Magazine for Lee Endfield in 308 W. caliber
- Thread starter MBiz
- Start date
Auctions or gun shows are your best bet. Paying $300 is a deal. I have seen them listed for over $500. I would like one for my DCRA but I don’t feel like paying the price.
Where did you get your reproduction 2A1 magazine?
- Location
- WMU248 near Edmonton
well I guess I could test my 2A mag in my DCRA
As mentionned by Claven2, it was one of the ones from Numrich (Gunspartscorp) in the US. Keep in mind it wasn't a drop-in, I had to modify the feed lips and the magazine's feed ramp a bit.
maple_leaf_eh
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Whoever mentioned a 7.62 magazine for their DCRA conversion rifle has misunderstood the conversion concept. Britain was the only country seriously attempting to magazine feed 7.62 into No.4 receivers, whether as L42A1, Enforcers or Sterling conversions. The Envoys and L39s were single loaded target rifles.
In the 1960s and 70s after Canada switched to NATO ball ammo, there were two choices for Bisley-type target rifles. Many shooters sent their #2 rifle off to CAL or one of the approved gunsmiths to have the barrel, extractor and bolt head changed. The rifles were fired single-loaded at 300, 500, 600, 800, 900 and 1000 yds. Two sighters, seven or ten on score, with two shooters firing alternately. The rules did not require feeding from a magazine, so guys would drop one lovely DA 64 round after another onto the original .303 follower like a loading platform. When their #1 .303 began to disappoint, the shooter could send it off to be converted, or more often than not (because there was never a great deal of money to idly chase unsure bullseyes), they'd go over to a purpose built target rifle, either a P14/M17, a Mauser 98, a Carl Gustav, a Rem 40 or 700, a Win 70, a CIL, a Musgrave, or later a Sportco. The conversions quickly lagged behind as uncompetitive. For converted military rifles a magazine well was a liability, a weakness in the receiver compared to tubular receivers.
The DCRA's rules were generous, and it was a time of progress in leaps to move beyond military pattern rifles. The No.4 conversions were just not going to earn the shooter a place on the Bisley team. The qualifier to that was when IVI ammo came along, and it was awful! For some black-magic reason, some No.4 conversions with short stiff free floated Envoy barrels had a sweet spot trajectory flip that held the scoring rings better at 800, 900 and 1000 and beyond. My father's had a hogged out No.4 foreend and an unfinished high comb stock. Guys had their short range rifles and their long range rifles. The arrival of crowbar stiff Swing, Angel, RPA and Paramount receivers cleared up those leftover bit of McGuivery.
To conclude, a DCRA rifle was never intended to be a magazine fed repeater.
In the 1960s and 70s after Canada switched to NATO ball ammo, there were two choices for Bisley-type target rifles. Many shooters sent their #2 rifle off to CAL or one of the approved gunsmiths to have the barrel, extractor and bolt head changed. The rifles were fired single-loaded at 300, 500, 600, 800, 900 and 1000 yds. Two sighters, seven or ten on score, with two shooters firing alternately. The rules did not require feeding from a magazine, so guys would drop one lovely DA 64 round after another onto the original .303 follower like a loading platform. When their #1 .303 began to disappoint, the shooter could send it off to be converted, or more often than not (because there was never a great deal of money to idly chase unsure bullseyes), they'd go over to a purpose built target rifle, either a P14/M17, a Mauser 98, a Carl Gustav, a Rem 40 or 700, a Win 70, a CIL, a Musgrave, or later a Sportco. The conversions quickly lagged behind as uncompetitive. For converted military rifles a magazine well was a liability, a weakness in the receiver compared to tubular receivers.
The DCRA's rules were generous, and it was a time of progress in leaps to move beyond military pattern rifles. The No.4 conversions were just not going to earn the shooter a place on the Bisley team. The qualifier to that was when IVI ammo came along, and it was awful! For some black-magic reason, some No.4 conversions with short stiff free floated Envoy barrels had a sweet spot trajectory flip that held the scoring rings better at 800, 900 and 1000 and beyond. My father's had a hogged out No.4 foreend and an unfinished high comb stock. Guys had their short range rifles and their long range rifles. The arrival of crowbar stiff Swing, Angel, RPA and Paramount receivers cleared up those leftover bit of McGuivery.
To conclude, a DCRA rifle was never intended to be a magazine fed repeater.
Very well said. I have been building a L42A1 clone, and it annoys me quite a lot to see these magazines bought up and installed in DCRA rifles. Certainly don’t blame anybody, but the prices get outrageous for these magazines. Of course a repeating .308 No. 4 is awesome, but it isn’t correct for a DCRA.
As pointed out above, the DCRA converted rifles were intended to be used and were primarily used as single shot target rifles.
These rifles were converted some 60 years ago and are properly considered to be vintage Canadian collectibles.
No harm in using a 7.62 magazine, as long as the rifle is not altered.
Target rifles tend to get breathed upon to enhance performance. When the rules changed, many of the conversions were extensively altered. One of these rifles in service configuration is a survivor.
Only 7.62 magazine I have is an issue one, in a rifle I made up using a LB made 7.62 L8 barrel (with bayonet lugs).
These rifles were converted some 60 years ago and are properly considered to be vintage Canadian collectibles.
No harm in using a 7.62 magazine, as long as the rifle is not altered.
Target rifles tend to get breathed upon to enhance performance. When the rules changed, many of the conversions were extensively altered. One of these rifles in service configuration is a survivor.
Only 7.62 magazine I have is an issue one, in a rifle I made up using a LB made 7.62 L8 barrel (with bayonet lugs).
I have a No4 7.62 conversion which is not DCRA, but done by a private smith. It shoots extremely well, with just about any issue ammunition or I would have replaced the receiver on it with one which hasn't been bubbaed.
Whoever built this rifle was very handy and had a great idea.
He used an original magazine, cut back the rear lips and cut of the two guide lips on the front. Then he made up a single stack insert, with it's own guide lips, utilizing a flat spring/flat follower from another magazine. It fits tightly right in the center of the original mag and feeds all five rounds flawlessly. I haven't tried feeding it with chargers, but mostly because I've never remembered to bring any along.
I'm going to scope it up, maybe with a knock off No4 T system. We'll see if it's still an interesting project this winter.
Whoever built this rifle was very handy and had a great idea.
He used an original magazine, cut back the rear lips and cut of the two guide lips on the front. Then he made up a single stack insert, with it's own guide lips, utilizing a flat spring/flat follower from another magazine. It fits tightly right in the center of the original mag and feeds all five rounds flawlessly. I haven't tried feeding it with chargers, but mostly because I've never remembered to bring any along.
I'm going to scope it up, maybe with a knock off No4 T system. We'll see if it's still an interesting project this winter.
