Looking for info on C.No7 front sight info.

Hello all,

I am looking at a CNo.7 trainer and it has a competition style front sight globe. My first question is if anyone has any knowledge of the sight, I believe it is a Parker hale.
My next question for some of the members who have more hands on experience with a Cno.7, has any permanent alteration been done to this rifle that you can see to attach this globe? Not that I'd want to but would it be possible to fit a "standard" front sight?

Also I can't find a definitive answer on this one, did all Cno.7's come with a target swivel? I ask because I have seen them with or without, this one being without it.

Cheers!

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...25e26c_b-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...04d906_b-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...f60e7f_b-1.jpg

The globe front sight has been added to the existing sight block. This was sometimes done by smallbore shooter who also installed 5c sights. I'd remove the globe sight by undoing the thumb screw. You might be "lucky" and find the front base block unaltered. If altered good luck in finding one. Ron(Canada).

Thanks for the reply, Ron.

I remember reading that the CNo.7's have a proprietary front sight base, different from the No.4. Does anyone else have any expierance with this globe and could comment as to what could be under it?

If it's anything like the UK competition forsight block bands, they were just normal ones with the foresight bed machined rioght down and a new longer dovetail cut in to allow for the P-H tunnel foresight to be fitted. So said, the modified foresight block wasn't either wide enough or man enough to cope and the tunnel foresights were constantly working loose in the blocks.

Mathematically, there's no way that a tunnel foresight can be made to work on a standard un-chopped foresight block band. Well, it COULD, but the foresight would be far too high to do any shooting with. You could raise the backsight but............

Remove the front sight to see condition of the base block. Post a picture and we'll tell you if it was modified. CNo7 were issued with and without target swivels. Ron(Canada)

It's not in my posession. These are photos from the seller of an example I am potentially purchasing.

He qoutes "Skennertons book says there were 2 versions , the Infantry and the Match

In the 40's the military worked with the Society of Miniature Rifle Clubs in configuring the No7

The military had various trials and prototype rifles and Skennerton has a photo of a trials with the front globe sight"

I'm just trying to confirm the validity.

The C No.7Mk.1 front sight base is the same as a standard Long Branch No.4Mk.1* as far as I know. I've got plenty of them, (both British and Canadian), that have never been fitted if in need.

The Canadian No.7 front sight base is not the same as the stock No.4 Mk.1.
Try and get a picture looking down the muzzle.. Then I can tell you if it is an original Canadian No.7 front base or not.
Picture is now attached and you can see the difference. The one on the right is a Canadian No.7 front sight base.
You will notice there is no key way for the bayonet lugs as the Canadian No.7 does not have provision for a bayonet, as do the others. The British No.7 and No.9 have the key way but not the Canadian.
Attachment 48544

Wow thanks very much, Warren! In the photos I posted it does not have the cut outs for the bayo lugs. I have sent an email to the seller and asked if her could take off the front globe and photograph what's under it.

The CNo7 does not have bayonet lugs and holds orientation by 2 tapered pins; one top and other bottom. Warren's pic shows the sight block detail you would expect to encounter on a CNo7. The information you are quoting from Skennerton is not correct for CNo7. The military issue uses the base block shown with the sight protector (common part with No4) and a windage/elevation adjustable rear sight. Your CNo7 conversion with the globe sight was done by non military personnel for small bore shooting. Definitely not a correct detail for an issued CNo7. Ron (Canada).

I have to say, not having studied a C-No7 in any great detail, that the method of retaining a foresight block on a rifle by two cross pins (see large pics and Warrens pic above) is/seems to me to be totally unsatisfactory. Or in other words, what we Army types would call '..... its not soldier proof'. Just a bit careless and the foresight protectors would soon try to twist left/right and loosen that block.

That's just my 2c's worth after having given a few opinions during trials. I cannot believe that anyone would have got away with that method of retaining a foresight block. Even on the L42 it was sweated and they STILL broke loose occasionally!

Peter..the cross pins are tapered and installed in opposing directions. This installation is a Long Branch design and approved by the Canadian military. Bear in mind these are a training rifle and thet've not see the ruggers of a field exercise or conflict. I never seen one come loose. Ron (Canada)

Well here is the photo...doesnt look good.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...99ecfe_b-1.jpg

Your front sight block has been modified. Only recourse is to replace. Could continue use with globe sight. What's on it for a rear sight? Ron(Canada)

It has the original rear sight, kind of a shame as the rest of the rifle is pretty minty. I may end up passing on the oportunity to buy this rifle and continue my hunt. Any idea if this alteration would negatively affect value?

