EARLY RARE LONG BRANCH SNIPER????????? You be the judge...... PICTURE HEAVY!!!!

The way those mounting holes were filled and filed off is not what you would call professional work. Is that something that a trained armourer would do?

I know that there were a very few 74L 32TP rifles sent to NRHQ for Ranger issue. Last I heard they went to the Yukon.
 
tiriaq said:
The way those mounting holes were filled and filed off is not what you would call professional work. Is that something that a trained armourer would do?

I know that there were a very few 74L 32TP rifles sent to NRHQ for Ranger issue. Last I heard they went to the Yukon.
Click to expand...

Haven't seen any up here although my old retired Ranger Sargent did speak about seeing a couple, I can't be certain they were TP rifles though, I will have to ask him.

Yup not a very clean job removing the pads.....Not saying it was done by a Ranger but that's my guess. I've seen Ranger's take the liberties to do some interesting alterations to their service rifles....I'm talking just Enfield's now.
 
Odd to see it not relieved for the front pad mount though. I'm currently rebuilding a T myelf that's had the front pad removed at some point, and thre is definitely a milled cutout for the pad to be soldered on to as well as screwed into place
 
Torandir said:
Odd to see it not relieved for the front pad mount though. I'm currently rebuilding a T myelf that's had the front pad removed at some point, and thre is definitely a milled cutout for the pad to be soldered on to as well as screwed into place
Click to expand...

That was H&H practice.

milsurpo
 
From the Internet article, "Is my Lee Enfield sniper rifle a fake?"

... Caveat Emptor.


Canadian Long Branch rifles closely parallel British production, with some specific deviations and much smaller quantities. Rifles delivered before May 1944 were missing the characteristic ‘T’ stamp on the sidewall. In 1943 Long Branch delivered 71 sniper rifles with Canadian-made Research Enterprises Ltd. (REL) C No.32 MK.1 scopes, possibly in the 34L###x serial number range. These first deliveries were selected from the nearly 230,000 No.4 rifles produced in 1943 (numbered 23L###x to 56L###x). Law’s book suggests four distinct serial number ranges for No.4 Mk1*(T)'s: 1944 production rifles numbered 71L###x with REL C No.32 MK. 1 and 2 scopes; 350 odd 1944 production rifles numbered 74L0001 to 74L0350 with civilian production Lyman Alaskan scopes (bought as a stop gap when REL couldn't deliver fast enough); approximately 84 1944 production rifles numbered 80L8### with the REL C No.67 Mk.I scope; and a final batch of 376 1945 dated 90L8### rifles with REL C No.32 MK.3 scopes. "

A 1943 LB is plausible, but 37L is not within the recognized serial number range. Mistakes are possible in the references.
 
There is a lot of commenting on this rifle being incorrect because it doesn't follow the published or observed British H&H patterns.

These comments really demonstrate the observers lack of experience with Long Branch snipers generally and pre "block" rifles specifically.

Long Branch snipers are their own thing - and again those who are using their observations of a 90L to judge a pre "block" rifle are making the same mistake.

There are known 36L and 38L pre "block" rifles - that lends credence to a 37L as possibly being legit.

The fact that the rifle doesn't have (supposedly) "correct" markings is probably in it's favor.
 
Lee Enfield said:
There is a lot of commenting on this rifle being incorrect because it doesn't follow the published or observed British H&H patterns.

These comments really demonstrate the observers lack of experience with Long Branch snipers generally and pre "block" rifles specifically.

Long Branch snipers are their own thing - and again those who are using their observations of a 90L to judge a pre "block" rifle are making the same mistake.

There are known 36L and 38L pre "block" rifles - that lends credence to a 37L as possibly being legit.

The fact that the rifle doesn't have (supposedly) "correct" markings is probably in it's favor.
Click to expand...

It also doesn't have correctly machined base pad areas. Long Branch would not have made up a rifle to be a sniper, without machining those surface to true.
 
Hi Lee Enfield. I am a guy who assisted Clive with the book. The LB rifle in the book is 36L5031 - scope # 31. At one time I owned LB sniper rifle 36L5021 - scope #21 - sold it. I think it can safely stated that the first rifles were selected from the 36L series of 1943. As scope production was intermittent after that for a time (I have seen a 68L set-up) it is possible that the OPs rifle was a sniper at one time. I know a gent who dispatched 3 sniping rifles with the No.32 scopes to our northern most protectors. Only Long Branch set up sniper No.4s. Period and post WW2 armourers are not capable and no spares were available. Armourers might mix and match upon necessity. Our government must have really scratched to get the 8K No.4s despatched a few years back to the Rangers so of course there would be oddities made up for the event. On the original two rifles stated the screws were not staked, no evidence of body milling or solder, and there are no T stamps. The gent fostering rumours of body milling, suncorite finish, and T stamps is wrong. Can you imagine milling a hardened body where all you have to do is mill a small part. The OPs original fore is not a T fore and the butt wrist marking is insignificant. If a restoration job is to be considered I
suggest to look at the possible costs of that event and what you end up with is a made up piece anyway. Just leave it be - the story is fine.
It grinds my cookies when I see the same guys on this site spreading untruths to inflate their own ego. So do not take their criticisms - you are correct sir. JOHN
 
bearhunter said:
It also doesn't have correctly machined base pad areas. Long Branch would not have made up a rifle to be a sniper, without machining those surface to true.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but your comments demonstrate your lack of knowledge regarding Long Branch snipers.

Referencing JTAYLOR above:, at one point I was priviledged to have the LB conversion drawings in my hands, and I was given all of the L42 Long Branch serial numbers (unfortunately with conditions).

From those 2 sources I can state without a doubt that 36L was not the start of the LB "T" serial numbers.
 
Last edited:
I will take John Taylor's word on this. He knows his stuff.

I've seen a lot of No4 T rifles, including many Long Branch rifles and I've never seen one without staked pads, machined receivers and soldered bases.

As the old saying goes, never say never when it comes to milsurps.

I am surprised that Mr Taylor brought up the hardness of the area that usually gets machined for the front pad. It's not that hard and I've done several of them myself, without any issues. The only time I've run into a problem with hardness issues has happened during drilling and tapping the receiver for the rear base, which partially covers the hardened lug recesses.
 
I have
No4 MkT
M47c 1944
C32###x
50
TR
CA 7.62 barrel
DCRA 1303
With scope un numbered mount
No one really knows why someone did this
It has a box and mismatched metal scope box
 
can14 said:
I have
No4 MkT
M47c 1944
C32###x
50
TR
CA 7.62 barrel
DCRA 1303
With scope un numbered mount
No one really knows why someone did this
It has a box and mismatched metal scope box
Click to expand...

There is a number matching service on a related forum called Milsurps dot com. I remember Angel was part of the name.

As for your T rifle, that is one that has had quite a bit of work: built as a service rifle; selected for T conversion; converted (and passed inspections); accepted by the sniper armourers and issued; zeroed by the sniper; no doubt received minor servicing over its lifetime; inspected for retention, long term storage or disposal; sold onto the commercial market likely in Canada; selected for DCRA conversion and so numbered. Do you shoot it much?
 
I believe Diemaco (now Colt Canada) had a project a few years ago where they were running around gathering up No 4 Lee Enfields from almost anywhere they could get them to rebuild for the Rangers. I don't imagine they were particularily worried about what they started out with. If a few snipers got pulled into the mix, oh well. That might even have been back when Century had brought in some No 4 T rifles from India and they may have supplied those too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom