C no.7 / #7MkI

Tbolt

Tbolt

CGN frequent flyer
Location
Montreal, QC
Hi Guys

I just have a quick question for you, in your parts section you list parts for the #7MkI .22lr, are these parts interchangeable with the C No. 7?

The reason I asking is that I have come into possession of a 1946 LongBranch C No.7 receiver that I would eventually like to complete into a rifle and am wondering if I can use the parts listed on your site to get that goal started.
 
Tbolt said:
Hi Guys

I just have a quick question for you, in your parts section you list parts for the #7MkI .22lr, are these parts interchangeable with the C No. 7?

The reason I asking is that I have come into possession of a 1946 LongBranch C No.7 receiver that I would eventually like to complete into a rifle and am wondering if I can use the parts listed on your site to get that goal started.
Click to expand...

The problem is barrels. There are lots of receivers around, but barrels are another story.
You could put a shot out .303 barrel on it and have it sleeved to .22. It won't be correct but then it isn't now either.
 
i know of a cadet place here that still has a number of the no 7's since im a ex cadet from this vary place i mite go there and see if thay will off load them into a gun shop as there wanting to get rid of them

receivers are easy to i think the ones that were sent in got dismantled and not destroyed i dont know what happened to the barrels but

the no 7's are the same as the no 4's right size wise there just .22lr i bet some parts can work like the stock and trigger parts
 
The bolts are different, rim-fire versus center-fire, but what I meant was is the receiver the same dimensions as a #4 receiver? if so I could use #4 parts to make a complete rifle. This one that I have is brand new, and it would make an interesting project
 
How do we know that Longbranch did not apply the same heat treatment to their No4 and CNo7 rifle receivers? Has anyone seen details/documentation available on just what the Longbranch heat treatment specs were for both receivers? If so, many would be interested in just what these specs were.

It seems peculiar that Longbranch would use one heat treatment spec for nearly a million No4 rifles and then switch to a different spec for a comparatively miniscule quantity of CNo7 receivers. Obviously the CNo7 riles were made for the comparatively low pressure .22 LR cartridge, but why would the heat treatment spec be different, especially considering that a large portion of the CNo7s were produced concurrently with the No4s.

Apart from the different dimension lateral holes for the rear sight there is no apparent physical difference between the No4 and CNo7 receivers.
 
PURPLE;
"Has anyone seen details/documentation available on just what the Longbranch heat treatment specs were for both receivers? "
As most know Long Branch closed over half a century ago, most records no longer exist....

My information is based on having spoken with a person who at one time was the head armourer at Petawawa, this was many, many years ago, he told me that the receivers were treated difefrently, that one could make a no7 on a No4 receiver, but NOT the otherway around.

This person provided me with many of the technical manuals for the Canadian rifles that were copied for our reference library....He was a gold mine of practical knowledge

Then again I only have this man's word on it....
John
 
Heat treating cost more money and only rifles used for combat purposes would require it. Also, the C No.7 rifles mainly used parts for No.4 rifles (unlike the British No.7's, whose actions were unique, and which would have been considerably more money to produce.) The No.7's were made as training rifles that could be used for target shooting, so there is a great similarity between then and the No.4's. For anyone who wants a No.7 rifle, a large number are out there, since the government sold off lots of them in the 1960's. I have heard the same thing about the softness of the steel in the No.7's. When they were originally issued to some cadet corps (around 1946) they were not to be cleaned, as frequent cleaning would wear out the rifling. The ammo used in those days had a coating of beeswax which would protect the barrels.
 
Let's set the record straight. There is no reason you can't make a 303 rifle out of a CNo7 rifle.
Yes the bolt bodies are exactly the same for a CNo7 and a No4. Only the firing pin is altered and the bolt heads are are different.
 
johnone said:
PURPLE;
"Has anyone seen details/documentation available on just what the Longbranch heat treatment specs were for both receivers? "
As most know Long Branch closed over half a century ago, most records no longer exist....

My information is based on having spoken with a person who at one time was the head armourer at Petawawa, this was many, many years ago, he told me that the receivers were treated difefrently, that one could make a no7 on a No4 receiver, but NOT the otherway around.

This person provided me with many of the technical manuals for the Canadian rifles that were copied for our reference library....He was a gold mine of practical knowledge

Then again I only have this man's word on it....
John
Click to expand...

I started a thread on this in the MILSURP forum and it will be interesting to see what other info, if any, comes up. If there isn't any technical data forthcoming, there may be some first-hand reports of sucess or failures with building .303 or 7.62 rifles on the C No7 actions.

I have copies of several of the Cdn Forces EMEIs on both the No 4 and the C No7. There is one which deals with modifying a No4 receiver for use on a C No7 rifle when a C No7 receiver was not available. Nothing on the reverse, but there would have been ample No4 receivers around so there would be no need to do so. Also the hole for the sight cross screw on the right side of the CNo7 receiver is larger and wouldn't work with a standard No4 cross pin.

I'm going to try to contact someone I know who used to build heavy barrel single shot varmint rifles in .223 Remington on both Longbranch and Savage No 4 receivers. They weren't a thing of beauty, but they shot well and safely. He wouldn't build one an a Brit No4 receiver though, claiming that these were softer. If I'm able to contact him I'm going to ask if he ever did one of these on a C No7 receiver.
 
bruce said:
Let's set the record straight. There is no reason you can't make a 303 rifle out of a CNo7 rifle.
Yes the bolt bodies are exactly the same for a CNo7 and a No4. Only the firing pin is altered and the bolt heads are are different.
Click to expand...

you could but the bolt would be sent back into your face when firing a high pressure round like the .303 brit or any other centerfire round

the .22 rimfire has next to no pressure this is how so many single shots get away with using the bolt handle as a locking lug (the cooey model 60 even uses this)

its not safe if you want a no 4 buy one theres thousands in canada
 
SMALY;
Tell me you wrote this as a joke, right ?

"Heat treating cost more money and only rifles used for combat purposes would require it. "
How did you arrive at this brilliant conclusion ? Of course you must nbe basing this on your personal experience.... How many receivers did you check out for hardness ?

"For anyone who wants a No.7 rifle, a large number are out there,"
I will garantee you a healthy finders fee if you can locate say 100 units, a small lot..


"I have heard the same thing about the softness of the steel in the No.7's."
I think we would all appreciate sharing your knowledge in this matter, could you tell us how you came about this knowledge ?

"When they were originally issued to some cadet corps (around 1946) they were not to be cleaned,"
Are you for real ?? What cadet corps or other unit(s) were you part of ?? You would be skinned alive if you allowed you rifle to get dirty, this is almost funny....

"as frequent cleaning would wear out the rifling. "
This is brilliant, how the hell did you arrive at this one ?

" The ammo used in those days had a coating of beeswax which would protect the barrels. "
Protect them from what ? Plated .22 ammo did not exist in "those days" as you put it.
Yes it was a lubricant, the same as today's lead bullet shooters lubricate their cast bullets before loading them....

If these barrels were so poor how come so many people used these very same barrels to make themselves .22mag rifles, even some .22 Hornet, many .218 bee just to name a few ??

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom