As per my introduction post in the new members section, I discovered this forum when doing a little research on a rifle I own.

The Sterling conversion used a Sterling magazine and marked as such. It also has no lip for extractions. A modification was done to the reciever to assist that. The barrels as far as I know had no bayonet lugs. However, I do know that as you have indicated that, the L8 series of rifles had bayonet lugs. I recently purchased a new/unissued No4 barrel in 7.62x51mm NATO and it has the bayonet lugs.  It was manufactured by Canadian Arsenal.  You will need to look for any stamps on the barrel near the knox form for an clue as to manufacturer. The magazine on the right is a Sterling magazine and the one on the left is a L42A1 magazine with the lip.

The mag is identical to the sterling mag pictured but it will take L42 mags as well. The rifling is 6 grove right hand twist. Identical to the picture of the muzzle above 

To be fair it’s almost identical to your Rifle Goosic bar the scope, it even has the cheek rest fitted. 

I hoping these pictures work - it’s not a museum grade rifle but it goes bang and is pretty accurate (enough for me anyway)

Any indication of who made the barrel?  Long Branch 7.62 barrels are stamped CA (Canadian Arsenals) and also have 7.62 stamped near the muzzle.  Skennerton mentions several different manufacturers of 7.62 barrels that were the same weight as the .303 barrel.  

I think it’s highly likely it’s a rifle cub conversion, it’s the lugs that are baffling me though.

The barrel in my photo has never been on a rifle until very recently. It has a very tiny Canadian Arsenal stamp on it with a 61 next to it. It has bayonet lugs as well. Ian Skennerton states that: 

A special barrel was developed for the Enfield L8 rifles, of chromium molybdenum alloy steel, it also had a hard-chromium plated chamber. The new 7.62mm barrel rifling has a right hand twist and in 1961, 6 groove rifling was used experimentally for the 7.62mm barrel. Many of the conversions were done at Enfield. The bayonet lugs were retained as such with some rifles having them omitted. The L8 series was discontinued due to discrepancies within. Another program was developed to find a suitable sniper riflefrom the original No4 model. The end result being the L39/42A1 rifles...

The barrel is a six groove with right hand twist. 

It’s PF163055

The serial number indicates that it was made at Maltby and at some point in time it went through a FTR and had the Mk1/2 upgrade done as well. Something about that double struck F has me bothered as well as that P stamped in front of the trigger guard screw. 

I thought it was a Fazakerly rifle built as a Mk2, always will to be corrected though. 

It’s pretty grim here at the moment and the light is poor so hopefully the details come out in the pictures, I have had to take them in the kitchen as this is the brightest place. 

 

The electro pencil marks as follows 

No4 MK2 (F)

12 49 PF163055 

The bolt has the matching serial number. 

I have also included a picture of the chamber and inside the mag well along with the pin both inside and out.

Once again thank you for taking the time to help me.

John 

The barrel does not appear to be blued it is covered in a black paint that is chipping off in areas, could this be due to the alloy used in an L8 type barrel? e.g. The alloy was not able to be blued?

I may now need to contact the police to update them on the serial number - they keep track of all rifles in private ownership. My certificate has the 1 prefix serial noted on it and I guess this will need to be changed.

As I said, I bought the rifle as a conversion and it was cheap for a rifle in the UK (about £400 from memory) 

If I am honest, I did not know too much about Enfield's when I bought it (I still don't). I wanted a original looking No4 but in 7.62 as this is the caliber I am allowed to own. I bought it from a dealer in Liverpool about 3/4 years ago and had it transferred down to London. I had not even seen the rifle when I bought it only pictures. However it had a good bore and barrel. 

The more I saw other rifles the more I noticed differences between my rifle and others, which is why started diving in to its potential history, When I discovered that there was a rifle called the L8 and mine had bayonet lugs it got me even more intrigued, especially with the stories that are out there about the L8 - all thrown over board after a trial during the Suez Crisis - remaining rifles in the Met police store as a back up rifle in the event of civil unrest etc. (the last one came from a former Police firearms officer) 

At least I have more information on its history now, Thank you for taking the time to reply.

I hope I can get out to the range and shoot it again soon, My club had a day booked tomorrow but all the ranges are closed! it have no idea when it might get used again!

Something of interest for you to know.

On page  511 of the big Enfield book by Skennerton, it shows a Sterling Engineering converted No4 with the same ejector your rifle has, it also shows a charger guide adapter that was screwed into place.  The same place that you filled in because you thought it was tapped for a scope mount. One photo shows a barrel with bayonet lugs as well. Double check the number of grooves though. Specifications state that the Sterling conversion had a 4 groove right hand twist. You might also take the extra time to remove the forestock and have a looks see at the area where the barrel and action contact. The conversion was done by both Sterling Engineering and local armourers with the kits coming with a set of breaching up washers. You tested one and adjusted the size until the barrel tightened up to the right position. So look for some washers that might be hinding under that lower handguard collar. I saw some additional stamps on the barrel just at the woodline in your photo and alot of rifle manufacturers had a tendency to stamp the piss out of their barrels around that area. Again,by removing the forestock and examining the underside and sides of the barrel as well as checking for those breech washers you may uncover something else.

It seems to me for the time being that you indeed have a Sterling Conversion. Let us continue with the hunt shall we?...

I will remove the forestock at the weekend and have a look for more markings / stamps as you have suggested (its now going dark here and peeing with rain still so light is poor) I would love to finally get to the bottom of it so the hunt will continue, I will post a picture of what I find.

In the mean time I will try to track down a copy of Skennerton's book.

Thank you

John

  

Lets not forget that

A: we ain't lawyers

B: we sure aren't Brit Solicitors

&

3: English & U.S firearms laws differ drastically.

In the U.S. Its (mostly) illegal to register firearms by serial number. (2nd amendment thing.) but in the U.K. all firearms are required to be registered by serial number.

US law prohibits changing, defacing, or removing numbers, but it only "requires" them to be on "the receiver" as defined (sometimes whackily) By the BATFE!

I know of no restriction on having multiple numbers, I have a FAL with one number on the upper (receiver) & a totally different one on the lower (not technically a receiver). This is because different countries define "receiver" differently.

However the receipt has the lower's serial listed, not the upper, which is a receiver.

I'd check with someone who is a Brit Solicitor & is familiar with British firearms laws. Do you know which serial is listed for it?

Or, Plan"C":

IF the number without the "1" is the documented number simply borrow an electropencil & draw in the missing lines of the box.

Totally different item.

Is the forend & front of the handguard "normal" for 7.62 conversions?

I ask because the forend seems to be trimmed back as compared to a "normal" .303 one.

I know its a bad idea to have the hanguard front contact the front sight block, but that seems like a lot of a gap!

My local Forearms liaison officer in the police is a nice guy so I might just give him a call to see what he says, I am not breaking the law, it’s a genuine mistake and not on my part. It will also keep me in his good books for my Firearms certificate amendment that I plan to submit later in the year for a .303 and 8mm (and 30.06 if I can get away with it)

Re the fore end the pictures above show it without the fore end. When complete the rifle looks like Goosic’s I have never noticed a difference between my rifle and my Fathers No4, I will take a look and some pictures at the weekend when I look for any extra stamps.

Britrifles, thanks for the tip, I am ashamed to say I have never taken the full stock off - I have never needed to. 

I have to say I am glad I have found the forum as I have learnt a lot in the last few days having a nose around and a read.

I have passed the details on to my Dad so it looks like he may join as well.

Cheers 

John 

Thanks, I think he sorted it when he posted he'd removed the handguard for the pic. I just noticed the YUUUGE gap & commented.

I have tried to take some better pictures of the barrel markings, I will take the fore stock off over the weekend to see what’s underneath, in the mean time

I have also taken a photo of the charger guide, this hole was for the scope rail, the other photo is a close up for the holes for the front of the scope

A picture showing the bayonet lugs work! 

Lastly a full length picture of it

I have been going through Stratton’s book (shown) and I too now think it’s definitely a sterling conversion

Excuse the mess of the kitchen table, it’s too cold to go out in the garage 

I have one of the quick mounts and a good quality scope on my Mini14 that I could use but I have never gotten around to it. 

I have looked at the repro No32s but have heard mixed reviews about them. 

I also have a Parker hale aperture sight that I have never used, it just sits in the odds n sods box.

You can actually do both with these!

No charger loading though.

https://addleyprecision.com/product/le45jc/" rel="nofollow - https://addleyprecision.com/product/le45jc/

https://www.badacetactical.com/collections/ndt-scope-mounts" rel="nofollow - https://www.badacetactical.com/collections/ndt-scope-mounts

They are really easy to fit.

Perhaps you have an AJ Parker barrel.

Also, I obtained an in the white 7.62mm barrel from a person who said he had obtained it and others when CAL shut down.  Unlike the DCRA barrels, it has bayonet lugs.

Another possibility.

Last week I had the chance to briefly examine four 7.62mm No.4 barrels, all had bayonet lugs on and I believe were Enfield manufactured with the exception of one which was made in Belgium!

My failure to find a DCRA No.4 or even a British put together one with a Canadian barrel has gone on for at least 12 years so I have asked Fultons at Bisley to put one together for me; naturally I will post more about it when it happens. 

