L8A2 Value

[Tarheeler]

This rifle has been in my collection 20 years, and never have thought about it's value. Rifle was converted to .308 in 1951, all correct. Any thoughts

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Peter Laidler]

What rifle? We'll need to see something before we can pass comment. But are you sure it's 1951 or do you mean 1971? There's a lot of No4 rifles with 7.62 barrels of all sorts/types. But they ain't necessarily L8's.

[Tarheeler]

Rec. marked No4 MK1/2 (F) FTR
/52 BZ serial #, L8A2 on wrist with serial #. Barrel marked 7.62, no bayonet lug, small crossed swords with letters on bottom, sniper sling swivel( Parker-Hale). H.M. Co. LLtd on bottom of wrist, wood dowels in stock under rec. , stripper clip attachment in loading guide. Johnn Wilkes sights, correct mag, not Sterling conversion

[Bruce_in_Oz]

1951?

7.62 NATO was still in its experimental stage; to the point it was not even "metricated". Early 1950s-dated drawings for a ".300" calibre BREN, as seen at the old Lithgow archives, indicate the state of flux at the time.

The Brits were insistent that the 7mm / .280 "short" cartridge was the go. The "influence" of the US efforts can be noted by a major change in the preferred cartridge from ".280" to the ".280-30". The difference was that the "original" had a rim and extractor groove very similar to the 7.92 x 57 or .30-06. the .280-30 went with the thicker rim and a slightly wider and deeper extractor groove of the T65. The US eventually held sway with their desire to have what was essentially a "short" .30-06 or perhaps a .300 Savage on steroids.. The rest is history.

Now, a No4 in one of the "pre-NATO" trials cartridges I could understand, but such a beast may not even be marked in detail, as it would probably never leave a controlled "trials" environment. BSA had previously made "trials"/ ammo test SMLEs in .276 Pedersen when the Vickers-built Pedersen rifle was a hot contenders in the early 1930s, so there was a precedent.

[CINDERS]

Hi David the forum pelicans and gurus just love pics so we can all have a gecko and assist with any questions you may want answered or be steered towards reference materials.
Cheers

[CINDERS]

Yes I think the .276 may have been a winner had not Europe blossomed into a crisis with its low recoil and being a HV round and quite a good looking one from the few examples I have in my collection

[Tarheeler]

Leaving this afternoon for several days for work will get pictures, just not sure how to get them on the site

[Ridolpho]

Tarheeler: Look at the third "sticky" thread from the bottom on the Lee Enfield Forum page. If you can save your photos in a file on your hard drive you can very easily upload them as shown in the thread. Write your post then click on "manage attachments" and you're off. Just make sure each image is smaller than a meg. It works extremely well and I'm about as useless with computers as one can be (and still function).

Ridolpho

[Badger]

Leaving this afternoon for several days for work will get pictures, just not sure how to get them on the site

Check the help threads as Ridolpho said, or you can always email them to me at badger@milsurps.com. I'll re-size them and post them for you in this thread.

Regards,
Doug

[Brit plumber]

Just a point to note, the OP says it has 'Rec. marked No4 MK1/2 (F) FTR/52 BZ serial #,' so I'm quite sure the 51 date is a mistake seeing as it was still a No.4 when it was FTRd and converted to 1/2 in 1952.