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
Printable View
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
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.
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
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.
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 :thup:
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
Leaving this afternoon for several days for work will get pictures, just not sure how to get them on the site
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
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. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarheeler
Regards,
Doug
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.
Point taken but the L8 markings are well marked on the rifles and he'd certainly have seen the markings - if they were present. I saw several L8's that had come through on a workshop refurbishment programme from Ordnance among another 20 or 30 No4's. I really don't think they knew what they'd sent down. At the same time another batch of rifles came down for cannibilisation for spares and conversion to L59 spec. At the time, thie workshops were being switched to civilianisation mode and so the time management was strictly controlled. Conversion to DP was quite labour intensive at the 'civilianised' workshops but not the REME controlled workshops so they were done there.
There's absolutely no doubt(?) that it's a bog standard rebarrel with a Belgian or Canadian 7.62mm barrel.
Canada ordered the 2000 Ex1 & Ex2 FN-FAL trials rifles in June 1953 with the proviso that they were not to be manufactured until the 7.62 chamber was finalized. That occurred in Nov/Dec 1953 when the UK ordered their X8E1 & X8E2 rifles and the US ordered their T48 and T48E1 rifles.
So I doubt that a 1951 L8 rifle with a 7.62x51 chamber could exist, especially as the UK adopted the 280/30 cartridge AFTER that date...
Have a no4 mk1 converted to 308 in 1051, it's marked L8A2, has John Willes rear sights on it. Rifles came from collection at US- Canadian border, looks new but has been fired. Market value and how rare are these rifles
Peterson's lists them as: Excellent $900, Very good, $700, Good, $450, Fair $300, Poor $150. Based on the price markups from the non-converted rifles, I'd say they are not nearly as common.
My price guide is six years old so prices may be more or less than above but it should give you a rough idea. I've found the six year old prices are about right for most items. The trouble is, your particular rifle may be one of the movers because the Indian models, the 2A's, have increased in value quite a bit based on Gunbroker sales. Then again, true value is only what someone else is willing to pay you for it or if you are the buyer, what you are willing to pay.
This is not an Isaphore rifle
Sorry can't type, converted by the British to 308 in 1951
Can you get any photo's of the markings? The 303 wasn't officially replaced by the 7.62mm cartridge until 1956, so 1951 sounds a bit early as a conversion date.
I have a funny feeling that this (?) rifle was featured in this forum sometime ago
This one? L8A2 Value
Same rifle. Forgot I had posted it
Funny thing to forget............ Forgot that you were using another name too?
Maybe he doesn't live in North Carolina anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Thread closed.... :rolleyes:
Merged multiple threads together on same subject posted by member registered under multiple usernames in violation of site Terms of Service Agreement ...
Also, thread should have been posted in Appraisals, Fakery, Dispute Resolution Mediation Forum in the first place.
Regards,
Doug