Were any No7s built in .22 mag?
there is one for sale here in Francce.
Printable View
Were any No7s built in .22 mag?
there is one for sale here in Francce.
I looked at that rifle on Naturabuy as well. It should be .22LR
Unfortunately soemone has modified it, therefore destroying the collector value (only 3000 made I believe) and also making it no good for TAR competitions!
So all in all; it's a crying shame!
As to the original question No...... , Collector value gone but should still be a nice rifle...... I'd certainly give it a good home regardless of calibre.
Edit: sorry, understood wrongly. Thought you were looking to buy one.
That caliber would actually have potential around here, too bad about the collector value but now it is what it is. Out in the prairies it would be great for dispatching gophers(that's not golfers) and coyotes.
My thoughts re the TAR
The No 7 is classed as a retube No4. alon with the No8 and 9.
.22mag has the same diameter as a 223 ans 222. at .224
So there is an argument that it could be used.
The proof in the compertition is on the shooter.
The TAR regs are still evolving,
I was the my departments 200m Open sights champ,
the first yearthe TAR was held, it was held at my club, Shot wit a Mauser in 8X64s.
Now I am an Arbitre, I would alow some one to shoot it at department level at 200m
and then see what happened at the Regional level, and then on to the Nationals if they made it that far.
It is one way to push change. it is the way some changes were forced to be made to the TAR when it was first introduced, It May cost a few euros to pay to contest. But I think it would be worth it.
For the training rifle comp, that may be harder, but again there is still a point to trying, I would still alow someone to use it and then see what happens, if no one contested then it goes to the next level.
I do not think it puts you at an advantage, could even be a disadvantage,
There are a number of things alowed and not alowed in the TAR,
that I do not agree with, so I am one Judge that is willing to push the rules to see where it goes.
Collecting value does not even enter in to it for me,
you buy what you like, history or story not important to me.
does it do what you want, it is an enfield, it still has a value, you can still put a .22lr barrel on to it.
I was thinking specifically for the trainer .22 class. But I suppose you could use it in modified at 200 metres.
If you are an "Arbitre" for TAR*, could you tell me if my L39A1 would be accepted for the modified class, if fitted with a blade front sight insert.
I've been told by other shooters that it's not ok because it's a competition rifle; but an L42A1 is ok. Even though they are almost identical and both converted from No4 rifles.
* TAR = Tir Armes Reglementaire; which is basically the French service rifle competition, for those that are not aware.
was it a version just for police?
Does it still have any origional No 4 T markings?
what are the sights you wish to shoot with,?
I think that if you turned it into a replica of a L42A1 then it would be ok,
I would have a file with the L42 specs and photos, along with the replica specs, 7.62 or 303 will not matter,
best example is the .22 norinco mauser copy that is alowed, compaired to an ortgional mauser K98 training rifle in .22. it just looks the same.
You are in a grey area, just say little and present the arm forinspection and see what happens.
If the specs are the same, cannon length diam,, cross, fore end, sights, etc, I would go for it, even if they are a little diffrent go for it,
it is a "Arbitre" decision, explain and push the poing, that they are the in all but markings.
---------- Post added at 09:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:53 PM ----------
From wickapedia
The L39A1 was a target-shooting variant produced for military full-bore shooting teams. It was similar to the L42A1, except it was fitted with Parker-Hale target tunnel front and micrometer-adjustable rear sights in lieu of the telescopic sight, and the butt had a curved pistol grip similar to the butt used on the No.8 .22 rifle. Since magazine loading was not required, the L39A1 had a .303 British magazine, the follower of which served as a loading platform for single shot use. The barrel was the same hammer-forged, heavy 7.62×51mm NATO version fitted to the L42A1.
The Enfield Enforcer was a police-specific sniper variant used by various British police forces from the early 1970s. It was similar to the L39A1, with a sporter style butt. It was provided with a high-quality East German-made Pecar Berlin telescopic sight. The telescope mounts were of commercial pattern; they did not resemble the No.4 Mk1(T) type screw-on mounts used on the L42A1. Target sights similar to those used on the L39A1 were also fitted to the Enforcer. The 7.62×51mm NATO magazine was fitted, and 767 were made.
The Enfield Envoy was similar to the L39A1, but was produced with a higher standard of external finish for sale on the civilian market. It had a fore-end of broader cross section and a sporter style butt.
So they are more or less the same.
so change mag for a 7.62.
Change cross
change sights.
that should work.
