Printable View
Many moons ago I purchased a couple of no4 7.62 mags for when I got a 7.62 No4 .. which I eventually did and then put one mag in it.
I wonder if the mag is a cheap chinese knock off or real surplus. It has been 10+ years since I purchased them so I am leanbing towards surplus. Here's a couple of pics, if anyone can give me an opinion I would be grateful.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...11/no4_4-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...11/no4_5-1.jpg
Original - that D shaped mark is actually the EFD (all 3 letters stamped in one) logo.
Value today around GBP £100 (US$150)
Thanks Alan, for once I bought well.
But before you leap, you've only shown us the magazine platform. There were thousands of these kicking around spare. So many, that one enterprising wag had a load of magazines made/copied. Alas, his sub contractors pressed sheet metalworking skills weren't quite up to the standards of the Enfield factory and they a) needed a bit of titivating to fit and b) the ejector fell off after a couple of uses. You've had them 10 years...... time scale you have fits in well too..................!
lol, you brought me down rather quickly as this one had the ejector fell off after one use and needed some tweaking to fit ... ah well, it does the job
Are the sides of the magazine marked with the military code? If not, its one of the repro shells paired up with a genuine platform.
What your mag follower has emphasised is the old Ministry of Supply part number of (B1 - small arms, rifles)/CR-1256 and the 1965 date. 60,000+ magazines were manufactured for a never-to-be-completed/failed Aid for India agreement of the period. The magazines and charger guide inserts were set aside to be used should the L8 idea ever need to be re investigated. However, within a few years the L42 programme came about and the magazines were used there. The L42 programme was really pared to the bone and done on the cheap. Just look at the fore-ends...............
anyone have a L8 type 7.62 mag for sale?
The body of the mag is as clear as a virgin's conscience ... at least it works I suppose !
I have been able to examine some genuine Enfield 7.62 mags and a repro one side by side, and offer the following observations.
"Original" 7.62 mags have a blackened finish follower platform, with the "CR" code number stamp on the follower and the mid-upper left hand side of the case.
The "Repro" mag has a parkerized finish to the follower (with CR stamp) and no CR stamp on the case. The feed ramp insert inside the front of the repro magazine case is attached with two spot welds on each side (there are three visible on the originals). The feed ramps are a different shape viewed from the top; the repro is an almost perfect curve, whereas the genuine one has a flattened curve.
On the left hand magazine side, at the top of the case between the two stamped ribs, the original has a small raised section about 20mm long - the repro has a continuous staight edge in the area. Viewed from the top, the follower on the repro almost touches the case in this area on the left hand side, there is more of a gap on the original.
On the bottom of the case, the repro has six visible spot welds, in three pairs. The originals have only four spot welds, with two being much more prominent than the others.
Other impressions are that the repro case has a duller, more matt finish than the original.
The metal edges of the repro case are tapered off, making the metal thickness appear thinner than the squarer-cut edges of the original. (Actual measurements indicate both are close to .030" thick.) The stamping of the top of the wider rib on the case sides is sharper on the repro; the original has a pronounced dimple around this area, and a mark like a line which continues straight up towards the ejector tab area.
@newbieDan:
I have it on very good authority (and hopefully he will chime in here) that L8 mags are about as common as an honest politician. Apparently an MoD beancounter scrapped the lot back a number of years ago. It'd be nice if they'd think of us poor surplus shooters before doing these beastly things...
The magazine springs and platforms fitted to the repro magazines were original. By the time that the L42's were withdrawn, the stockpiles of new magazines were pretty much exhausted. Any demand for a new magazine was usually met with a refurbished/used/previously numbered magazine. There were only 60,000 made in the 60's (was it 1965 I seem to recall.....) for the ill fated Indian order and this quantity were deemed sufficient for the L42 programme of the late 60's/early 70's and onwards. It was these magazines that had already been produced and were in Ordnance Stores that kept the cost of the L42 down to an acceptable level. I don't think that many were actually 'scrapped' as such - there weren't many left to scrap. Most L42 specific parts were in short supply for several years before it went. As a matter of interest, the FIRST part to be classified as NLA (no longer available) or NP (non/not provisioned) from the L42 was the cheek rest. And that's the reason why you see so many with slip-patches across them, as you do.
Usually, when a part is NLA or NP'd, you get what we call a 'dues out' telling when you can expect the part. When the stocks are getting low and can be replaced by another part you'd get a note that would say 'WSE (when stocks exhausted) use 1005-99-960-1234....'. But the stocks of cheek rests were never replenished nor was there an alternative. The brackets were available for Base workshop overhauls for those L42's being cocooned for war reserve stocks but not the cheek rests.
I like to think that the only suppliers of woodwork remaining at the time were those converting the fore-ends. And looking at the dire quality, even worse than schoolboys efforts, the powers-that-be had decided that enough was enough! But that's only my opinion!