Early EAL

[Mike Webb]

Picked up a decent EAL. It is in pretty good shape and has the military style butt instead of pistol grip sporter style. Canadian Arsenal marked and looks identical to those pictured in 48/49 Eatons catalogue. Serial number 1031 which is pretty high for the military buttstyle from what I can learn. No calibre designation just EAL , no periods after letters. You can see a military forearm was used by the gaps in inletting in top views. Also still has loop at front of floorplate.

 

[CMichaud]

It looks like the receiver has a bevel fore and aft? Or is just the pic making it look like that?

 

[Mike Webb]

No bevel, just an illusion or my superior photography skills, HA. Read online that highest miltitary butt EAL seen previous was 7 hundred something serial number. Not a lot of info regarding EAL rifles but definitely more now than twenty years ago.

 

[bearhunter]

I didn't know the militar versions were issued with that two position type rear sight or a ten round magazine.

It's possible I guess, but I believe your EAL is a civilian version

The military versions I've seen all have five round magazines and a two leaf tangent rear sight mounted on the barrel. Some I've seen were drilled and tapped on the side to accept the Weaver scope base and the odd one even had the base with the 3X Weaver Steel Lite scope.

 

[Potashminer]

My guess - a pure "guess" - is that easiest explanation for mismatch of butt stock shape to serial number is that someone replaced original with a military stock, at some time - likely would be signs around the fitting of that Jostam recoil pad, if that were the case?? Maybe takes more assumptions that 300 plus serial numbers have never been reported with that style of butt stock? I am sure that I read that Canadian Arsenal - formerly Long Branch - had changed out numerous No. 4 303 British to 7.62 NATO - so maybe that "CA" stamp on a military butt was not terribly uncommon in those days (1950's or so?).

 

[Mike Webb]

The stock is original. Like I said knowledge on EALs is pretty sparse. It is identical to the catalogue item from Eatons in early 50's. I wasn't implying it was military, just that the earliest commercial Eals were made with modified military stocks. Fit up of recoil pad is same as originals. Sling swivels are identical. I've read that many were used by Canadian government land surveyors and mappers back in the day. I have no idea how many in the first 1000 produced are even documented, certainly not very many. As an aside the stock is thinner in width than the military issue as I have read EAL slimmed the military butts down.

 

[CMichaud]

Fair amount of info here

https://sites.google.com/site/essentialagenciesltd/home

Note that the Eatons catalogue listed them for sale in Fall 1948/Spring 1949 according to that site.

From the FB group, #1076 had a "Type B" style butt. The list of known ones out there lists 24 rifles which are sub-1000 SN

 

[bearhunter]

My guess - a pure "guess" - is that easiest explanation for mismatch of butt stock shape to serial number is that someone replaced original with a military stock, at some time - likely would be signs around the fitting of that Jostam recoil pad, if that were the case?? Maybe takes more assumptions that 300 plus serial numbers have never been reported with that style of butt stock? I am sure that I read that Canadian Arsenal - formerly Long Branch - had changed out numerous No. 4 303 British to 7.62 NATO - so maybe that "CA" stamp on a military butt was not terribly uncommon in those days (1950's or so?).

The stock is very likely original. When EAL offered their civilian versions they used the same stock, with the same Jostam butt pad and fore end.

Like the OP opines, I believe the rifle is original as it left the EAL assembly plant. I can't remember but I believe they sent out the receivers to be milled by a jobber??? Please correct if my memory fails.

It was also possible to contact EAL directly and have them build a rifle to your specifications from a list they provided.

I don't believe they modified any "personal" civilian rifles by contract but would only build from their existing stores.

OP, you rifle would be a Type B. Not type A

The military butt mentioned in that list would be the original military butt with the black or pot metal butt plate

 

[Mike Webb]

Thanks for the clarification. I think the machine shop that did the work was St. Francis and Sons of Toronto if I remember right. At least they did the actions with all the lightening cuts etc. I was cofused by the " military" butt, didn't realize they made them with standard military butts and no recoil pad. The pot metal buttplate was called Zamak, a zinc alloy.

 

[CMichaud]

Thanks for the clarification. I think the machine shop that did the work was St. Francis and Sons of Toronto if I remember right. At least they did the actions with all the lightening cuts etc. I was cofused by the " military" butt, didn't realize they made them with standard military butts and no recoil pad. The pot metal buttplate was called Zamak, a zinc alloy.

I think there is a bit of confusion.

Your rifle shows the classic signs of the "Type A" rifle.

- A modified military butt affixed with Jostam pad
- A modified military fore stock which retains the lightning cuts.

"Type B" rifles had purpose built butts and fore stocks.

Both retained the 2 position battle sight (over) stamped 200/400

A couple of pics...

Eatons Catalogue 1949

Type B - Canadian Arsenals "Sporter .303" listed in Defence catalogue circa 1968

 

[bearhunter]

CMichaud, I've seen other EAL rifles with the same butt stock, fitted with the Jostam type butt pad. Jostam made the pads in different sizes for other rifles as well.

That butt doesn't have the usual purpose built sporting configuration.

It would help if the OP had taken a pic of the left side of the receiver flat. No EAL stamp, not an EAL.

 

[Mike Webb]

Wondering about the battle sight. I have other no.4 enfields and the 300/600 marked sights on them look to be identical to the 200/400 marked ones on the EAL when measured with calipers. The EAL sight on mine is in fact over stamped 200/400 on 300/600 markings.

 

[Potashminer]

Wondering about the battle sight. I have other no.4 enfields and the 300/600 marked sights on them look to be identical to the 200/400 marked ones on the EAL when measured with calipers. The EAL sight on mine is in fact over stamped 200/400 on 300/600 markings.

I am not doing too good about "guesses" on this thread, but will try once more - perhaps the shorter barrel is what alters the ranging - even though the rear sights measure to be the same. Or perhaps a different height of front sight between the centre of the bore and the front sight?

 

[Mike Webb]

CMichaud, I've seen other EAL rifles with the same butt stock, fitted with the Jostam type butt pad. Jostam made the pads in different sizes for other rifles as well.

That butt doesn't have the usual purpose built sporting configuration.

It would help if the OP had taken a pic of the left side of the receiver flat. No EAL stamp, not an EAL.

Will take a pic. Marked left siderail EAL 1031, think I mentioned that previous but will post a pic.

 

[CMichaud]

A sample of sub-1000 EAL butts

 

[Mike Webb]

I am not doing too good about "guesses" on this thread, but will try once more - perhaps the shorter barrel is what alters the ranging - even though the rear sights measure to be the same. Or perhaps a different height of front sight between the centre of the bore and the front sight?

Maybe you're onto something with the height of the front sight relative to the rear. Apart from the overstamps they look to be the same.

 

[bearhunter]

Will take a pic. Marked left siderail EAL 1031, think I mentioned that previous but will post a pic.

There's your proof.

Thanx CMichaud for your pics. Those all appear to be ''civilian'' versions with the ten round mags and two position, flip up rear sight.

If those were made for the military, that's news to me but I will not say never happened just because I haven't seen it.

I've seen a lot of "Ranger" issued EALs and none of them were in the configuration shown in your pics.

That being said, if there were only a thousand of them made for the military in that configuration and being issued to the Rangers, it's not surprising I haven't seen one.

Wheaty would know for sure what the Rangers were issued and what the military purchased.

Surprised he hasn't chimed in yet.

 

[bearhunter]

There was a pic with this write up but it wouldn't post when copied and pasted


TYPE A

The Type A rifle was produced by EAL as their first rifle. Type A rifles seem to have been equipped with a Lee-Enfield style butt . Serial number ranges for this pattern are believed to lie approximately in the 001-1000 range. The earliest number seen to date is serial number 175 and the highest known Type A rifle is #1031. By #1076, the butt had been changed to a purpose built civilian pattern thus the transition from Type A to Type B likely occurred between these two numbers.

The Type A rifle had a military finish on the barrel and a two position Mk II peep sight as found on military Lee-Enfield rifles. Magazines were of the 10 round variety. Type A rifles retained the breech cover tie down loop found on the front of the trigger guard.

Over the years it has become known as the "Civilian Pattern" although this may in fact not be an accurate statement. There are reports that these rifles were the pattern initially ordered by the RCAF as a survival rifle in the 1950s however this has yet to be corroborated and is believed to be unlikely.

Key attributes of the Type A are as follows:

Markings. Type A receiver markings consist of EAL ### (no dash and no periods between the EAL).

 

[CMichaud]

There's your proof.

Thanx CMichaud for your pics. Those all appear to be ''civilian'' versions with the ten round mags and two position, flip up rear sight.

If those were made for the military, that's news to me but I will not say never happened just because I haven't seen it.

I've seen a lot of "Ranger" issued EALs and none of them were in the configuration shown in your pics.

That being said, if there were only a thousand of them made for the military in that configuration and being issued to the Rangers, it's not surprising I haven't seen one.

Wheaty would know for sure what the Rangers were issued and what the military purchased.

Surprised he hasn't chimed in yet.

The only military rifles I have seen with the early butt are the RCAF survival rifles.



Re Rangers, they received Type C

 

[Mike Webb]

So, correct me if I'm wrong, I am often but mine may have originally been an RCAF rifle or might have been sold commercially?