Looking for info on C.No7 front sight info.

[A square 10]

i think i would go for it , you have the very best in your court here and its a worthwhile cause , looks to be a nice rifle with what little we have seen of it ,

[smle addict]

I know I'm way late on responding to this thread,

Here are a few pics of the muzzle area of My DCRA 7.62 Long Branch. Parker Hale FS22 sight. Looks like a single pin retention. Hope it helps...

[Peter Laidler]

Don't quite know what your're referring to addict but it's chalk and cheese. Your block band foresight is retained radially by two great big foresight block lugs and the smallpin just prevents it moving fore-and-aft. But on the No7C there's no foresight block lugs to prevent rotation......., just two small pins that I wouldn't consider soldier proof by any, even the wildest stretch of the imagination. But that's how it is/was!

[D-BOMB]

Well I hit a gunshow today and couldn't track down any parts, however I did find a "C No.7" there...But it didn't quite add up. I figured I wouldn't start a new thread and I would just post here.



First off it had the "Type one" marking but was dated 1945, not really sure if there was a transitional period or not.



Second, It wasn't in the correct serial range for a 1945 according to the article here. To add to that, the serial looks rather haphazardly applied.

It didn't sting to much passing on this one.

[browningautorifle]

Looks like a bit of a re-strike...maybe a bit of an altered number. Possibly a .22 built from a .303?

[D-BOMB]

Well it had a legit no.7 barrel so I'm not sure.

[browningautorifle]

Well, if you have the barrel and bolt...and mag, all the small parts too, it's most do-able. If you have facility to parkerize this could be what you come up with. I've seen it done. The marking on the left side of the receiver isn't right. No mention of C#7 on there...

[Brian Dick]

There were a few different ways that the bodies were marked. That's a legit 1945 C No.7 body marking. I'd guess it's a rifle assembled using correct surplus parts. I can see the grind line where the original serial number was taken off. Whoever built the rifle just stamped their chosen serial number on the butt socket, (and bolt?), later. I built two rifles using legit surplus C No.7Mk.1 receivers that had the original serial numbers ground off and had then been Parkerized. I bought one of them in Canada as a component part and the other from a former match shooter in Indiana who had accumulated quite a few parts during his competition shooting days cross border. One was a 1945 like that and the other dated 1946 with the C No.7Mk.1 designation present. There were some former Canadian Armourers in Ontario that assembled quite a few rifles just like it back in the 80's and 90's. Remember, the parts were auctioned off directly from Long Branch in the 1970's after it was shut down. I imported a few complete but obvious "new build" C No.7 rifles many years ago just like it. I also had a LB No.4Mk.1* in .22 that I imported and then disassembled to use the barrel for one of my builds on the original serial number linished body. It had a LB 1956 date C No.4Mk.1* replacement body numbered for a 77Lxxxx, 1944 rifle. Always check the rear sights to be sure they are assembled correctly on the "after the fact" builds. If memory serves, I always had to repair the rear sights before I could sell them which was just a lack of attention to detail on the part of the builders. I got most of the parts from Marstar at the time for the rear sights.

[stencollector]

I will agree with Brian's assessment of the rifle. The early type one marking with a 1945 date is somewhat rare, but authentic. The changeover to type 2 marking must have happened fairly early in 1945.

The serial number is a tad high for a 1945, and especially for an early 1945. But as Brian has pointed out, the area shows the typical flattening where the army removed the serial numbers. On an original unmolested receiver the area is nicely curved. As well, there should be the superimposed LB mark just over the serial number......they were usually burnished out at the same time as the serials. I hate to point this out as the fakers will start adding these marks as well.

[Brian Dick]

I'll do some photos of my two for comparison. I was mistaken as the one I have with the early markings is 1944, not 1945 dated although I completely agree with stencollector's remarks about the changeover. You'll see the grind line clearly on it. I cleaned up the ground butt socket on the other 1946 dated receiver with the later markings and reParkerized it myself. Both are excellent shooters. Love the .22's!