7.62mm DCRA LE No4 conversion thread

cantom said:
It wasn't a real DCRA conversion?

BTW, a friend of mine has 6 DCRA 7.62 conversion rifles, plus 2 .303 DCRA rifles. Some of these have been to Bisley. All of them are beautiful. He has virtually every different sight that was used too, I believe every one of them is different.

truc_pics_003.jpg
Click to expand...

Those are some pretty rifles. If he ever grows tired of looking at them...
 
cantom said:
It wasn't a real DCRA conversion?

BTW, a friend of mine has 6 DCRA 7.62 conversion rifles, plus 2 .303 DCRA rifles. Some of these have been to Bisley. All of them are beautiful. He has virtually every different sight that was used too, I believe every one of them is different.

truc_pics_003.jpg
Click to expand...

Still waiting for my old one to get added to the pic! :p
 
When I started shooting these were a fairly common rifle. I really don't remember ever seeing a 308 mag on any of these rifles except the then new Envoy and the like. Every time I see a 308 mag on a DCRA rifle I think it is a Bubba, I could be wrong but I don't think so and fitting one is not correct and plainly wrong. When 7.62 came in the service rifle was the FN so SR shooting was done with it and not the #4 so there was no need for them to feed from a mag or eject so they did not. Our club had an issue of FN's from DND which were handed out to members for the season for SR.

If we go back to 303 days the #4 was used for both SRa and SRb (tr and sr) and did need to feed and eject for sr which it did. Issue sights were required for sr and that is why I have seen very few ejector screws long enough to function with a 5C or an AJ, eject was not needed on a tr gun so no one bothered even for 303. The same gun was not used for both tr and sr.
 
Ian;
I do not look at a DCRA with a Sterling mag as a bubba because by the late 60`s and well into the 70`s it was not uncommon to see the conversions with these magazines. Was it correct for the rifle? not really but when one shooter does it sometimes others follow. Is it right that these rifles have had a 7.62 extractor added when they came back from CA with a 303 extractor ?
I have handled a DCRA conversion with a Stirling mag that had the 303 charger slot repaced with one for a 7.62.
As Vimey Ridge points out he is still waiting for an updated pic and on his rifle it even had a tag issued at the Bisley range stating Target Sights, Magazine Sterling Square Box.
Some of my DCRA numbers
491
548
575
1202

khornet
 
I am not sure what that tag represents? Looks like a description tag from a collection, certainly did not come with it when converted and not tagged at Bisley because they didn't/don't do that.
 
I know a fellow who has the DCRA conversion that shot 2nd in the Governor General's match in 1967. It was owned by the last RCAF Queen's medalist.

As far as the "Bubba" stuff, the QM winner put a VERY ROUGH Monte Carlo stock on this same rifle on the ranges at Connaught, during a competition. Having done it himself, at a match, for the purposes of shooting TR, to me, makes it unique not a bubba.

The rifle also went to Bisley.
 
I agree tree, and by putting the original butt back on it is once again original, same as the mags. Many seem to think there was a set way things were done but there is a lot of variety. The real "official" conversions were done for DCRA but many tr guns were put together from parts and therefore don't have all the expected markings. They can have anything from #4 wood to a fiberglass stock and I guess they are conversions as well but not "official" DCRA conversions. While we were still on issue ammo everyone had a #4 for long range but at the end I doubt any were in original wood (I have a rack of this stuff, all of which was a Bisley with me or someone else). My point is really that many think there should be a 308 mag with these guns (perhaps with some rare exceptions) but this is not the case. They search for a 308 mag thinking it is needed to make it all original and it is not, hopefully they don't misplace the original mag especially if it has a matching number. I expect to see a friend soon that was well involved during that period and I will try to squeeze more info from him on this topic.
 
Last edited:
Ian Robertson said:
I agree tree, and by putting the original butt back on it is once again original, same as the mags. Many seem to think there was a set way things were done but there is a lot of variety. The real "official" conversions were done for DCRA but many tr guns were put together from parts and therefore don't have all the expected markings. They can have anything from #4 wood to a fiberglass stock and I guess they are conversions as well but not "official" DCRA conversions. While we were still on issue ammo everyone had a #4 for long range but at the end I doubt any were in original wood (I have a rack of this stuff, all of which was a Bisley with me or someone else). My point is really that many think there should be a 308 mag with these guns (perhaps with some rare exceptions) but this is not the case. They search for a 308 mag thinking it is needed to make it all original and it is not, hopefully they don't misplace the original mag especially if it has a matching number. I expect to see a friend soon that was well involved during that period and I will try to squeeze more info from him on this topic.
Click to expand...


