Canadian No.7 .22 caliber lightweight sporting rifle

[breakeyp]

This strange rifle showed up a local show. It is a Canadian Long Branch No.7 Mk1 .22 rimfire rifle from the first production run receiver markings, (1Lxxx). Fully adjustable disc rear sight and the magazine follower is the wishbone design shaped to allow single feeding of .22 long rifle rounds into the chamber and still allow magazine collection of fired cases.

Who ever did the conversion work must have had access or knowledge of the one piece stock Canadian Lightweight .303 rifle. The general work is of far better quality than the typical sporterizing effort.

Attachment 56448Attachment 56449Attachment 56450Attachment 56451

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Peter Laidler]

That removal of the butt socket was a feature of some UK 50's gunsmiths who thought that they were inproving the rifle by butchering it. There's no reason to think that this rifle is anything but from their butchers slab/works. Or if not, the idea seems to have been taken from there. They certainly had various butt/fore-end monstrocities to select from. That having been said, the quality of said butchery was said to be acceptable.........

[Bruce_in_Oz]

I recall that Charlie Epps was doing this sort of "re-engineering" in Canada back in the '50s and '60s.

Probably no dramas with a rimfire, but "full-house" .303 tends to over-stress the woodwork a bit, especially if you are going for very light weight. The problem seems to be the lack of appropriate support and the limited structural strength of the timber when the action is both rear-locking and has virtually no rear recoil surface / shoulder, a la the J5550.

Losing the 2-piece stock system and its associated hardware may save a few ounces, which is OK in a hunting rifle that fires fifty shots a year, but NOT in a military rifle that also gets used for a multitude of other violent tasks (driving tent pegs, bayoneting opponents and cracking skulls, for example). As opposed to Mausers, Springfields etc, how many SMLE stocks ever broke at the wrist in combat?

[bigduke6]

how many SMLE stocks ever broke at the wrist in combat?

Reminds me of a programme the other night, about the Battle of Isandlwana (Zulu Dawn) were they were trying to find out a few facts from fiction etc, one theory regarding the lack of ammo was shot down as a lot of bent screws (were not talking prison guards) were found along with the ring pull/handle from the ammo boxes, a quick demonstration showed how or the reason for the many screws which were found, they are the ones that secured the sliding lid on the ammo box, in a trial with a replica ammo box the box was tilted over and the butt of the MH was used to tap the lid down which in affect broke the lid and bent the screw....

[Lee Enfield]

I recall that Charlie Epps was doing this sort of "re-engineering" in Canada back in the '50s and '60s.

Probably no dramas with a rimfire, but "full-house" .303 tends to over-stress the woodwork a bit, especially if you are going for very light weight. The problem seems to be the lack of appropriate support and the limited structural strength of the timber when the action is both rear-locking and has virtually no rear recoil surface / shoulder, a la the J5550.

Losing the 2-piece stock system and its associated hardware may save a few ounces, which is OK in a hunting rifle that fires fifty shots a year, but NOT in a military rifle that also gets used for a multitude of other violent tasks (driving tent pegs, bayoneting opponents and cracking skulls, for example). As opposed to Mausers, Springfields etc, how many SMLE stocks ever broke at the wrist in combat?

Not "Charlie Epps", his name was "Ellwood Epps"

[Ridolpho]

It's intriguing how you're reading along through the trials Lee's, all with one piece stock, and then wham... Lee metford with the two piecer. Herbert Woodend , in the Pattern Room Catalogue states twice that the two piece stock was an economy measure meant to use stockpiled Martini blanks. The crucial rifle (# RB 190, "Enfield Lee"), unfortunately isn't pictured in the book. Anyone out there have a photo by any chance? All isn't totally rosy with the two piece stock, of course, as the forend still gets stressed and cracks- just finished repairing a cracked No. 4 T forend so I'm cursing two piece stocks! With the Russky Tokarev SVT 40 (also rear locking bolt) they progressively increased the dimensions of the one piece stock until they stopped cracking at the wrist. The final end product is a more than adequate club.

Ridolpho

[Bruce_in_Oz]

OOPS!

Of course, Jake's brother...........

Must wake up before typing.

[Surpmil]

A certain faction of the target rifle crowd here were fans of the one piece stock. As far as I could find from questioning some of the suspects it came down to a belief that two piece stocks were inherently prone to flex at the joint causing inaccuracy. I suspect that at times it was a symptom of a Mauser prejudice and an emotionally-driven determination to make the Lee Enfield, whose compensation and long range accuracy they could not afford to ignore competitively, more like the rifle they preferred for its supposed mechanical superiority!

Interesting little rifle that; someone making something useful out of the surplus stuff that was once so plentiful they were at times just throwing it away.

Your comment on the Tokarev Ridolpho reminds me of the Ross MkIII stock wrist: awful in a word. Odd since the Ross sporting rifles (and the MkII rifles) had such superbly formed stocks, but with a front locking action, the amount of additional metal required to provide for a two piece stock is hard to justify, though the advantages are many: ease of maintenance, use of materials, fitting of the rifle to the soldier etc.

[limpetmine]

Indeed, there are those that will take a saw to one and put it in a single piece stock. I have an Envoy butchered as such.
May attempt a resto someday.

A certain faction of the target rifle crowd here were fans of the one piece stock. As far as I could find from questioning some of the suspects it came down to a belief that two piece stocks were inherently prone to flex at the joint causing inaccuracy. I suspect that at times it was a symptom of a Mauser prejudice and an emotionally-driven determination to make the Lee Enfield, whose compensation and long range accuracy they could not afford to ignore competitively, more like the rifle they preferred for its supposed mechanical superiority!

Interesting little rifle that; someone making something useful out of the surplus stuff that was once so plentiful they were at times just throwing it away.

Your comment on the Tokarev Ridolpho reminds me of the Ross MkIII stock wrist: awful in a word. Odd since the Ross sporting rifles (and the MkII rifles) had such superbly formed stocks, but with a front locking action, the amount of additional metal required to provide for a two piece stock is hard to justify, though the advantages are many: ease of maintenance, use of materials, fitting of the rifle to the soldier etc.

[Surpmil]

Indeed, there are those that will take a saw to one and put it in a single piece stock. I have an Envoy butchered as such.
May attempt a resto someday.

Ouch! I felt bad when my as new ENVOY came with a bubba'd bolt knob.