Factory converted No 4

[rhodders]

During the late sixty's a number of armory stored Faz No 4 rifles were converted to 7.62 x 51 with the intention of converting the rest after testing.

The full conversion never happened due to unfavorable reports on the converted rifles compared to the original 303. These were I think designated
the L8.

Would any of you learned gents know if the report is in the public domain and what it is called.

Rhodders

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.

[bradtx]

Rhodders, They were indeed called L8(A1-A5 subtypes). Not much more than a mention in any web site I've visited so far. Most were surplused off in W. Germany, IIRC.

Brad

[Claven2]

The L8's, as I recall, were trialled during the suez crisis in 1956-57 (the 7.62 NATO round having been developed in 1954).

As I recall, there were issues with the converted guns that led the military to decide to continue on with the .303's until SLR adoption.

I don't think it was a safety issue since many guns were similarly converted in Canada and subsequently used for competitive DCRA shooting. they saw a lot of rounds with a very satisfactory safety record.

I think instead, the decision to not adopt the L8 was economic. I suspect the MOD didn't consider the upgrade worthwhile from a financial perspective.

In any event, I've yet to see a legitimate L8 variant for civilian sale. There was a rumor floating about a few years back that the trials rifles were ordered thrown overboard off the coast of Egypt at the end of the suez action. Not sure if it was ever validated?

Anyhow, I know there are a few in the pattern room collection, but aside from that am not aware of any being about.

Granted, you could just go get a 7.62 DCRA Longbranch and you would effectively have the same thing

[limpetmine]

I have a picture of an L8A1. Thats as close as it gets. I've heard the Germany rumor, as well, but suspect that as we'd have first hand reports of them in the hands of collectors by now.
A fellow I know has what he says is an L8, but is unmarked. He said that they made the conversions but didnt engrave them until they were sold and had a buyer ready to take possession. Never heard that anywhere else, before or since. His is an L8 in every respect, but not marked. Lots of questions. I've not been able to make contact with him in the last year, so I don't know if he still has it or not.
My 2 cents.
limpetmine

[rhodders]

I am awaiting delivery of a 1955 faz No 4 unissued and now in 7.62 x 51 it is not a canadian re-import.

It's in the blonde beech wood and has a No starting with A70xxx and I am starting to wonder about its history. We wait and see.

Thanks for the info

[limpetmine]

I would be very interested to know what the receiver markings are. That sounds like an unusual beast. The serial number is a common prefix, and is right for the era. I wonder if they didn't use a different serial number sequence for the L8's. I'll check my picture and see if it has the serial number in it. ATB

[rhodders]

This was a very rare beast indeed.

The Unissued No 4 MK 2 was delivered to my designated gun shop for inspection, not being rifle literate to the degree to check whether the gun is correct or not I had two friends check it out.

These guys have at least 60 years experience with all kinds of rifles not to mention 120mm tank rounds.

The beast was taken apart by the venerable duo and found to be a 1941 maltby rof at least twice and the last one after the recognised closure date of the FAZ factory.

Some of the numbers were rather hard to find but find them they did under overmarked other numbers.

The 7.62 conversion would seem to be a rather amateur job apparently using a converted 303 mag and extractor.

In conclusion let the buyer beware and always get expert knowledge.

rhodders

[Alan de Enfield]

The beast was taken apart by the venerable duo and found to be a 1941 maltby rof at least twice and the last one after the recognised closure date of the FAZ factory.
rhodders

I'm confused :
a) when you say it was a Maltby ROF twice do you mean it was built a Maltby rifle and then FTR'd by Maltby ?

b) I cannot see the connection between the Maltby factory and the closure of the Fazakerly factory - two different factories 100s of miles apart ?

[rhodders]

The original rifle action was built at Maltby in 1941. It was then rebuilt twice the stamps indicate that it was done at Faz ROF the last stamp indicates that the FTR was done AFTER the Faz factory had closed. The Maltby factory had closed previously.

In all a good looking put together but a bastard all the same.

rhodders

[Edward Horton]

The answer is in Peter Laidlers “An Armourers Perspective: .303 No.4 (T) Sniper Rifle and the Holland & Holland Connection.

The forearm was bedded and tuned for the .303 cartridge and if each .308/7.62 conversion was not reworked and rebedded accuracy suffered. It was cheaper to manufacture the L42 with a free floating barrel than rework each fore end of the L8 Enfield.

As Dennis Hopper said in the movie Easy Rider “Bad vibes man, I’m getting bad vibes”.






Read and look at the following:

The Canadian Marksman (Bedding the 7.62mm No.4 Rifle) - 1965
https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=867

1991 No.4 (All Marks) .303 Rifle Manuals (Complete Set) see bedding section
https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=3322