CANADIAN ARSENALS 7.62mm

[newcastle]

I always understood that the DCRA rifles had serials up to about 2000. I have two, one uses a 303 mag as a single shot platform and the other has a Sterling mag fitted. the DCRA number on both on the received ring is semi underneath the forearm.

[Peter Laidler]

I have to come clean and confess that I don't know a thing about DCRA and LB target shooting or rifles. But from my bleedin obvious viewpoint I doubt very much whether LB/CA would lather thick layers of varnish over a target rifle where grip is a fairly important aspect of accurate shooting. And I equally doubt that they'd let anything go out of the factory with number stamping like that over a clearly linished and badly made off over numbered butt socket. I could be wrong of course but....

As for those locating or drawer patch dowels, I'll say no more

[55recce]

The nut and thick varnish may be part of the rifle's legit history. I own several DCRA and some have some interesting mods obviously done to try and wring out some additional accuracy. One has the bolt as descibed and the other a very heavy layer of varnish that has formed into drips and solidified. I know the source of this rifle and it was used by a Canadian target shooter and went to Bisley. I think the heavy varnish was likley to make the stock impervious to outside moisture to eliminate any changes that humidity/rain might have on the woodwork

[bros]

Genuine DCRA conversions as done by Canadian Arsenals Limited will have the serial number on the receiver ring and on the bolt handle. As BAR says, the mags and extractors were standard .303 as the rifles were intended for competition which only required single loading anyhow. Original serial numbers were not altered. The pictured rifle in post #3 appears to me to have been built later by someone using a serial number scrubbed spare receiver which were common in Canada. I agree with Maxwell Smart about the magazine. Numrich Arms sells reproduction 2A/2A1 mags that look just like the originals and function well. The finish on repros is better than the originals.

---------- Post added at 10:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:13 AM ----------

Almost forgot: They will also sport the tri-cornered Canadian Technical services proof on both the receiver and bolt handle.

---------- Post added at 10:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 AM ----------

"tri-cornered maple leaf". Need more coffee!

Brian, just to clarify!! The receiver ring serial # you refer to....I take it that's the serial given by CA and not the original serial at time of rifle manufacture? This one I'm trying to pry away from the owner does have the "tri-cornered maple leaf" proof mark you speak of on the receiver ring and bolt handle (looked in Skennerton's the Lee Enfield story but could not find it), the impression on the bolt handle is hard to make out, it's been lightly stuck. The "0" on the end of the 1500 is also lightly struck on one side. It makes sense to have struck the tri-cornered proof right after cause it is right behind the 1500 and the depth of impression again is lighter. I have done some stamping on small metal parts in my day and there is finesse in being able to leave a proper impression, if not holding the stamp perpendicular to the part, one side is not as deep and the other could too deep, it's even more difficult when stamping on small round parts with oversize stamps. Easier than it sounds!!! Maybe the poor fellow assigned the task of proofing rifles that day was a bit hung-over and couldn't hold the stamp straight??
Anyhow thanks for the responses so far guys....got to get this picture thing figured out at some point.
.

---------- Post added at 10:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:38 PM ----------

Oh yeah forgot!! Did the installation of a Sterling ejector require another hole just forward of the original extractor hole???

[Peter Laidler]

I wouldn't agree with that assumption Reccy. Moisture WILL penetrate, even if it's where the thick slippery varnish isn't present such as inside the fore-end. If that were the case, we'd have varnished all the wood in Malaya. Instead we used linseed oil to saturate the wood. And your hands won't slip either. The shooters must have hands like sandpaper to grip a fore-end like that. Just my 2c's worth

[Brian Dick]

You're correct on the CAL serial number bros. The original serial number on both the left side of the butt socket and rear of the bolt handle weren't altered in any way. As newcastle states in post #11, sometimes the receiver 7.62 conversion serial number is under the woodline as they were obviously stamped with the woodwork off. I've seen a few like this. The one you're looking at is most likely legit.

Yes, the Sterling ejector is held by a spring which is attached to the original ejector screw hole. It protrudes through the new hole that must be drilled for it. I have one of the "factory specials", a 1949 Long Branch that was made for the Canadian Army shooting team and it came with an Enfield 7.62 D65 extractor and magazine. It was also glass bedded at CAL and is drilled for the Parker-Hale scope mount on the top of the receiver ring.

