L8 ? on gunbroker L8 Series British Enfield Rifle .308 : Curios & Relics at GunBroker.com
Printable View
L8 ? on gunbroker L8 Series British Enfield Rifle .308 : Curios & Relics at GunBroker.com
Hummmm.
Ishapore screw. If it was placed it service it should have had model designation on it, I would think. Could this be a Sterling Conversion?
I don't think that it is an L8 either because as has been said, it should be marked a such. The "308" on it was not put there in British service because we use the term 7.62mm, and have always done so.
Technically, an L8A4? (clone?)
Not a Sterling conversion - there is no plunger ejector through the left wall of the receiver.
Charger guide adapter is the Enfield clip-in type, rather than the Sterling bolt-on one.
Magazine is also Enfield.
Barrel has no bayonet lugs - likely not military.
I've seen the "308" stamp on the butt on similar rifles here in Australia.
I saw a batch of genuine L8's in the 90's and none of them had bayonet lugs on the barrels. They were bought in from Canada I seem to remember because the Belgian company couldn't supply the good on time or budget or spec - or anything else!
Our L8's had the 7.62mm extractor which doubled up as an effective aide to the tapering body-side type ejection system too
Mr. Laidler,
A collector I know and had a very complete collection told me a tale. Here it is, I'd like you to tell me if it sound like something would've happened.
"A number of L8 rifles were produced. Because they (MOD?) didn't know to which country they would be sold, they didn't engrave the L8 designation on the receiver, until such time as the rifle(s) were to be shipped."
He had an L8, for all intents and purposes (to me) looked like an L8. Having not seen one before, it's hard to judge. It was unmarked, and
had clean, mint looking Suncorite or black pebbled finished receiver. It's been a number of years since I've visited him. This just doesn't sound like something the MOD would do. Thanks, limpetmine
You're right Limpet. As if......... It just ain't something that the MoD would do! The only prospective purchaser for the L8's were the Indians who wanted 60,000. They liked what they saw but .....well, read the Guns of Dagenham and you'll understand what went wrong. Hence the reason for the 1965 dated extractors and magazines and c1965 L8 designation. Think L7 machine gun of 1965 and L9 pistol of 1967 and you'll understand the numerical sequence.
Not many were produced and they languished in Ordnance for ages but a small batch were resurrected in the early 70's as a suitable contender for the Cadet Target Rifle trials that eventually saw the ill fated L81 emerge. Three (? and Marlborough was one.......) of the top Public School shooting teams had a few to evaluate but they weren't good news It's a looooong sorry saga that should be told properly. But the people writing the books don't ever seem to.............. Oh, don't get me going!!!!!
Perhaps the people writing the books want original documents from Enfield or the M.O.D. about these rifles and the reasons they were converted at such a late date, before they put their head on the block and get something in print!,
I once saw a document from the Royal Navy, dated 1971 about using L8A1's for line throwing, did this ever happen do you know?
For what its worth,
I remember back in the summer of 1993, There was a company in Latham New York called "british antiques." The gentleman had several antique british firearms, mostly martini's and a few long lee's. He also had a large collection of parts for the Mk3's and No4's. I remember his summer catalogue had several 7.62mm sterling conversion parts. Not many, but around a dozen or so. Specifically, sterling 7.62mm barrels, Sterling magazines, and the charger guide adaptors. He also had enfield 7.62mm magazines and extractors. I do know he DID NOT have the sterling ejectors. I bought and enfield magazine for my L39 for $65. I should have bought all of them at that price! Around 1995, i was at a gunshow here in california, and I saw a man selling two "308 Enfields." They had sterling barrels (no bayo lugs) and Enfield 7.62 magazines. They were not marked L8. They retained the original No.4 mk.I markings, but they were parkerized, and not suncorited. My guess is, there were enough 7.62mm parts floating around for some to cobble together a few 7.62 rifles.
Just my speculation.
I have a feeling that there was also at least one Belgian company that was assembling 7.62mm No4s, and marketing them as ".308W"; I've seen two similar rifles, both with ".308" stamped on the barrel and the side of the butt. Both had Belgian proof. Neither had the Ishy screw; one had an apparent Canadian barrel with no bayonet lugs, the other had a Sterling barrel. They had Enfield magazines.
I've seen a couple of these as well. The seller thought well more of them than I.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbox
The only original L8's I've ever seen except for one of the six experimental L8T conversions belonged to the MoD and ALL had the distinctive markings on the left side of the body as engraved at Enfield. The early Trials L8T didn't but had the early Enfield produced barrel and trials Enfield Pattern magazine installed.
---------- Post added at 06:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:12 PM ----------
Correction: The L8T didn't have the early trials magazine but a later D65 marked original replacement.