Printable View
I'm just starting to learn about British rifles and wanted to know about these. They seem to be really cheap. Are Longbranch rifles just Canadian copies of the Enfield or were they different? Also why so cheap. Are they just more plentiful, no demand, not as good? I see them from $250.00 to less than $500.00. Any source of history and info would be great.
Thanks.
They're different as they were made in Canada without the bombings going on around them. Many consider them better than some wartime British rifles. Yours given the date is a MkI* with a different type of bolt removal which was approved for North American manufacture. (Long Branch and Savage)
Not copies. They are bona fide British/Commonwealth rifles made to stringent specs. Those not issued to Canada's service were issued anywhere needed.
Cheap? Perhaps reasonable compared to the hype price of others. They began somewhat cheap in the US due to wives tales and misinformation from a Mauser-Springfield dominated surplus market. Hot rodders and wildcatters used to badmouth them due to numerous reasons. Mostly a lack of understanding in regard to their original intent. Smart collectors know better and they're catching on. Elsewhere in the world people already knew the quality of the Lee Enfield long before most Americans did.
The M1 rifle may have been the "greatest battle implement ever devised", but the Lee Enfield was the best bolt action battle rifle ever fielded by a world power.
I obtained one Savage 1942 No. 4 Mk I* in pristine condition complete with bayonet, scabbard, and receiver guard for $750. This one had to have never been issued. It even had a rod type stacking device where usually a stacking swivel would be. Condition is a price determinant.
Post some pics on a seperate thread and let's have a look at it :)Quote:
Originally Posted by tmark
FYI, there were no piling swivels on a No4. There are a few photos of of them but those were of a particular unit and they were in the rear guarding POW's. General consensus was an individual unit thing as the piling of arms had already gone to the wayside by the time the No4 came on line.
The stacking rod is indicative of postwar Turkish issue. Sadly too many collecors have scrapped theirs because they werent "British enough", thus nearly wiping out most traces of that part of the No4's history trail.
Thanks, JB, for that info. I never would have known otherwise. I appreciate your input and hold my rifle in higher esteem. I will post a pic.
OP "but the Lee Enfield was the best bolt action battle rifle ever fielded by a world power. "
They are very fine rifles but to me the K98 and 03a3 seem to operate in a much smother manner. That's just MHO though.
"...a much smother manner..." Smother maybe, but there ain't no K98 or '03 that operates as smoothly as any Lee-Enfield.
Long Branch made Lee-Enfields are to Canada that '03's are to ya'll. LB No. 4's were far better made than any Brit made rifle. Nobody dropping big nasty things on the plant. Virtually the same as an Savage made contract rifle too. The best No. 4's ever made were post war LB's. If you're seeing prices like those it's due to local supply and demand. Offering $500, for a good condition No. 4, will get you laughed at up here.
Be careful they become addicting. This year I've bought two LB #4's, a BSA, a LEC. And a GRI wirewrap with cup (No 1 mark III). $500.00 for a No 4 is high here also.
Ah-HA!Quote:
Originally Posted by joem
We finally found something to disagree on!! Having owned all I think the Swede is the only Mauser close enough to challenge the Lee Enfield as far as smoothness, but that has only a 5 round mag and the sights are too fine for dirty work just like the others.
Smoothness out-of-the-wrapper (and I hate admitting this here) the Lee Enfield is bested by the Krag. :)