Rare Long Branch

[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.

[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.