No 4 LB 762
- Thread starter touch157
- Start date
maple_leaf_eh
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
The target rifle shooters didn't need to fire from the magazine. All shots had to be single loaded. So the Sterling magazine is a nice addition, but someone did it after the fact. An ordinary No.4 magazine is enough of a flat loading platform for the extractor to pick up the cartridge. Sell that to someone who desperately wants one, and use the money for what you want.
In the 1960s, converted No.4s were allowed and were competitive until better rifles came along. The shooters would have two or three rifles on the rack - one that was shooting well, one that wasn't, and another off at the gunsmiths. The shooters sent as good a rifle as they had off to be converted. No point in sinking $$$ in a losing rifle. So, the mismatched bolt is an after the fact issue. The 7.62 bolt head is critical! The pressure marking and the extractor make it work. What happened to the original matching bolt? Only the guy who couldn't find it knows. These things don't break or wear out. They get separated and are lost. Simple as that.
In the 1960s, converted No.4s were allowed and were competitive until better rifles came along. The shooters would have two or three rifles on the rack - one that was shooting well, one that wasn't, and another off at the gunsmiths. The shooters sent as good a rifle as they had off to be converted. No point in sinking $$$ in a losing rifle. So, the mismatched bolt is an after the fact issue. The 7.62 bolt head is critical! The pressure marking and the extractor make it work. What happened to the original matching bolt? Only the guy who couldn't find it knows. These things don't break or wear out. They get separated and are lost. Simple as that.
Does the bolt have the proof mark from the 7.62 conversion on top at the root? The conversion number was stamped on the receiver ring and on the top of the bolt handle, along with the stylized maple leaf. If there is no conversion proof, it is a standard .303 bolt.
If the bolt isn't the conversion bolt, better check headspace.
If the bolt isn't the conversion bolt, better check headspace.
Last edited:
- Location
- Western Manitoba
OP, your rifle is converted, but you do not say by whom. As per the previous posts, if I was in the market for a former DCRA / CAL conversion to 7.62, the markings on receiver, on the bolt and on the bolt head would get my attention first. Serial numbers, not so much. Next concern to me would be the condition of the rails at that bolt head removal slot. It is a Long Branch. That means it is a Mk.1*, as your pictures show. That means it has that weakness / wear point / failure point that did not exist on the Mk.1 rifles. All would be reflected in the price, to a knowledgeable buyer. If buyer does not know or care, the value could be anything?
My Lee Enfield reference book is not here yet, but going from "memory" - I think the Sterling mag might have been more appropriate in the L39/L42 type of rifles??? I think there was an Enfield made magazine as well, for that 7.62 application? I will have to go with previous posters that the Sterling magazine was not part of the DCRA conversion - I have no references that say one way or another about that, but at least as for your opening post, you are not claiming the rifle was a DCRA / CAL conversion.
My Lee Enfield reference book is not here yet, but going from "memory" - I think the Sterling mag might have been more appropriate in the L39/L42 type of rifles??? I think there was an Enfield made magazine as well, for that 7.62 application? I will have to go with previous posters that the Sterling magazine was not part of the DCRA conversion - I have no references that say one way or another about that, but at least as for your opening post, you are not claiming the rifle was a DCRA / CAL conversion.
Last edited:
Assuming this is a DCRA conversion as long as the conversion numbers on the barrel, receiver and bolt all match then it should be considered a matching example. As these were built for target shooting the bolt may have been swapped out for one that had better lug engagement or the original simply didn’t pass inspection at the time of conversion. Again assuming matching conversion numbers that is the bolt the rifle passed proof firing with so is now the correct bolt for the rifle.
As for the Sterling magazine though a nice addition it would technically only be correct for a Sterling conversion.
As for the Sterling magazine though a nice addition it would technically only be correct for a Sterling conversion.
All the official British Govt conversions that had a 7.62mm mag would have had the Enfield magazine. The Sterling mag was part of a special conversion kit originally offered to other countries to convert their stock piles of No. 4 rifles. The Sterling conversion kit included a new extractor which required a new hole in the side of the No. 4 receiver. The Enfield 7.62mm magazine incorporated a tab on the magazine lips that functioned as the ejector.
The Enfield mags to work properly required a little milling to allow the front tabs to seat properly as the 7.62 round is shorter the mag dosent quite fit in the inletting for the 303 mag tabs so the milled section where the front of 303 mag fits into the reciever is milled back a bit towards the rear of the reciever not much just enough to allow the mag to seat properly otherwise it may be at a bit of an angle at the front and the last round may stovepipe or if you force the mag to seat you may pinch the tabs in making it hard for the rds to feed ..i have one rifle that is properly milled no issues my stirling mag works ok im lucky it ejects because the rifle its in does not have the extra hole and ejector screw ...one other thing that came with the stirling conversion was a stripper clip guide you could install and drill and tap to make it loadable with c1/l1 stripper sclips ..not easy to find....i havent pulled my target enfieds out in a couple years i may have to pull them all out just for a peek
