DCRA No.4 Rifles

A few things I wanted to get straight regarding DCRA No.4’s.

Were all the conversions done centrally, i.e. by the government or did the Canadian firearms trade get involved?

Have most of the original .303 versions (an assumption here that most started out as .303) been converted to 7.62mm?

Were there specifications laid down regarding things like the use of tunnel/globe foresights for competition use?
On this question I’m wondering if things like the length of a tunnel foresight were governed?

Rear sights: Is one more common than the other?
For instance in the UK on L39A1’s I tend to see a greater number of AJ Parker 4/47’s than I do P-H 5c’s.

Some rifles of Canadian origin, and I think of Canadian specification do not appear to be officially marked, is there a story behind unmarked DCRA rifles?

If you can help me with the above it would be appreciated; I would just say that retirement is now kicking in and research is just kicking off!

The choice of commercial backsights on the service L39's was entirely a matter for the user unit. Generally speaking in my experience this depended on what was in use on the target No4's that were in use and replaced by the L39's. There were all sorts including the 'spaced' P-H sights that straddled the rear pad of the No4T's and those little sights that fixed to the original Mk1 sight. When they were declared obsolete and withdrawn they were returned 'as issued'. I bet there were loads of these comp sights just sloshing around in Armourers shop drawers or shelves

The Dominion of Canada Rifle Association is an organization which sponsors and promotes competitive shooting. http://www.dcra.ca.
Until the 1990s, the Cdn Gov't supplied ammunition for the DCRA and Provincial Rifle Association shooting.
By the early '60s, the CF had transitioned to 7.62x51, and there was interest in using that cartridge for practice and competition. Members could send in No. 4 rifles for conversion to 7.62x51 by Canadian Arsenals Limited at Long Branch, Ontario. Rifles could be privately owned, or ones held by service teams. Privately owned rifles could be of most any make. CAL would inspect the rifles for suitability for conversion, then rebarrel and proof them. They are marked with the serial number of the conversion, as well as with CAL applied marks. .303 extractors and magazines were retained, because the rifles were intended only for single shot slow fire SR(b) competition. The rifles external appearance was unchanged. In keeping with SR(b) rules, internal tuning could be done, and precision rear sights (which did not require alterations to the rifle) could be fitted. As time passed, the rules changed, and rifles could be altered from issue configuration. The tunnel foresights were retrofitted, forends were cut back, longer, heavier target barrels were installed, etc. This evolution has continued, with full blown target rifles now being the norm for PRA/DCRA competition.
Many of the 7.62 conversions were altered, some dramatically, target shooters being prone to tinkering in efforts to improve shooting.
Somewhere I have a DCRA pamphlet detailing different bedding systems used with 7.62 rifles. The 7.62s had a reputation for not shooting as well as good .303 rifles.
In 1962 while taking a shooting course, I purchased a .303 rifle and PH5C sight. My brother wanted to use it in 1964. He had the option of sending it to CAL, or having a new .303 barrel fitted. He had the latter done by Nelson Colville in Winnipeg. I still have the rifle, he returned it a few years ago. It has not been used since the 1964 season.
If a Canadian 7.62 conversion does not have the CAL marks and serial, the conversion was done privately. Target rifle conversions often were fitted with S&L barrels. Receivers were altered, and one piece stocks fitted. Jim Duggan(?) specialized in this conversion. I have one based on a No. 7 receiver, Canjar trigger fitted with firing pin short fall, set up in an early Robertson synthetic stock.

Thank you tiriaq for the information on the DCRA rifles. I have collected bits and pieces of information on them over the years and always found them fascinating. I was lucky enough to purchase a nice one from Bill Wylde a few years back. It is a Long Branch with a PH 5C sight with the adjustable aperture fitted. It has the Long Branch conversion number on the top of the bolt handle and receiver. The action an barrel have been fully bedded essentially gluing it into the stock. If I remember correctly, with my handloads using 168 Sierra BTHP match bullets it shoots pretty well but not what I would normally expect of a match rifle. It is still a very interesting rifle though.

I enjoyed talking to Bill years ago when he would come to the APM at the Connaught Ranges near Ottawa. He has long been interested in these rifles.
These rifles were used in shooting competitions for years. Essentially everyone shot a similar rifle, using issue ball ammunition. Once the rules changed, and modern target rifles and handloaded ammunition became the norm, the Lee Enfield rifles disappeared from the ranges.
In 1962, a brand new Long Branch No. 4 could be purchased from the Montreal Central Ordnance Depot for $45.
I recall reading an Australian book on target shooting. The author stated that if a properly set up SMLE, with target rear sight and issue Mk. VII ball, could consistently hold less than three minutes, it was a good one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiriaq

Receivers were altered, and one piece stocks fitted. Jim Duggan(?) specialized in this conversion.

---

Tiriaq, a cracking post with a huge amount of information for me to sift through, thank you!

The above line however has caught my attention.
I had no idea that outside of the UK No.4's were being fitted with one piece stocks. I thought this was the province of Bert Whitaker and Geoff Hart alone.
It had crossed my mind that there may be others, but never having come across them before I dismissed the idea.

