CANADIAN ARSENALS 7.62mm

[bros]

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.

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.

[browningautorifle]

The sight you need would be a Parker Hale, the original ladder was NOT for 7.62. The mag mine had back in the '70s was the 303 mags and that's how it had been used for target shooting for years before I got it. I think the barrels were done by LB and all kept in house. Mine also had the four digit serial and the CA for the Canadian Arsenals... I think the mag and bedding was added long after the conversion.

[twincamharley]

Here are some pics of how mine came out of CA

[browningautorifle]

I always have to ask...how do you KNOW that came out like that? Did you get it from the CA yourself? The way the number's struck looks like mine too. What's the manufacture of the mag?

[twincamharley]

Well, the fellow I bought it from, said that was how it came new in the box, He was in his 80's,so take it for what it is.
The mag is the same or similar to the L2A1 conversions. It is in as new condition, same as rifle, so it does appear to be original to the rifle

I always have to ask...how do you KNOW that came out like that? Did you get it from the CA yourself? The way the number's struck looks like mine too. What's the manufacture of the mag?

[browningautorifle]

Well, the fellow I bought it from, said that was how it came new in the box

I've heard that one before. I have the stories to go with...

[Maxwell Smart]

I think the mag might be an aftermarket Ishapore 2A type, which might explain why it looks so new.

[Brian Dick]

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!

[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???

[Brian Dick]

Yep, me too Jim.

Turn the sling over. It's on upside-down and the hooks will scar up the woodwork.