Also, to show another variation that occurred during the manufacture of this rifle, he's added pics of his own No.4 Mk1 Long Branch that was thrown into production in the first quarter of '42, noting that it had both Mk I and Mk I* bolt release mechanisms.

Regards,
Badger
 
Claven2 said:
1941 is the only year LB I have not actually owned, though I've handled about 6 of them now that weren't for sale.

Part of the reason they are so rare is pretty obvious - many are at the bottom of the atlantic. I suspect entire serial ranges are there.

In 1941/1942, the U-boats were having their "happy time" and were sinking several ships from every convoy. A ship could have been (and often was) loaded with a couple-thousand consecutively-serialized Savage and LB No.4's in crates.

It accounts for so many serial number gaps today :)
Click to expand...


Also at the bottom are large numbers of Thompson SMG..aka the Tommy Gun....as Claven mentioned the U boat campaign was at its height, and the allies came very close to losing the war in this theatre
 
BadgerDog said:
The 1941 No.4 Mk1 Long Branch MKL entry has been updated with additional "Comments and Feedback" (Notes #4 and #5) from Lance.

For additional comparisons by collectors, he's added pics of "waisted" front sight protectors mounted on a SMLE Mk VI Trials rifle and a No4. Mk1 Trials rifle.

Also, to show another variation that occurred during the manufacture of this rifle, he's added pics of his own No.4 Mk1 Long Branch that was thrown into production in the first quarter of '42, noting that it had both Mk I and Mk I* bolt release mechanisms.

Regards,
Badger
Click to expand...

That's a very interesting rifle Badger- Lance's No 4 Mk I with both styles of bolt release! Very cool, must be a very rare piece that...nice writeup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom