(Serial # 0L6064- Mfg by Long Branch, Canada)
"All Matching Serial Numbers"
"c/w 1946 transit chest, cleaning rod, jags, bore brush, DND ammo & small bore targets "
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
Rifling & Twist: ............. 6 Groove, Right Hand Twist
Barrel Length: .............. 25.2 in. (640mm)
Overall Length: ............ 44.5 in. (1130mm)
Weight: ....................... 8 lb. 15 oz. (4.0kg)
Magazine Capacity: ...... Single Shot
Qty Mfg: ...................... Estimated at 20,000+
Source: .... The Lee-Enfield Story by Ian Skennerton (1993) - ISBN: 185367138X
Canadian Market Value Estimate: $700-$1500 for a pristine rifle in it’s transit chest and complete with it’s EIS.
The non-factory versions will range in price from about $550 to asking prices nearing $900.
December 2013 follow up ... I originally wrote this article back in 2007...just over 6 years ago. While I will stand behind the information on it, I must mention that market prices given are now quite out of date. I would suggest that they could be almost doubled over what I gave.
1944 C No.7 .22 Caliber Lee-Enfield Training Rifle
(123 picture virtual tour)
Observations: by MILSURPS.COM Advisory Panel Member "Stencollector"
Note: Rifle provided courtesy of MILSURPS.COM member ~Angel~.
Most militaries manufactured or modified their current issue rifle with a .22 caliber counterpart, primarily for use on indoor ranges and as a cost saving measure. In this way, the operating drills could be practiced along with the principles of marksmanship. Prior to the introduction of the no4mk1 rifle in Canadian service (Circa 1941/42) the no2mkIV rifle served this purpose. Basically it was a no1mkIII rifle modified to .22 caliber, and in Canadian service, had a Ross type rear sight attachment.
To mirror the no4mk1* rifle, Small Arms Ltd (SAL) began to manufacture, in 1944, a .22 caliber version. It’s designator was no7mk1, which was later changed to Cno7mk1. The rifle was essentially the same as the no4mk1*, with a few minor differences. The newly made (not sleeved) .22 caliber barrel omitted the locking lugs for the bayonet and the corresponding lugs for the indexing of the front sight assembly, which was pinned into place. The rear aperture sight was graduated for 20 and 100 yards and had a windage adjustment. The bolt contained a 2 piece firing pin to allow for the offset rimfire required along with an appropriate extractor. Bolt heads were available in 6 sizes ranging from 0 to 5. The “22” marked magazine housing had a platform in it which acted as a loading guide and allowed the spent cases to drop into the shell of the magazine. The Canadian no7 rifle, unlike it’s magazine fed British counterpart, was a single shot manually fed rifle. Lastly, a target swivel, the same as that installed on a “T” sniper rifle, was installed just forward of the magazine on the king screw. An interesting anomaly of the target swivel is that many Cno7s can be found with the small action cover attaching loop, located between the magazine and the target swivel, missing. They are likely broken off by the rotation of the target swivel.
The receivers of the rifles were purpose built for the 22 caliber version. Besides the different nomenclature on the left sidewall, they had a small threaded hole on the right side for the attachment of the rear sight windage detent spring. On the left side rear, the body had a small index mark which would align with the windage graduations on the rear sight cross screw. On the underside of the Knoxform of the early production (1944) receivers, the numbers 22 usually be found. Later receivers omitted this but would usually have a large 1S stamped under the wrist. The forestock must be removed from the rifle to view these markings.
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
C No7, .22”. MK.1
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
Initially the rifles were produced in a batch of 20,000 by SAL (which changed to Canadian Arsenals Limited (CAL) very soon after the war) so serial number rationalization will fall between 0L1 to 0L9999, then 1L0001 to a high of 2L0000. There were also some smaller runs of the Cno7 rifle in the Korean war period. Examples of these observed show the serial numbers to be consecutive with the Cno4mk1* rifles then produced, somewhere in the 9XLXXXX range.
Finish on the early 1944 examples are usually a gloss very deep blue/black, while later production rifles were a matt black finish.
During the 1950s, many Cno7 rifles were stripped down into parts by the Canadian military and the serviceable items were returned in to stores. The receivers were burnished of their serial numbers, resulting in a slight flat spot in that area, and the finish in the area was touched up. While some of these receivers will have been used over the years to repair damaged rifles in service, many more were either sold as surplus or liberated from the DND. As of year 2000, the DND still held approx 500 receivers in this condition. Enterprising individuals would often assemble Cno7 rifles from parts, and stamp new serial numbers in to the receivers. Sometimes they knew enough to use a serial number in the right range of production for the year of receiver, but quite often the rifles would be serialized to whatever number happened to be on the No4 bolt handle used in the assembly. Some of these post factory rifles can be found with serial numbers well beyond the 2L0000 mark, and even with Savage or British numbers stamped in to them. These “garage workshop” assembled rifles are often lacking in the quality controls which include un-indexed barrels, improper head spacing, and poor stocking up conditions. As a guide, proper serial number rationalization can be broken up into the following years:
1945: 0L6000 to 1L2000
1946: 1L0500 to 2L0000
These are a rough guide only. While they exceed annual production numbers quoted by Skennerton in “The Enfield Story”, they take in to account some observed examples of unaltered factory rifles along with the likelihood that receiver production exceeded annual assembly.
The “L” in the serial number was for Long Branch, the place where these rifles were produced. It was the practice for North American Commonwealth arms production, beginning during 1941, that the letter indicated the place of production. Other letters found on North American made commonwealth firearms include “T” for Toronto (Inglis), C for Chicopee Falls (Stevens-Savage), and W for Walkerville (Border City Industries).
The Cno7s were issued with a wooden chest similar to the no15 sniper rifle chest, but a few inches smaller in height. Besides the rifle, the chest would contain the items from the Equipment Issue Scale (EIS) no 3023, which consisted of a cleaning rod with bristle brush attached, a wire brush, a jag, and a loop attachment, the sling and an oil bottle. The rifle could be issued with any of the 4 available butt sizes and would be marked on the end of the chest. Originally the chests were painted a matt khaki, but most were repainted and remarked to the semi gloss olive green during the 50s and 60s.
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
These pics are of the transit chest belonging to the 1944 C No.7 .22 Caliber Lee-Enfield Training Rifle depicted in the photo pictorial above.
After 60 years, the Cno7 rifle still serves in the Canadian Forces, primarily as a cadet training rifle, although with the closures of most indoor DND ranges, along with the general anti-gun climate in Canada, many have been withdrawn from cadet units in the past decade. In keeping with the Canadian forces policy of disposal of small arms and their components, the remaining Cno7 rifles in DND inventory are destined for teardown into basic parts (in support of the Rangers, who still use the no4 rifles which can use many of the Cno7 parts), a few to military museums, and the remaining rifles and components will be smelted. Releases of original rifles are rumored to be of only a couple batches during the early 1960s, consisting of 200 or 300 rifles each, along with some individual releases through various unit shooting clubs.
Collector's Comments and Feedback:
1. Good day. I read your article on the Canadian CNo7 rifle and noted a not often known fact that lead to a mistake in your information about the No7 rifle. You stated that the CNo7 rifles were equipped with the T sniper sling swivel and that some of the canvas cover loops maybe broken off due to over turning the loop. The fact is --that many people do not know--and I am not belittling you or your well presented article/post. But forward it on in the interest of furthering our Enfield knowledge.
Firstly-- the No4T sniper sling swivel was equipped with a longer shaft on the swivel itself that allowed full rotation of the swivel itself without catching on the cover loop.
Secondly-- the later target swivels from Parker Hale had a shorter attaching stud shaft and therefore would not be able to swivel on the mounting shaft/stud, without catching the cover loop.
For this reason it is a small issue but one can assess the originality of at least one item on a No4T, if the sling swivel clears the loop we have an original sniper swivel. If it does not, move on and check all other items on the sniper to assess whether or not the claim that may have been made that the rifle is original. One piece not an original piece of equipment to the T rifles does not mean that the rest of the rifle will not be but it raises the question of whether or not a certain rifle was assembled from parts due to the value of these rifles now-a-days or whether it is an all original rifle. So many people do not know this little detail. They advertise their T rifle as all original when in fact the rifle was a bitster or a restoration from a sported sniper.
I do not know however whether the Canadian CNo7 rifles came with the original (high) sniper swivel, or whether they were equipped with the PH target swivel. It is possible that people think the No7's came with the T swivel when in fact they did originally come with the NONE --T-- swivel manufactured by Parker Hale, with the shorter target swivel shaft. .............. Feedback by "terryinvictoria"
2. With reference to terryinvictoria's comments, his feedback mostly concerns the design of "original" T sniper target swivels. I would counter by pointing out that on checking the Canadian ordnance parts list, both the Canadian No.4(T) sniper rifle and the Cno7 .22 rifle share the same sling swivel. The NSN is 1005-21-103-1202, and the reference number is DD(E)3699. While I am not in a position to argue with or against Terry's points with reference to the sling swivels used on British rifles, as I have only had a half dozen or so of these on which to compare, I would suggest that in Canadian service, the swivel is the same, and that on both the rifle types in question, the swivel is identical. .............. Feedback by "stencollector"
3. In reference to terryinvictoria's feedback, here's an example of a No.4(T) sling swivel with British government "Broad Arrow" acceptance markings. The sling swivel pictured below does not rotate 360 degrees.
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
Interestingly enough, it's the original one that came installed on the 1944 Enfield No.4 Mk1(T) Sniper Rifle (click here) from Captain Peter Mason's "4 Commando" unit that is featured in the England - Milsurp Knowledge Library (click here).
In addition, the target sling swivel on the 1944 C No.7 .22 Caliber Lee-Enfield Training Rifle featured in this knowledge library thread, also does not rotate 360 degrees, as shown in the pics of it below.
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
This information got me curious, so I went on a hunting expedition through ~Angel~'s Enfield collection and dug out ten (10) No.4(T) sniper rifles, all dating between 1944 and 1945, which included a Canadian Long Branch. Only one (1) was equipped with a target sling swivel that rotated 360 degrees. As shown in the pics below, it also happens to be the only one that's marked "Parker Hale - Made on England" and it has no British government "Broad Arrow" acceptance markings at all.