I also noticed a post in here about serial numbers and their legality; at least in British law. 

My own No.4 (SR"a") which I use (not so much these days!) for service rifle comps has what we call a "scrubbed" receiver, i.e. cleaned up and refinished. 

The rifle is a Fazackerley No.4 Mk2 and was made in 1949 with the serial No. 406534. 

This serial number is much later than the date would presume for a Fazackerley and this was because Parker-Hale were given a block of serial numbers (one assumes by the ministry of defence?) to use for their revamped No.4 target rifles, mine has a P-H ball burnished barrel which was an "extra" back in the day.  

I've observed about 5 of these rifles all with similar engravings and out of sequence serial numbers to date, one of them was only three digits away from mine! 

I wouldn’t think there would be many DCRA No. 4 7.62 conversions in the UK.  Perhaps a few that DCRA shooters sold to UK competitive shooters during  the relatively short time they would have been used in competition.  Much like the rarity of the L39 and Envoy rifles here in the US.  I have two legit DCRA conversions, and they both shoot very well indeed.  I’d love to trade one for an Envoy!  

I’m looking forward to hearing about your Fulton’s built No.4 7.62 and how well it shoots.  

I know of one although not an official DCRA rifle it's a Long Branch with a Canadian barrel and the foresight has been inserted into the sight protectors which I've always felt was a Canadian "thing". 

It appeared on a list of rifles for sale but when I enquired it had become part of his core collection!

The other one I would have liked was built presumably by Fultons with a Canadian barrel and belonged to a friend although I had no idea it was in a No.4 profile. 

I had assumed wrongly it was an Enfield conversion prior to the L39 becoming available for the Army Rifle Association. I only discovered exactly what it was after he told me a dealer had sold it for him. 

Here:  http://highwoodclassicarms.co.uk/Firerms%20For%20Sale/0151.htm" rel="nofollow - http://highwoodclassicarms.co.uk/Firerms%20For%20Sale/0151.htm

One of my DCRA conversions is bedded exactly the same as this rifle, with a composite barrel bearing at the middle (sling swivel) band and at the chamber reinforce,  although no bearing in the handguard. I think that idea came after the time my rifle was set up (mid 1960’s).

It takes exceptional skill to shoot 1.25 - 1.5 MOA with an aperture sight off the elbows.  I’ve only done this a few times with my No.4, once with the Fulton .303 and perhaps a few times with the DCRA.  I will fully admit, that is not the norm for me, more like 2 MOA for 10 rounds. 

Geoff

FWIW

I remember there being a sort of one upmanship thing at Bisley back then. There were 3 schools of thought, from memory.

.303 is better at 1,000 yds. (than 7.62) & that's where matches are won or lost.

7.62 is a better round than .303 because (rimless, faster, mo modern).

Get a Mauser action with lighter bullets (P-14 with a Schultz & larsen LBS barrel).

An old friend who was LERA's first chairman (now passed) told me that at Bisley during the summer Imperial meeting in the 1960's there would be a demonstration on Stickledown range at 1000x yards in the evening. 

This involved two shooters firing at the same target using tracer ammunition so the invited audience could see the perceived difference in trajectories between the two calibres. Whilst the heavier .303 bullet made a larger arc it was more susceptible to stronger winds higher up, the 7.62mm with a lighter bullet (144gr) and a lower trajectory escaped the stronger winds, if indeed at the time of firing those stronger winds were present!

You may be forgiven to think that the two bullet weights cancelled each other out but apparently this was not the case according to the old & bold. 

One of the trades in the army was that of battery surveyor working in a command post and dealing with meteorology; the one thing that I remember is that reading Met messages which were a whole block of numbers showed that at different altitudes you could have different wind speeds and directions, hence a bullet with a higher arc could well be more susceptible to different changes in wind direction and speed. 

This doesn't give a firm answer to the argument but it does show there's a lot more to think about! 

 The first problem encountered with the No. 4 7.62 conversions was poor vertical dispersion, particularly noticed at the short ranges, 200 and 300, with less effect at 500 and 600 and no effect at Long Range.  Maj E.G.B. Reynolds wrote about this problem and how they attempted to overcome it.  

This! 

One of the reasons for getting another No.4 put together in 7.62mm is so that I can do some experimenting; my oldest ammunition is some RG 85, (used up the 81 in my Accuracy International) and looking forward to comparing my 150gr SMK handloads with some 2010 GPMG link that I was given.

I also have a couple of No.4 foresight protectors that have been covered to shade the foresight blade, I'm interested to see what difference they make and and the same time do some research into what type of shading on foresights was allowed during the .303/7.62mm transitional period.

Is this last paragraph the nerdyist thing you've read today?