Jim Duggan?? Anybody else, pictures etc?

Ellwood Epps, a long established Canadian gunsmith, specialized in one piece stock sporting rifle conversions of SMLE and No. 4 rifles. Very attractive lightweight hunting rifles, flush magazines.
For these, and the target rifle conversions, basically the butt socket was cut off, following the line of the bottom of the receiver. Part of the front wall of the buttsocket could be left to act as a recoil lug. Tangs could be added to the receiver and trigger guard. The whole point of the target rifle conversion was to reduce receiver flex in 7.62. The Canjar trigger was mounted to the trigger/mag. housing lug. The cocking piece was shortened, and a much stiffer striker spring installed, to reduce lock time.
I have fired mine with the same 155gr Sierra Matchking loads that I use in my Nielsen and Musgrave target rifles. It is accurate, but not really competitive with the newer rifles.

Check the MKL for an example and more info on DCRA rifles... ;)

http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...20_Medium_.JPG(Click PIC to Enlarge)http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...20_Medium_.JPG

1949 C No.4 Mk1* Long Branch (Early DCRA Rifle) (click here)

Regards,
Doug

Good Day,
There is a fantastic thread more than 50 pages long in the sticky section over at CanadianGunNutz.com. They have amassed over 1500 serial numbers and scattered throughout the thread are photo examples of many. I found mine (#1010) at a small show in SC a number of years ago. The globe front and rear sights are made by John Wilkes.
Regards,
Michael
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...rpzmninw-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...esovpepi-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlightRN

The globe front and rear sights are made by John Wilkes.
Regards,
Michael

---

One of my Whitaker Specials has a Swing rear sight on attached as per you're picture FlightRN.
Essentially it's a Wilkes sight but George Swenson who invented the Swing worked for Wilkes. My best guess is that they were not patented and Svenson copied them, or possibly bought them unmarked from Wilkes.

I also like the way you're tunnel foresight has been brazed into the foresight protector. Thunderbox on here has one we were looking at this Wednesday at Bisley. It strikes me as a far better arrangement than just fixing the Matchmaker onto the sight block.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badger

Check the MKL for an example and more info on DCRA rifles... ;)

http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...20_Medium_.JPG(Click PIC to Enlarge)http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...20_Medium_.JPG

1949 C No.4 Mk1* Long Branch (Early DCRA Rifle) (click here)

Regards,
Doug

---

Just a note regarding Badger's DCRA example, the "C inside the oval", and the "5G" are both remnants of its previous life as a 303 target rifle and have nothing to do with the 7.62 DCRA conversion.

And there are a surprisingly large number of No4Mk2 rifles which were converted to 7.62 DCRA by CAL.

I would say that I have seen every No4 action (MkI, MkI*, Mk2, MkI/2, MkI/3) & manufacturer (Savage, Long Branch, Fazackerly, Maltby & BSA) except an Enfield trials rifle converted to 7.62 for the DCRA.

The CAL barrels used on the target shooting conversions did not have bayonet lugs. There are CAL 7.62x51 barrels with lugs. CAL made barrels for the British L8 rifles.

Canons Delcour in Belgium were originally asked to contract but were said to be useless at every stage. Sterling also initially jumped on the Canons bandwaggon for their conversions but it was the same problems again. Canada had already been producing them so I suppose it made sense. But you can't defeat the laws of physics - or harmonics in this case - and no matter what you do, 7.62mm is barrel length critical. And No4 barrel length ain't it!

The absence of bayonet lugs did crop up and there were some attempts to adapt the L1A1 bayonet. A sort of attempt exists at Warminster but while it might have worked for ceremonial duties, I can't imagine it working in real life.

Most or all of the DCRA rifles have the marks from a hardness tester on the receiver and under the bolt handle IIRC. I was told that they were also magna-fluxed for cracks, but though the source is very credible, that's all the evidence I've seen.

A local machinist and gunsmith now deceased assured me several times that the barrels were actually made by Douglas for SAL. He named the former SAL employee who he said told him this, but unfortunately I didn't record the name at the time.

The hardness test marks will have to be where it was hardness tested - on the locking shoulders, the only two places that the body is hardened. These will barely show of course BUT there might be an indicator mark elsewhere to show that the hardness test was done at some time.

The tester marks were on the underside near the front guard screw boss. Presumably done to assess the metallurgy of the receivers as far as a hardness test does that. As I recall there were two or three marks on those I've seen.

Quote:

---

The results of hardness test may be utilized as:-
1- Similar material may be graded according to hardness and a particular grade as indicated by a hardness test may be specified for some services.
It should be observed that a hardness number can not be utilized directly in design or analysis as can tensile strength for example.
2- The quality level of materials or products may be checked or controlled by hardness test.
They may be applied to determine the uniformity of samples of metals, or the uniformity of results of some heat treatment or case hardening.
3- By establishing a correlation between hardness number and some other desired properties, eg: tensile strength. Simple hardness test may serve to control the uniformity of the tensile strength and to indicate rapidly whether more complete tests are warranted.

Read more: Metallurgy Material Engineering: Hardness Tests

---