If you can find an original replacement in the same shape, you may be OK...that's the hitch. You have the Easter gun show coming...plus you ARE in Canada and that's where we have more of these...you might be able to find it.

That is true, i'm just wondering if it would be better to avoid the hassle and find an original example.

It IS easier to avoid the problem. I'm just not sure how many of those are still around...

Let me check the "tickle trunk" but in the meantime. I'll post some pictures of what you are looking for. Just check all the front sight blocks at the next gun show and look for one with no slots and TWO (actually THREE) if you count the front sight guard screw hole. Pic's attached
IF any show up they will be at the Calgary show. An old chum who owned Crown Surplus in Calgary had several tons of C No.7 parts so there has to be a sh*tload in Calgary, but that was 40 years ago. They will show up but if nothing let me know.

And Warren was one that I was waiting for on this...among others. Now you can make a decision...

i think i would go for it , you have the very best in your court here and its a worthwhile cause , looks to be a nice rifle with what little we have seen of it ,

I know I'm way late on responding to this thread,

Here are a few pics of the muzzle area of My DCRA 7.62 Long Branch. Parker Hale FS22 sight. Looks like a single pin retention. Hope it helps...

Don't quite know what your're referring to addict but it's chalk and cheese. Your block band foresight is retained radially by two great big foresight block lugs and the smallpin just prevents it moving fore-and-aft. But on the No7C there's no foresight block lugs to prevent rotation......., just two small pins that I wouldn't consider soldier proof by any, even the wildest stretch of the imagination. But that's how it is/was!

Well I hit a gunshow today and couldn't track down any parts, however I did find a "C No.7" there...But it didn't quite add up. I figured I wouldn't start a new thread and I would just post here.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...4bf294_c-1.jpg

First off it had the "Type one" marking but was dated 1945, not really sure if there was a transitional period or not.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...664ddf_b-1.jpg

Second, It wasn't in the correct serial range for a 1945 according to the article here. To add to that, the serial looks rather haphazardly applied.

It didn't sting to much passing on this one.

Looks like a bit of a re-strike...maybe a bit of an altered number. Possibly a .22 built from a .303?

Well it had a legit no.7 barrel so I'm not sure.

Well, if you have the barrel and bolt...and mag, all the small parts too, it's most do-able. If you have facility to parkerize this could be what you come up with. I've seen it done. The marking on the left side of the receiver isn't right. No mention of C#7 on there...

There were a few different ways that the bodies were marked. That's a legit 1945 C No.7 body marking. I'd guess it's a rifle assembled using correct surplus parts. I can see the grind line where the original serial number was taken off. Whoever built the rifle just stamped their chosen serial number on the butt socket, (and bolt?), later. I built two rifles using legit surplus C No.7Mk.1 receivers that had the original serial numbers ground off and had then been Parkerized. I bought one of them in Canada as a component part and the other from a former match shooter in Indiana who had accumulated quite a few parts during his competition shooting days cross border. One was a 1945 like that and the other dated 1946 with the C No.7Mk.1 designation present. There were some former Canadian Armourers in Ontario that assembled quite a few rifles just like it back in the 80's and 90's. Remember, the parts were auctioned off directly from Long Branch in the 1970's after it was shut down. I imported a few complete but obvious "new build" C No.7 rifles many years ago just like it. I also had a LB No.4Mk.1* in .22 that I imported and then disassembled to use the barrel for one of my builds on the original serial number linished body. It had a LB 1956 date C No.4Mk.1* replacement body numbered for a 77Lxxxx, 1944 rifle. Always check the rear sights to be sure they are assembled correctly on the "after the fact" builds. If memory serves, I always had to repair the rear sights before I could sell them which was just a lack of attention to detail on the part of the builders. I got most of the parts from Marstar at the time for the rear sights.

I will agree with Brian's assessment of the rifle. The early type one marking with a 1945 date is somewhat rare, but authentic. The changeover to type 2 marking must have happened fairly early in 1945.

