7.62 Target Rifle from the Lee Enfield Factory

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strangely Brown

Son, does it have an official Australian nomecluture; as per our own L39A1?

---

Sadly no. It's official name is SAF Lithgow Target Rifle 7.62mm.

The project died in the water with just over 130 rifles produced in 1969 and 1970. It's main competitor, the Sportco Omark M44 was easier to set up and maintain and was less expensive.

As an aside, I was showing my example to one of our more experienced fullbore shooters (read old fart:D) through the week. He immediately recognised it and called it a Stubby:move eek:. Apparently, due to the OAL and barrel length being several inches shorter than the Omark, M17, P14 etc. this inglorious nickname was applied by the fullbore fraternity in the early '70s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Son

No4Mk1 (T), as you'll never see one in Canada (or anywhere else in the world for that matter) it probably isn't important. It's developement was for the Service Rifle clubs (at their request) to try to keep aligned with the issue rifle of the time. It was definately the only rifle made that was exclusively for that purpose and it has a broad arrow and Lithgow inspection stamps on it too!

---

I’d have to email him to verify this but I seem to remember at least one rather well healed collector of things Enfield here in Canada has one. But you are quite right I am unlikely to ever have an opportunity to own one which is OK with me as it’s not a Lee Enfield. I will just have to content myself with my Lithgow L1A1.

Mick, as Lithy said it didn't get any official designation. I've got to wonder what would have happened if they had succeeded and went on to produce thousands of them. Perhaps the Military may have used them in competition against the rifle clubs as they had done with the No1 for many years before, and continued close ties with each other. But no- they had to go and suss out the Omarks too!

No4mk1 (T)- silly question... if my rifle (a purpose built single shot) is illegal in Canada because of an L1A1 lower receiver, then how do you get to own one of the 220,000 odd L1A1's made by Lithgow? (even if it's not a Lee Enfield either) And how does a "well healed collector of things Enfield" have one?

Lithy- during the match today I had a couple of "soft strikes"- the firing pin barely marked the primer. Any idea what could cause that? The rounds fired the next time they were loaded... I was thinking maybe a bit of brass from under the extractor claw getting into the firing pin hole. Ever seen that before?

Might the soft strikes also result from the bolt/bolt carrier not being completely seated? Have had that drama a few times w/ other weapons over the years. The hammer completes the closing action but lacks energy to fire the round.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Son

No4mk1 (T)- silly question... if my rifle (a purpose built single shot) is illegal in Canada because of an L1A1 lower receiver, then how do you get to own one of the 220,000 odd L1A1's made by Lithgow? (even if it's not a Lee Enfield either) And how does a "well healed collector of things Enfield" have one?

---

Not a silly question at all as you would have to live in Canada to understand our gun laws.
Back in the day it was legal to sell and own the L1A1 and many other interesting rifles for that mater here in Canada. As the noose tightened here first full auto and then converted auto rifles became restricted meaning they could be used but were treated like a handgun needing a permit to transport to designated ranges. The FAL design was lumped into this at the time I suspect because it was our service rifle :dunno:. The next step was prohibitation with a grandfather clause. I was lucky enough to own a few examples and am therefore able to possess and sell to other collectors within my prohibited classes. No more new FAL’s may enter the country and no new collectors are allowed to own functional examples.
One of the odd things about this law is I can own any L1A1/C1A1 I can afford but I can’t buy an Israeli one because they were selective fire and would have been converted to semi auto to be sold here in Canada which is a class I don’t have. :banghead: :bitch: :crying:

It does seem like an attempt to try and keep the target rifle discipline that we shoot in Commonwealth countries alongside military shooting that was very much the era of Service Rifle "b" in the hey days of the 1950's.

I can also see that an Omark rifle would always have the edge in TR and would enevitably win the day.

Thanks for the replys!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No4Mk1(T)

Not a silly question at all as you would have to live in Canada to understand our gun laws.
Back in the day it was legal to sell and own the L1A1 and many other interesting rifles for that mater here in Canada. As the noose tightened here first full auto and then converted auto rifles became restricted meaning they could be used but were treated like a handgun needing a permit to transport to designated ranges. The FAL design was lumped into this at the time I suspect because it was our service rifle :dunno:. The next step was prohibitation with a grandfather clause. I was lucky enough to own a few examples and am therefore able to possess and sell to other collectors within my prohibited classes. No more new FAL’s may enter the country and no new collectors are allowed to own functional examples.
One of the odd things about this law is I can own any L1A1/C1A1 I can afford but I can’t buy an Israeli one because they were selective fire and would have been converted to semi auto to be sold here in Canada which is a class I don’t have. :banghead: :bitch: :crying:

---

AHA! The smilies say it all, mate. As with some of the firearm laws here, logic and common sense play no part in the process.

jmoore- that's a possibility- I'll have to study the action. I was under the impression the hammer could not strike the firing pin unless the breechblock was in lockup. Pehaps I should have full length re-sized the cases when loading. Thanks for the tip.

Son, there's the sneaky bit! If its ALMOST closed the hammer first closes it the rest of the way and whatever energy is left is expended on the firing pin. Maybe fire, maybe no. Hard to diagnose.

jmoore has hit the nail squarely on the head.:thup:

I think I remember saying something aboult FL sizing when you got the brass.:p

These things don't have the cam action as the bolt closes like our beloved LEs and won't tolerate oversize brass. I discovered this when I bought my first BLR in the early '80s.

Yeah, on close inspection there is no secondary sear in the single shot action- In the SLR it's purpose is to prevent the hammer being tripped if the breechblock isn't locked. Without it, the hammer can be released but will only strike the base of the breech block carrier, taking it forward toward lockup. It does not have enough force left to compress the firing pin spring. No ignition.

Yep, Lithy- you did mention full length re-sizing. I neck sized and tried every case in the chamber (didn't have a FLR die on hand). :slap: (probie slap received, boss)