The L42A1 is not specificaly listed as a varient autharised it will come under Enfield n° 4 : Mod. 1932 x3.
as the L42A1 is No4 based, and because it uses the same scope and was a standard sniper issue it passes,
if you mount a 32 X3 then you are off.
Thanks for your replies. For the modified class (812) I have two options.
The L39A1 (7,62 NATO) would be a good rifle for that class, it has Parker Hale TZ rear sight and a matchmaker front instead of the scope; it already has the 10 round mag.
I also have the 1929 No1MkIII* to which I have fitted an AG Parker No9 rear sight.
It would probably be easier to use the No1 rifle; but it would be nice to try the l39 in competition.
[ATTACH]Attachment 80875[/ATTACH]
Both look nice, I would go for the L39A1.
it has the No4 T cross, the royal marines had a number of L42A1s with monticarlo stocks,
I would see how it goes,
where is you first round going to be held?
Hopefully at Chaussée St Victor near Blois. We have to shoot in a neighbouring department because we do not have a local 200 metre range. Which make practice a little complicated!
The only technical difference between the L42 and the L39 apart from the sights; is the fact that the L42's where made from No4 Mk1 T's and the L39's where made from No4 Mk2's. So minor difference in the trigger pivot location.
I may take both and see if they accept the 39 at departmental level. I can always use the No1 if they refuse.
it does not state a diffrence in the regs between, No4 mk1, mk1* or 2
They are all a No4s at the heart.
Put the L42A1 scope on and they are the same.
any way I would push the point,
How well have you shot the TAR in the past?
You are in easy reach of the new national range in Chateaux when it opens for the world championships 10 meters this year.
I am not far away about 45 min south, I go up to a friends often in the town and stay at times. Fantastic area for a stand,
ex us base till the yanks were thrown off. There is a Black airport in use there.
They left lots of WWII kit berried there and it is still contaminating the ground.
Threads 12, 13 and 14........... hold on chaps with glib answers like that. There's a pithy saying to the effect that you can be NEARLY right, but hopelessly wrong
For the TAR comp, it is down to what is written in the regs, and
the No4 is listed as just No4 with 32 X3 scope,
another part of the regs alows for copies of a militer rifle to be used if it is in the sam
ethics or flavour, style etc. caliber does not matter soe ant thig from .224 to 8mm is ok.
Odd things like being able to use the MaS 54 but rubber cup on any make and type of arm.
As a Judge I would let him use the L39A1 with a L42A1 sighting set up.
So scope or open battle.
So original does not matter for the comp,
and replica scopes, mounts are all alowed.
I think the old pub stories are starting to creep in too much these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by read6737
So the History that came with my Cross, Attachment 80891Attachment 80892 A Monte carlo style, not sure how else to discribe it.
It came from a friend a RTD Royal Marines Lieutenant colonel. who was given it by his Armourer in the Royal Marines. He was told by the Armourer that he had taken it off one of the Sniper rifles, So it may not have been an L42A1,
It was given to him when he took his SMLE MkIII, ( that is marked F.I.D.F. Falkland Island Defence Force.
The only one saved when they were thrown into the sea off the Islands. He got the permission to keep one.)
Frome the Armourie and he moved on to highrt iobs.
So NOT a pub story,
See attached photos, It had a hard red rubber but pad as well.
Thanks read6737, I very much doubt it come off a L42, more like a L39........I was only referring the comment in post #12, (the Royal Marines had a number of L42A1s with monticarlo stocks) regarding a pub story...... things like that escalate after a few pints, then the next thing we know all the Left hand shooters in the RM's had there SA80 converted so they could shoot left handed...
So would the Royal Marines have held the L39A1s for compertions?
When I have spoken to my friend about some of his work,
he did talk a little about personalisation of some arms and kit,
ie, the 9mm browning removing the grips as it was rather too fat to hide,
I do know that snipers had some licence to change things, but I am not sure how fare they were alowed to go.
But that my depend on what part of the milatery you were involved with.
I know a little of his other work, and it explains some of the things he talks about and the specalised kit he has kept and his shooting interests. And like me is now a compertition Judge.
The L39A1 was introduced as a tri service rifle for sport target shooting. So yes the it would have been available to the Navy.
I tried to see what No 4 my cross had come of about 7 yrs ago,
I remember I think that it looked like something the Canadians had used / tried,
cannot remember if the profile was the same or very close.
Mine looks similar to the L39A1s but not quite the same, It looks less well finished, less polished more utilaterian.
I did ask why the Armourer took it off, and the reply was sometjing like it was not the right one for the gun.
That is as much as I know, I would love to know more about it,
any ideas any one.