The serial number is a tad high for a 1945, and especially for an early 1945. But as Brian has pointed out, the area shows the typical flattening where the army removed the serial numbers. On an original unmolested receiver the area is nicely curved. As well, there should be the superimposed LB mark just over the serial number......they were usually burnished out at the same time as the serials. I hate to point this out as the fakers will start adding these marks as well.

I'll do some photos of my two for comparison. I was mistaken as the one I have with the early markings is 1944, not 1945 dated although I completely agree with stencollector's remarks about the changeover. You'll see the grind line clearly on it. I cleaned up the ground butt socket on the other 1946 dated receiver with the later markings and reParkerized it myself. Both are excellent shooters. Love the .22's!

I always like the full size .22s, whether they were the LE, Springfield or Mauser...I just can't afford them now.

beautiful rifles brian ,

i had one of those light colored wood ones once a long time ago , i believe its in michigan now ,

Thanks. I stocked both in birch as that's what I had at the time. The 1944 is all Long Branch marked birch and the 1946 rifle has a mixed bag of Savage and Canadian Arsenals marked birch. I have one other matching, original C No.7Mk.1, (not homebuilt!), that's a 1945 with the early markings, chest and CES. It's virtually new condition. I've managed to piece together all of the CES over the years but I'm still missing one of the P-H Canadian contract cleaning rods. Any spares out there in forum land? I have the chests and the tips for the cleaning rods. I had so many of the chests several years ago that I had a sale to sell them off since I was tripping over them!

What are the rods Brian? Are they a copper rod with a wood handle? Any pics of these?

Below is a shot of a couple of chests I picked up a couple years ago along with the cleaning rods. They have the wooden egg-shape swivel (C/l\ marked of course).

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...38a10001-1.jpg
Below is a closer shot of some of the accessories that came in the chests. The tag is from SAL (Long Branch). The rifles, when new, came with the same tag as a no.4, but with the no4 blacked out and Cno7 stamped above.

Attachments for the cleaning rod should be a nylon brush, a bronze brush, a jag and a loop.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...38a10002-1.jpg

Yes, that's the one I've got. It has a jag that's brass but the rod is darker, like copper. No C broad arrow though...I think I have the little brush too...not sure about that though. Anyone interested? I don't have the rifle...nor am I likely to get one.

The C/l\ will be on the wood, right in line with the rod. Most (but not all) have it, but it is in a wearing area.

Before somebody low balls you, I would estimate the rods to be worth in the region of $75-$100 these days. They don't make them anymore.

Thanks very much for the info...

Stencollector's pics clearly show the rods. Were the correct oil bottles the P-H marked brown ones? It would make sense since everything else is P-H. I'd be interested in one if someone's selling. Hit me off forum. bdlltd@bellsouth.net.

Check your PM and Email Brian...

Those were the bottles I found inside the chests. Not sure if they are PH marked....I'll have to check. If you need one and BAR doesn't fix you up I could likely work something out.

CNo7 accessories generally went missing from the transit chests. The rod and tips are very difficult to source these days. Expect to pay around $100 for a rod. The jag, brushes, etc are not marked as to manufacturer. I don't know if the Parker Hale ones will mate up....they are not similar at all if you do a side x side comparison. Don't know who made the Canadian ones. Ron (Canada).

You will find two size markings on the No.7 cleaning rods. A large C broad arrow and a smaller one. Most are rather obscure as the marking is on the bulb of the handle and subject to lots of wear.
Attachment 48961Attachment 48962

I saw a new variation to the Cno7 receivers today. It had the type three marking, the LongBranch underneath, but no date whatsoever. Not even a shadow of a marking, and no signs of burnishing in the date area. The receiver serial had been scrubbed in the usual manner though. I'll get a closeup photo next time I go see the guy.

Well the seller of the original C No.7 I had posted at the beginning of the thread, has decided to come down on his price to compensate for the front sight. The rest of the rifle is a real beauty. What do you gents think?

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...f8fa57_b-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ae9c46_b-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...2d2cec_b-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...dedd67_b-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...c2c035_b-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...a7cfb9_b-1.jpg

D-Bomb: Wow- looks like it was parkerized yesterday, beautiful! You should buy it, use it for a while then sell it to me. Did you make it to the Thorncliffe show this month?