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
(Click PIC to Enlarge)
Well, I have to say that the follow up research I've done on the sampling of ten No.4(T)'s and three (3) C No.7 .22 training rifles, seems to support stencollector's original conclusions in his article above, where he stated "Lastly, a target swivel, the same as that installed on a “T” sniper rifle, was installed just forward of the magazine on the king screw. An interesting anomaly of the target swivel is that many Cno7s can be found with the small action cover attaching loop, located between the magazine and the target swivel, missing. They are likely broken off by the rotation of the target swivel.
We'd be interested in hearing from anyone else with empirical data who could shed some more light on this. .............. Feedback by "Badger"
4. I was just reading this Knowledge Library entry page and I came across the "feedback" by "terryinvictoria" about the king screw sling swivel. Sadly he is incorrect. The only swivels which clear the action cover loop are aftermarket produced, ala "Parker Hale".
I do have some military issue swivels which clear the loop, but they are specifically for the Australian HT. These were a straight copy (or unmarked variant) of the common swivel used in Australia on their "range rifles" pre-WWII, and subsequently militarized during the war.
I obtained my samples from "Vulch" on the old Gun & Knife and Gunboards forums. I'm sure "terryinvictoria" also obtained a sample from the same source, and ascribed it's features to all military swivels. In the Ts & No7s (5) immediately to hand none have swivels which clear the loop.
Strangely enough, Peter Laidler addressed this exact subject in relation to the No4T and L42 on the OLD Jouster forums. .............. Feedback by "Lee Enfield"
Date: Wed 20 Feb 2008 12:25 pm
Thread titled “sniper rifle warning................”
I notice that the rifle referred to here and others that I've seen/noticed have a fake/post war/commercial trigger guard sling swivel. How do you tell one of these from the real thing? Simple. The Military issue sling swivel, B1/CR-540, WILL FOUL the steel loop at the front of the trigger guard. Read that again. It WILL FOUL the loop at 180 degrees of rotation either way. The reason is to prevent the sling loop and sling rotating and getting itself into a twist.
The post war commercial item that fakers use is slightly longer and will just clear the small wire loop. This allows it and therefore the sling to rotate through 360 degrees. The sling can and will twist. So be advised of this very small point. If this small point isn't right, ask yourself WHY. It left military service with the right one........... That's if it is a true No4T or L42!
Remember. Real McCoy, WILL foul the wire loop. A post war commercial will NOT and will rotate through 360 degrees
Posted by: Peter Laidler
Date: Sun 1 Feb 2009 5:03 am
Being anal about the swivel.....
On the subject of the swivel, it's not meant to replace anything. It is in ADDITION to. The snipers were (and are) taught to use the different variables of sling and sling positions and the choice is left to them. Some ignore the SWIVEL, sling, triger guard and some used it but it was their choice.
The real McCoy were phosphated and painted and didn't always carry a makers mark. Those early wartime ones from H&H had a tiny S51 mark on the screwdriver slot end while some presumably later ones didn't carry a mark while other from BSA, for the No8 rifle, did carry the M47 mark, as did the Faz for their No8 production
Don't forget that there were TWO sorts. The COMMERCIAL one had a longer thicker part of the shaft that would enable the loop part to clear the little loop on the trigger guard while the UK MoD spec one had a deliberately short shaft that would stop at the loop and prevent the sling twisting.
If you have a LONG one, it belongs to a commercial target rifle. You can shorten the long thick part shaft on a lathe to make a good replica but you'll have to shorten the screwed part and recut the thread. If I remember, it's a 1/4" BSF but check first.................... Or one day I'll tell you about restoring nmy Mini and cutting 26TPI BSF threads when what I REALLY wanted was 28 TPI UNF. Well, it's an easy mistake to make!
5. All the No4T rifles were slowly modified with the front trigger guard swivel as a result of snipers being taught to use the single point sling method as an alternative to the well established top and bottom sling loop method. In wartime, a rifle could go for years without going to an Armourers shop or even being noticed, especially if the sniper didn't know or didn't use the front trigger guard sling swivel. So both with or without are correct. The same goes for cheek rests on the earliest No4T's. With or without are both correct.
I suppose that if you had an original rifle, straight from the battlefield in Italy, fitted with a long Bren webbing sling (which was well liked, taught and used more often than not....) then THAT would be original too.
But, be warned, there are two sorts of front trigger guard swivel. The VAOS part (that's the Army spec one) has a short shank that will not allow the swivel to rotate a full circle as it get stopped by the cover loop on the trigger guard. The commercial sling loops have a longer shank that clears the loop.
As for the cover loop on the trigger guard, then while I insisted that they were present, other armourers, some senior and some junior, said that it was academic and didn't mind either way............... The reason for NOT replacing them was that a change of trigger guard meant that you had to spend the next couple of hours re-setting up the trigger pull-offs! Some say that about 50 percent of the L42's disposed of didn't have the loop. ....... (Feedback by "Peter Laidler")