Rare Long Branch

[JB White]

They were both using British drawings for the sake of parts interchangeability. When Savage proposed manufacturing shortcuts to increase the productivity rate, LB followed suit.

It's always questioned why UK production didn't step in line and there are some plausible reasons offered. I have heard very good reasons but so far no concrete evidence has surfaced.
Speculation has it they were considering it though. Suspected it's the reason behind some of the 43 Maltbys being erroneously marked as Mk1*.

[p246]

"...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've got a no go and field gauge. I never looked at getting a go gauge. It has a 3 bolt head on it. My favorite Enfield Is a 44 Long Branch. Although I have a BSA 42 that's a close second. My most accurate edging out the 44 believe it or not is a Indian wire wrap that was rearsenal and had a virtually new barrel. She's not as graceful looking as the long ranch.

[p246]

JB thanks for your input. The headspace issue was why I got my no go and field gauge. So far I've only found one rifle that closed on a field gauge.....it was a completely beat to hell Lithgow with a broken trigger....I can't remember what bolt head was on it but its propped up in the corner....it's a future project....

[JB White]

Let me begin by saying that swapping bolt heads isn't the easy way out. That's an old wives tale which has spent too much time in circulation. Numbered bolt heads came into being as a manufacturing shortcut for the No4 series rifles.
SMLE boltheads need to be meticulously hand stoned into spec. The number 4 offered boltheads to be within a certain range to cut down on fitting time using semi skilled labor. Your Lithgow will not have a number assigned spec.

On a No4, swapping the bolthead might only help hide the underlying cause of a headspace "problem". Things such as imminent lug failure, battered lug recesses, or action body/receiver stretch will not be repaired by a longer bolt head.

If your FR gauge does not measure 0.074, then you have the wrong one. American gauges run smaller for commercial rifles and lawyer liability. British military specs run more generous. Their wartime emergency HS specs ran even larger to keep older rifles in service..
When swapping a bolthead there are other things to watch for such as over travel and FP protrusion.
So, when you hear somebody say " All you have to do is...." know they are full of it. They do not know what they need to know. Not to say swapping might not be the answer in some cases, but it surely isn't the only answer. Too many things to consider.
Most headspace issues, if it really is an issue, can often be resolved with reloading techniques.

Should you spot markings on the rifle ( Z, ZF, BLR, BER, etc etc) then you have a warning sign that something is amiss and a very thorough inspection to discover why is in order. Generous headspace is not an immediate reason to relegate a rifle to wall hanger status.

[Seaforth72]

Yes, the Long Branch No. 4 MK. I rifles are scarce and especially scarce are those retaining the early features such as the "wasp waist" version of the MK. I sight protector, hinged upper band, MK. I (button) cocking piece and low wood for the non-existant magazine cut-off. Happily I have one that is as it left the factory and has a large C/|\ stamp. (Arrow inside the C)

Long Branch did use some leftover parts from Stevens-Savage late in WWII. The contract for No. 4 rifles with Stevens-Savage ended in mid-1944 and reportedly they were told to ship left over parts to Long Branch. The one Stevens-Savage part that does show up for sure as factory installed is the Mark I modified backsight that was used on later No. 4 MK.I* (T) sniper rifles made by Long Branch. Some of them, including one of mine, have the distinctive Maltese Cross stamp next to the Stevens-Savage "S".

[Johan412th]

Yes, the Long Branch No. 4 MK. I rifles are scarce and especially scarce are those retaining the early features such as the "wasp waist" version of the MK. I sight protector, hinged upper band, MK. I (button) cocking piece and low wood for the non-existant magazine cut-off. Happily I have one that is as it left the factory and has a large C/|\ stamp. (Arrow inside the C)

Long Branch did use some leftover parts from Stevens-Savage late in WWII. The contract for No. 4 rifles with Stevens-Savage ended in mid-1944 and reportedly they were told to ship left over parts to Long Branch. The one Stevens-Savage part that does show up for sure as factory installed is the Mark I modified backsight that was used on later No. 4 MK.I* (T) sniper rifles made by Long Branch. Some of them, including one of mine, have the distinctive Maltese Cross stamp next to the Stevens-Savage "S".

Would you happen to have a picture of this? I for one would certainly like to see this... Not to mention feel vindicated over a few of my earlier statements on Long branches using savage parts.

[p246]

Thanks JB....the Lithgows other issues might keep it the corner...she's been there and done that...I kind of like the way she looks anyway. Using my Hornady caliper my FR gauge looks to be .075. I bought both (No go/field)at a gun show used...

[JB White]

Savage parts on LB rifles:

Yup, they have certainly been spotted. No rhyme or reason other than their existence in no particular order.
You'll be hard pressed today to produce hard documentation as to how those bits and pieces arrived in the Toronto area.
I don't buy into folks connecting the dots by the shortest route possible. That's how the Savage sent inventory to LB comments started.
Keep in mind Savage itself only manufactured a few key components. Everything else funneled in through subcontractors. That's the way the No4 was designed to be built. Cottage industry in times of duress. (It's also a plausible explanation as to why so many variations of the squared S exist)
Savage knew well before contract,s end the British were not going to be buying an extra million rifles. The component flow was likely slowing while they built to move whatever they could before halting.
Whether all those subcontractors sought out a customer for their surplus, Savage agreed to send off what they had left, or the government liquidated the surplus they had covered hasn't yet been determined. I'm guessing it's a combination of all the above.

Keep an open mind and stay tuned in the event someone produces more fact than hear say.