Rare Long Branch

[Sunray]

Regardless of any numbers, check the headspace before shooting. The 'IAC Alex VA' indicates a Century Arms assembled out of parts bins with zero QC rifle.
"...stamped over..." Put on when the rifle was rebuilt by some other country some time before Century got hold of it. Brits or Greeks, et al. Century's monkies just took a bolt out of the bin, slapped a bolt head on and shoved it in without bother to check to see if the headspace was ok.
Rumoured to be a total of 7,589 made in 1941. The receiver is from 1941, but the rest of it likely is not.

[p246]

Thanks. I sent pics to a L.B. collector I know and he finally got back to me with much the same info. I have a headspace gauge and it checked. It passed so that part is okay. He said front sight was correct as only the first 4000 had the waisted front sight protector. However the front band has been replaced since the original was hinged. He said the same thing about the bolt. It was force matched during a re-arsenal. He said the 41 bolt knob is hollow so this is a later version. He thought it would still bring between 4 and 5 with the import mark and sanded stock. He quoted the same number you did on production. He added a lot of those 7589 did not survive the war which is not surprising given what occurred for the first four years of their life.

As always thanks for your input.

Shane

[Johan412th]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it wasn't a no4 mk1*, if I read that correctly, but a full on no4 mk1. Which would be rare coming from the long branch arsenal?

[p246]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it wasn't a no4 mk1*, if I read that correctly, but a full on no4 mk1. Which would be rare coming from the long branch arsenal?

Yes its a No 4 Mk 1 if I said it was a 1* somewhere then my mind was on autopilot again...

[Johan412th]

I would almost say it was pre-war if not for the 1941 stamp... So this was still before they were collaborating with the US on the standardization of parts from the lend-lease act. That's incredible, even if the parts don't match. It would have to be enfield or lithgow parts, right?

[p246]

I would almost say it was pre-war if not for the 1941 stamp... So this was still before they were collaborating with the US on the standardization of parts from the lend-lease act. That's incredible, even if the parts don't match. It would have to be enfield or lithgow parts, right?

Someone with more knowledge than me will have to answer that for sure. Its my understanding they were full in with English manufacturers. I believe England had to provide L.B. with some barrels in 1941 due to either a quality control issue or the inability to make enough. The current bidder collects 1941 L.B. rifles has several correct or corrected 1941's and 1942's.

I listed a another 1943 Long Branch of his that's in dang good shape to #568799787.

[Sunray]

"...have a headspace gauge..." Which one? You really need a No-Go and a Field. If the bolt closes completely on the No-Go, you try the Field. If it closes completely on the Field the headspace is bad. Easy fix if you have a bolt head with one higher number than what's on the current one. Gets expensive if you don't. Really expensive if it had been a No. 1. No numbers on those bolt heads.
"...a lot of those 7589 did not survive the war..." Lost at sea or FTR'd into Mk I*'s.
"...before they were collaborating with the US..." Nobody was collaborating with anybody. Absolutely not Long Branch and Savage. Savage was hired by the Brits to build No. 1 Mk I rifles. Production started in late 1941.
The U.S. Lend/Lease Act had nothing whatever to do with either Long Branch or Savage doing anything except for Savage being told to stamp 'U.S. Property' on the receivers they made.

[Johan412th]

I'm fairly sure that some of long branch no4's required parts made from savage at one point. That seems extremely clannish to not be using both plants to make rifles that were basically the same thing.

[JB White]

"...have a headspace gauge..." Which one? You really need a No-Go and a Field. If the bolt closes completely on the No-Go, you try the Field. If it closes completely on the Field the headspace is bad. Easy fix if you have a bolt head with one higher number than what's on the current one. Gets expensive if you don't. Really expensive if it had been a No. 1. No numbers on those bolt heads.
"...a lot of those 7589 did not survive the war..." Lost at sea or FTR'd into Mk I*'s.
"...before they were collaborating with the US..." Nobody was collaborating with anybody. Absolutely not Long Branch and Savage. Savage was hired by the Brits to build No. 1 Mk I rifles. Production started in late 1941.
The U.S. Lend/Lease Act had nothing whatever to do with either Long Branch or Savage doing anything except for Savage being told to stamp 'U.S. Property' on the receivers they made.

I'm calling you out on this because you are dead wrong. You can offer decent feedback on some boards, but when it comes to Enfield's you spew a lot of complete horse crap. Why after all these years are you so stuck in the wrong rut?

Just like Jovino, Century did fix up a few rifles to make them marketable. Just like Jovino most of what they brought in were legit surplus. Mismatched bolts come from the rifles being distributed with the bolts removed from the rifles. It was mostly retailers who failed to match up those numbers.
To date there has never been a catastrophic failure from those mismatches. Only some sluggish operation or shortened case life for the reloaders. Headspace issues tend to be an emotional problem on this side of the pond. Elsewhere in the world it is barely an issue with the rimmed case of the 303.
The headspace topic can be covered more in depth elsewhere. Inquiries usually result in links to the plethora of similar postings on the net.

The rifle might have been ftr to a mk1*??? Why on earth would they retrograde to a wartime substitute standard?

It's true that LongBranch wasn't a direct part of LL. They were still part of the British Commonwealth.
Savage on the other hand had EVERYTHING to do with Lend Lease. They were the fourth US contractor solicited by the British MoD and the only one granted permission by the US Government. While the contract was signed in good faith, the final details of the Lend Lease Act were being finalized on paper prior to announcement. The US property mark was applied to the very first rifle approved because Savage was already aware of what was about to transpire. The original contract was to be covered retroactively under the terms of LL.
In other words, the US would subsidize the whole ball of wax. Savage wanted to/needed to get paid. Do you think they would produce more rifles than any other facility in the world on little more than a promise and a handshake?

In closing I'd like to address Johan for a brief moment. You mentioned parts from Enfield and Lithgow. I know you're a bit green to the field but keep in mind those two factories had nothing to do with production No4 rifles.
EFD was only involved in design and prototype/trials rifles in the 1930's.
Lithgow never ventured into it and only produced SMLE's up until the very end.

Again, more questions can be answered in separate threads. No need to stray so far off topic here. I just couldn't let all that obsolete/misinformation go unchecked.

[Johan412th]

Thanks JB. I know when I've been schooled, and I do know that now. But as for the long branch/savage rifles, wasn't the reason that long branch made the no4 mk1* because the ones rolling out of savage had the improved bolt removal catch at the front? This I why I believed that they were at least using the same schematics as savage.