[Ross280]

Bought this at the last local show. It had decent sporter wood on it, which I was looking for, and a crappy Weaver side mount, which I was not, though the steel Weaver 4x was alright.

Peeking out from under the bubba'd-on sidemount were those tell-tale holes...

The odd thing about this rifle, is it has no serial number of any kind on bolt or body and has never had one.

Notice that a tap is broken off in the center of the front three holes (ignore the lower 4 holes from the Weaver side mount)

So, I'm wondering if this was a Long Branch No4(T) that had a little accident and got lunch-boxed.

The seller couldn't tell me anything much except that his father brought the gun home about 25 years ago, as is.

Of course, the placement of the screw holes is about 1/4 aft of where they usually are, I seem to recall seeing this in photos once or twice, but it makes me wonder...

It is a very tight action, even for a Long Branch, and looks better finished than some 1943s I've seen, though that may mean nothing.

 

[jlk47]

The holes do appear to be too far back, here is a pic of my '43 (Serial #: 50L000X).
It since has been repaired, the front pad screws were stripped. I don't know if this
rifle is proper but I have a hunch it is legit.

John

 

[limpetmine]

A hunch

...So, I'm wondering if this was a Long Branch No4(T) that had a little accident and got lunch-boxed....

You may be on to something there. The first year of the LB sniper was 1943, and they put out 73 of them that year. They found that the reciever steel was harder than Brit steel and was a problem drilling and tapping for the pads. That is why later they went to batch producton of the "T"'s, and did the heat treat after the holes were drilled. Yours may be a test part, or one that went bad in the process. It'd be interesting to see how far off the hole are from a LB T.

 

[Ross280]

The holes do appear to be too far back, here is a pic of my '43 (Serial #: 50L000X).
It since has been repaired, the front pad screws were stripped. I don't know if this
rifle is proper but I have a hunch it is legit.

John

Thanks for that jlk47, very interesting. Is there any solder under that rear pad?

You may be on to something there. The first year of the LB sniper was 1943, and they put out 73 of them that year. They found that the reciever steel was harder than Brit steel and was a problem drilling and tapping for the pads. That is why later they went to batch producton of the "T"'s, and did the heat treat after the holes were drilled. Yours may be a test part, or one that went bad in the process. It'd be interesting to see how far off the hole are from a LB T.

Thanks limpetmine, I see there is a No4(T) on page 28 of Peter Laidler's book on the No4(T) that has the pads set back also. Maybe that is the photo I was thinking of. I should have checked the other references, though my copy of Clive Law's book is loaned out right now.

I wonder if they tried moving the rear pad back to get away from the hardened area around the locking lugs in the body/receiver?

Do we know if LB used the 4BA thread used on the UK-made No4(T)s, or a NA-spec thread?

I’ll try my 4BA tap in the holes.

 

[jlk47]

There was no solder present under either pad. The screws are 4BA, I chased the threads with a tap before putting the front base back on. FYI: None of the screws were staked either.

John

 

[Ross280]

There was no solder present under either pad. The screws are 4BA, I chased the threads with a tap before putting the front base back on. FYI: None of the screws were staked either.

John

I ran my 4BA tap into the holes and that is what they are, no question about it. Also started a 1/4 BSF 'thumbscrew' into the rear hole and the thread starts, but only goes about 1 turn. I suspect this is because they drilled the hole blind and did not use a bottoming tap.

Hard to say on this one. Could be someone messing about at Long Branch/S.A.L., or some armourer with time to kill playing around, or it could be someone's learning experience in 1943...

Unfortunately it can't talk.

 

[Ross280]

I see there is a No4(T) on page 28 of Peter Laidler's book on the No4(T) that has the pads set back also.

I've since learned that this was an Israeli conversion of a 1944 Maltby so they may have had the same problem with drilling into the hardened area of the receiver/body.

 

[limpetmine]

staking

They didn't start staking the pads until 1944, from what I've seen and read.

I ran my 4BA tap into the holes and that is what they are, no question about it. Also started a 1/4 BSF 'thumbscrew' into the rear hole and the thread starts, but only goes about 1 turn. I suspect this is because they drilled the hole blind and did not use a bottoming tap.

Hard to say on this one. Could be someone messing about at Long Branch/S.A.L., or some armourer with time to kill playing around, or it could be someone's learning experience in 1943...

Unfortunately it can't talk.