Ridolpho

Ridolpho, that sounds like a half decent plan! I wanted to hold back on the photos at first to not distract from the topic of the front sight. And yes I did, the second C No.7 I posted in this thread was at that show.

It looks very nice. Of course, the asking price is the real dealbreaker now.

I may have a source of the front sight base if you go for this purchase and need one.

Sten Collector, it is now priced in the sane range. It is less than I have seen the last couple sell for on CGN.

It's a couple hundred more than the put together one I posted earlier.

After exchanging some emails and photos with D-Bomb, the rifle pictured is also likely a put-together. You can see, even in the photos shown, some anomolies in the serial number area.

With the sales of receivers the past few years, it would seem the put together to original rifle ratio has grown even further apart. I would suggest it is now about 6 or even 8 to 1. Buyers beware.

I did a lot of imports out of Canada for a ten year period between 1996-2006 and the majority of the C No.7's I found and imported were parts rifles. Of course; the prices were good and after nit picking them to make sure the barrels were on straight, woodwork properly fitted, headspace good and rear sights assembled correctly, I and the subsequent buyers down here were very happy to have them. Lets face it, they are built from original parts and will perform every bit as good as a factory original. If a good one can be had these days from an honest seller at a reduced price from a factory original, then my opinion is to get one if you can while you can.

I seem to wholeheartedly agree with Brians sentiments above re these super little .22's

I met a retired CWO weapons tech a decade or so back at a Christmas party, and we got on to discussing the Cno7s. He related that there were only two major sales of them, numbering no more than 200 or 300 each. He had been involved in the purchase of the larger batch. There were some individual sales to shooting clubs and possibly through the DCRA, but that was it. Any rifles that remain in DND inventory are destined for either Drill purpose conversion, or else will find their way to the smelters.

I ran an inventory check a few years ago to see how many remained in stock, and between the two depots there were only 264 Normal length Cno7s, and 11 Bantam length Cno7s. These numbers do not include rifles actually being held by cadet (and in some cases reserve and regular force) units. I have not checked the inventory level in some time, but there were approx 500 of the burnished receivers in stock around a decade ago. These were acquired from rifles that had been stripped down for spares, I suspect in the late 50s or early 60s. I have a copy around here somewhere, from around that time period, of a RCEME advisory on how to convert Cno4 receivers for use on Cno7s when the Cno7 receiver was N/S, and no replacement was available.

A large batch of receivers appeared from somewhere in the last 8 years, mostly sold through Ellwood Epps. That seemed to have fed the frenzy towards assembling rifles, since before that the barrels were around, but the original receivers were almost unobtainable.

The problem with trying to price post factory assembled rifles lower than original rifles, is that the sellers (either knowingly or unknowingly) will try and pass them off as original in order to get the most money possible. Next thing a bitster will sell for $1200, so now the originals have to go to $1500-$1800. We are already to see bitsters with asking prices now in the $1500 and up range. Of course, they come with some BS story that they were arsenal repaired etc.

Buyer beware. Don't look for reasons to sucker yourself. If you have to try and convince yourself as to the rifle's originality, then best to step back for a minute. If your or the seller are using terms like "could have, may have, possibly etc" then rethink the purchase, or at least the purchase price.

That's enough rambling for now.....got to go try the truck again and see if it will start.

Thanks again, Stencollector. I'm not really sure what to do, Im kind of split on this one.

D-BOMB Cab you get a clearer picture of the serial number on the bolt and butt socket?

Stencollector - I concur...lots out there claiming to be original...when you examine these they turn out quite to the contrary. It would be very valuable if a list of the released CNo7 existed. anybody here of such a list?

Ron(Canada)

Ron,

I'll post the photos I sent Stencollector later tonight, I'm just on my phone at the moment.

Here are the two relevant photos that D-Bomb sent me. The numbering isn't bad, but there are some tell tale signs that they are not factory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smle addict

I know I'm way late on responding to this thread,

Here are a few pics of the muzzle area of My DCRA 7.62 Long Branch. Parker Hale FS22 sight. Looks like a single pin retention. Hope it helps...

---

wowww

i search this model whuit base for my Enfield n02 mk4

where buy kit front sight
excuse my English i speak a little bit sorry

mp please

Pierre