Rifle No.7 .22 LR

[Brian Dick]

I've never seen one of the alternative single shot mags for the BSA No.7Mk.1. Didn't even know they existed. Thought I'd go all day and not learn anything. Thanks for the continuing education Peter!

[newcastle]

That magazine sounds similar to the loading platforms in the original magazine on the Belgian .22LR No.4 conversions (done by ARM) I think in the late 1940's. I used to have one but sold it to get my L42.

[Peter Laidler]

You are actually correct Jona. It's not just a simple conversion. While you do have to reverse the catch, pin and spring, if the catch axis pin hole is slightly too high, the magazine will sit too low in the internal housing and not feed. Axis pin hole too low and the magazine sits too HIGH in the internal housing. Same if you don't get the 'stop-step' correct too. So if you do alter one, just be careful

[Alan de Enfield]

Was told that it was the standard BSA .22 magazine with the catch reversed. Friend of mine in Canada said he successfully converted several BSA magazines by doing the "reversal." From what I have seen, you would have remove the catch, reverse it, then drill a new hole for the retaining pin/rivet.

If you look at my post above (number 23) you can see the differences - mag on the right is a No7 Mk1 whilst the one on the left is a 'standard' BSA mag.
Reverse the locking catch, drill the pivot hole and 'trim' the tinwork a little - and away you go.

[Buccaneer]

On the UK No7 rifle subject, does anyone out there possess one of the alternative magazines that were issued for them? I never hear them mentioned when the No7 rifle and magazines are spoken of. It was a usual outer magazine but internally it had a small platform that was spring loaded at the front and fairly articulate at the rear. The rear incorporated a small knib that acted as the ejector. It was purpose made for single shot loading. |The reason being that while the Army No8 and Navy N9's were single loading in any case, the RAF No7 was magazine feed only and this was not permitted in some competitions, You weren't permitted to single shot feed the No7 because in doing so, it could distort the auxilliary extractor support which could cause it to slam fire when you closed the breech. They were issued one per gun and there were still some in the RAF Cadet armouries for many years plus a couple in my sons old school Cadet Armoury cupboard

Peter I have just been reading the NRA Historic Resource Centre article on the No7, It states that these single shot magazines were electro pencil etched on the base with an RAF part number 7B/1061/M, it also says they are not to sure when they were used, perhaps you could enlighten them... http://www.rifleman.org.uk/Enfield_Rifle_No.7.html

[Peter Laidler]

Better still Buccaneer, you can tell them! This is the only site I can be bothered to write on. To be honest, I didn't realise that anyone even knew about the little single loaders and they're right.........., it DOES indeed have the AM number etched

As I said earlier AdeE...... You can convert them but just be very careful. If you do drill the new axis pin hole slightly out, then due to the thinness of the steel and the complexity of the fitting, there's no repair apart from a bit of a bodge. And how do I know this? You're right...... I spoiled one many years ago but luckily managed to swop the spoiled one for a real one when an RAF No7 was being scrapped (or stripped for spares as I recall......)

[DaveN]

Another dilemma? I was thinking of a Lee Enfield, maybe a No 4 MK III. It seems they are out there and the price for surplus not collector seems reasonable. So why would I plunk down 2, 3 or 4 times that for a No 7. Is it the rarity? Or pay the same for an incomplete No 7? It's what I call caught in a pickle.

[Peter Laidler]

It's not really a dilemma DaveN it's just that the No7, albeit slightly incomplete, might be 3 or 4 times the proice of a No4 Mk2 (I assume that's what you mean.....) but the No7 is a zillion times more rare. It's like having an engineless MGB GT V8 in the garage. Only 2591 made against a zillion MGB's and hence a zillion times more expensive. BUT even with all this rarity being talked about, there is still only two prices................ YOUR price and HIS price

As a bit of an aside, I don't believe this 2,500 figure for No7's. It might be the RAF contract figure - and we still don't actually know that for definate, it was an assumption based on the highest BSxxxx serial number. There were still plenty of unfinished rifles at the factory when it was cleared and they were disposed of. So the total PRODUCED (as against the RAF contract quantity) could be a lot more. How many more is conjecture, but it is definately more............

[Mk VII]

I never used the magazine, after the novelty had worn off. Having to stop after five and reload the thing was more trouble than it was worth (plus if you put more than four in they burst out of the top). I took the special parts off and use it as single loader

[Old Lancer]

PaulN
I have to agree with MkVII, once the novelty has worn off it would be more practical to single load in match circumstances a' la' the No2 Mk4, the real advantage for shooters over collectors is the No4 based trainers and the No8 have the longer sighting radius as well as the inherantly more accurate aperture sight. So if you intend to buy a trainer to shoot with rather than look at then maybe you should look at a No2 Mk4 and trawl e-bay for one of the older type peeps that fit onto the safety catch spring, (a BSA No 9 I think But I'm happy to be corrected).
Thats my 2c worth