CANADIAN ARSENALS 7.62mm

[Brian Dick]

Good info Lee Enfield. I do realize that they are all conversions and not originally built in caliber 7.62. Were the 5G or 6G marked target rifles glass bedded at CAL or later by Canadian Armourers? I have to say it's an extremely neat and tidy job. Did the so-called "factory special" target rifles all have the receivers drilled for the P-H front scope base? Bill Wylde did a study on these many years ago but it was mainly to find as many as he could that were still in existence. Skennerton states that only 200 or so were built/converted but there's very little information on them.

[Lee Enfield]

Good info Lee Enfield. I do realize that they are all conversions and not originally built in caliber 7.62. Were the 5G or 6G marked target rifles glass bedded at CAL or later by Canadian Armourers? I have to say it's an extremely neat and tidy job. Did the so-called "factory special" target rifles all have the receivers drilled for the P-H front scope base? Bill Wylde did a study on these many years ago but it was mainly to find as many as he could that were still in existence. Skennerton states that only 200 or so were built/converted but there's very little information on them.

The CTFOs direct which rifles were to be selected for conversion to target rifles (5 & 6 groove barrels), the only Enfield scopes and scope mounts described in any CF paperwork I have seen are the various Canadian No4"T" scopes (No32, No32 TP and C.No67) and mounts.

[55recce]

CanadianGunNutz.com

long thread about DCRA rifles that some may not be aware of

[superbee]

I have collected DCRA's for 30 years.Seen all kinds of conversions.Many were modified to meet each shooters need.They were not woried about value.I owned 30 -40,lost count.As with most collectors I bought nicer examples and sold the rest.I seen several examples with canadian barrels but no conversion # or proof mark.I kept one that is pristine/new.I was told from the previous owner it was a "prize' rifle given out at a DCRA meet.It has higly polished blue and new stock(not refinished).I have another one properly marked with conversion #'s and also has the same high polish blue,I assume another "prize rifle",again pristine with new stock.Was this done by the factory or someone else?

I also have 3 rifles marked with 5G and C inside oval.A 1950 and a 1949 LB both have dcra 7.62 conversion #'s with a stamped 5G.The other rifle is still a .303 but it has a electro pencil 5G mark.Are these the so called "competition rifles"??

I have another DCRA 7.62 that was used in the 1967 palma match , a 1949 LB with a nice horizontal laminated factory stock and a 1956 LB with a vertical laminated stock.

The prize of the collection is DCRA #1.The first one built.It is a brit maltby.
The highest number I have is 1951.Anybody have one higher??

[smle addict]

I have a 1950 LB Mk 1*, serial number 1291BC. I bought it over 20 (1993) years ago from a man named Doug Fraser. I believe he was in the Canadian Air Force, and shot with it at Bisley. When I last talked to him (2001) he said he bought the rifle as a 303, and sent if off to be converted to 7.62mm. He did re-iterate it was not done at CAL. It is odd in that the original serial number is scrubbed off and 1291BC is stamped over it. Same for the bolt. I even have his old P-H score book in the safe with the rifle.

[superbee]

I had a LB rifle with a canadian arsenals shipping tag with the rifle serial # showing it was converted to 7.62,but the rifle was not stamped with a conversion # or proof mark.I assume that some were not so marked??

[bros]

Thanks Lee Enfield for all the valuable info. If I do become the owner I certainly would not desecrate the originality of the firearm in any way by making another hole to accommodate the ejector.....the tab on one of the Indian mags sounds like an excellent solution!!!! Thanks also to Brian and the others that chimmed in....your wealth of info is invaluable, I wish I knew more!!!! Milsurps is something special, we have the world's foremost authorities and I'm thankful for that!!!!!!! If this firearm is said to be an authentic CA conversion, why would it not be equipped with a Parker Hale sight as opposed to a regular ladder sight? There is no indication of what MK series this sight is...it's LB and CA stamped though. My regards.

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.

[browningautorifle]

Those sights are worth lots and could have been stripped off to sell separately. I've even seen the T cheekpiece added... I wouldn't be paying a premium for this rifle. Too many questionable things. Just buy a rifle and forget the story about it supposedly being made by...and being original...so on and so forth. Come up with what you're comfortable paying.

[Peter Laidler]

Like I said earlier in my comments. I can't believe that an Arms factory would send out a weapon with that low standard of work. Ok, so it's just aesthetic but dear o' deary me...... who on earth sanctioned it. I'll tell you this, he wasn't trained at Carlisle of that you can be sure. I have to agree with BAR. This is a classic case of buy the rifle and not the story

Talking of which, I'm at an ex Carlisle apprentices reunion this weekend, at Carlisle of course. I'll take that photo..........

[Surpmil]

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.

I've heard they were magnafluxed for cracks; don't know for sure. They were definitely hardness tested as the Brinell tester marks can be seen in a certain place on the underside of the receiver.

The DCRA shooters chopped and changed these rifles any way they wanted and almost any way the regulations permitted: stocking, bedding, wire-wrapped barrels, fibre-glassing....you name it, they tried it. And as mentioned there were lots of new barrels in circulation since as we all know, competitive shooters like to change barrels as soon as they believe there is any decline in accuracy.

Your rifle looks like it has been slathered in oil bros, or is it varnish?

I don't see any photos of the conversion number or proof marks if any, so is it a Canadian Arsenals conversion or a put-together?

The number on the butt socket could be anything: the owner's favourite number, the number on the bolt, his kid's birthday, whatever. CAL didn't care if the numbers matched and neither did most of the shooters. I was told by persons involved at the time that if your bolt failed the hardness test, they would substitute another - or perhaps you were told to send in another - can't be sure now without asking again.

Point to remember is that disposable incomes were not what they are now in the 1960s and a lot of shooters did not want to sent in their .303 target rifle for conversion and so be without it. So they would put together an action with a bolt and receiver found somewhere and send that in.

I suspect there may have been a degree of scepticism as to how well the 7.62mm versions would work competitively anyway. All those guys had grown up on .303 and many of them were WWII and even WWI vets who knew that cartridge well.