[Lee Enfield]

Hi guys I'm trying to talk a fellow co-worker into selling me his Canadian Arsenals 7.62mm rifle No4MK1*. The conversion was done to 1943 Longbranch and yes the bolt has matching #'s to the receiver, the fore-stock #'s also match. No bayonet lugs on barrel...and at the front of the barrel it is marked 7.62mm along with the CA stamp. It is equipped with a Sterling magazine which some clown drilled not one but two holes trying to make it a 5 shot mag!!! The rifle has had some serious bedding work done to it. The middle sling swivel, just forward of the mag is the tall type, which I understand is correct for this gun. On the receiver ring, 1500 is the number stamped in and that number is also stamped on top of the bolt handle, I suppose it is the 1500th rifle that was converted. It is missing the ejector which is a shame!!! The receiver ring also has what I believe to be the CA stamp (it's very small), it also has some other small stamps and as well is England marked.
The rifle feeds flawlessly out of the Sterling mag and extracts but obviously with no ejector it's a bit of a pain. The bore condition is pristine!!! The stock has about a 2" crack just forward of the wrist on the left side but other than that wood is nice condition. Bubba also put a small bolt and nut where the fore end reinforcing pin is supposed to be!!!!! The sight is the standard vernier ladder and is CA and LB stamped. Where these sights calibrated for the new 7.62 round?
Would CA have ordered the complete Sterling kits from England inspite of them manufacturing and using there own barrel? Maybe they just ordered mags, extractors and ejectors??
As I try to swing a deal with the fellow, do these rifles command a fair premium over a standard Longbranch?? I also need to know if there is a source for ejectors.
Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.

The guns were returned from conversion equipped with:
1-303 extractor (works fine as a single shot)
1-303 magazine (used as a single loading platform)
1-303 Cmk4 rear sight (competitors (usually) replaced with their own sights)

About 50% of the DCRA 7.62 conversions I have seen are on British commercial proof marked actions...be they Long Branch, Savage, Maltby, BSA or Fazakerley.

Actions used were: No4MkI, No4MkI*, No4MkI/3, No4MkI/2 and No4Mk2 (I have owned examples of each).

I've seen (and owned) a number of rifles butchered to install Sterling (type and style) ejectors...The Indian (2A1) and Enfield (L8/L42) solutions are much more elegant...

I would fit the extractor to force the case against the side wall of the receiver which will perform most of the function of the ejector.

Since the Numrich Indian 2A1 replacement magazines became available...its much easier to source an inexpensive but excellent quality magazine...which doesn't require machining of the receiver to seat properly. I would modify your magazine to the L8/L42 style by welding an ejector tab to the magazine rather than making any mods to the receiver.

The conversion numbers are on the right side of the receiver ring (often hidden under the wood line), the right side of the barrel reinforce, and the top of the bolt arm as described.
Each conversion number has the technical services "rolled maple leaf/stylized crowfoot/arrow head" with a small "P" at the tip of the point.

[Brian Dick]

I always understood that except for the rifles converted for the CF shooting teams, anyone belonging to a service rifle club could send/bring their standard No.4 rifle for conversion. They were tested for cracks and then done as long as in spec and it was safe to do so. That's why the broad spectrum of No.4's were done from all of the factories. I think the cost was $165 or somewhere in that neighborhood as I saw an original CAL invoice for the work at a friend's place in Ontario many years ago. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Lee Enfield]

...snip... I have one of the "factory specials", a 1949 Long Branch that was made for the Canadian Army shooting team and it came with an Enfield 7.62 D65 extractor and magazine. It was also glass bedded at CAL and is drilled for the Parker-Hale scope mount on the top of the receiver ring.

One of the things which seems to be not well understood is that few (if any) of the guns were originally built as 7.62 rifles.

They were all conversions of .303 DCRA member supplied rifles...except where the (customer) supplied receiver failed proof/inspection and needed to be replaced.

My 1955 Long Branch 7.62 DCRA is marked with the boxed 5G (or 6G) which indicated that the gun was originally fitted with a 5Groove (or 6Groove) .303British barrel.

I would suggest from the evidence that my 1955 was originally built as a "factory" target rifle from spare replacement reciever, then converted to 7.62 when the program was underway.

[browningautorifle]

NOW we're getting down to the meat of it.