What I find facinating is the bedding variations which were tried. At one point I had about 25 bedding variations in my accumulation of high quality junque.

Standard No4 stocks go from the fitted standard military bedding (shims glued in to result in the perfect muzzle, knox & draw bearing surfaces and weights), thru about 3 main variations of centre bedding and end with basically a fibreglass pillar bedded free float.

A lot of machinists layout blue was used to ensure perfect fitting of the stock to the gun.

Interestingly it seems that the actions were glued in on a regular basis. So if your forend is not budging DO NOT attempt to force it off.

Also I've seen handguards which are totally free floated. Handguards which are rear, centre or front bearing "dampened", and handguards which are "packed" to totally ensure the dampening effect along their whole length.

Trigger guards were also regularily shimmed and bedded.

Everything was tried at some point, match legal or not.:kickInTheNuts:

Workmanship ranges from beautifully blended & fitted professional custom gun grade to hack and dab "bubba watch this....".
 
Last edited:
Can't forget the 'rake screw' forestocks, LE. If the forend doesn't come off easily, remove the butt and look for screws inserted into the forestock from the butt socket. You can bet there have been some well done forestocks ruined from forcing the issue.

I have a No 4 conversion done this way that came to the U.S. with a returning 1967 Palma Team member. This rifle sports a complete set of beautiful laminated wood and I can't imagine ripping that apart.
Fortunately, one of the upper handguards is marked as having rake screws installed.
 
I have a SMLE set up this way but the screws go to the rear and are accessed through the mag well. In the #4 303 days the SMLE was still used for long range and the #4 for short and mid.
 
Ian Robertson said:
I have a SMLE set up this way but the screws go to the rear and are accessed through the mag well. In the #4 303 days the SMLE was still used for long range and the #4 for short and mid.
Click to expand...

Interesing info there, I'd never heard of that rake screw setup, valuable info to know, I imagine people have indeed ruined forends trying to remove them not knowing about that...
 
Corben1 said:
Can't forget the 'rake screw' forestocks, LE. If the forend doesn't come off easily, remove the butt and look for screws inserted into the forestock from the butt socket. You can bet there have been some well done forestocks ruined from forcing the issue.

I have a No 4 conversion done this way that came to the U.S. with a returning 1967 Palma Team member. This rifle sports a complete set of beautiful laminated wood and I can't imagine ripping that apart.
Fortunately, one of the upper handguards is marked as having rake screws installed.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did forget this. I haven't had one myself, but have held at least one locally. Seen ones which just dimple into the butt socket, and ones which thread into it.

They seem to have been quite popular in Australia judging from the pics of SMLEs so equipped that have shown up on the internet.
 
Last edited:
Ok so this one is mine. As I understand it the full conversion, including bedding, was done by CAL. The weapons techs who did the work put their signatures on the inside of the hand guards. The original owner was a VISL shooter and used it here in Nanaimo.

DCRAdetails2.jpg


DCRAdetails.jpg
 
Lee Enfield: You had an Edmonton Garrison DCRA a while back at one of the gun shows, think you had it for sale...Do you remember if it had a DCRA conv#?
 
I'm always amazed at the condition of those conversions that remain more or less original. The main reason, I'm sure, is that these conversions were in the hands of good caretakers, and their service length was short.

Many of the DCRA conversions were converted to target rifles and saw considerable use at the 'longs' over the years, especially in the days of poor service ball ammunition. These were used by the competitors due to the actions being checked for cracks, etc. at the time of conversion. These generally show wear from years of use. I would not want to guess how many of these conversion actions I've seen with butt sockets chopped and stuffed into Ian's stocks.

Only one conversion in my collection shows a lot of use. This one came from Maj. #### Hampton, along with a letter stating that it was one of the 1967 Palma rifles. This baby has been there and the barrel is rigidly cork bedded. Trust me, it remains very accurate!

Here is some history given by Maj. Hampton. Hard for me to believe it has been that many years ago!

IMG_0001-2.jpg
 
In fact all official DCRA conversions were intended as target rifles and nothing else. By the end of issue ammo most of the #4's for lr were made from any old #4 that one could find. None of my #4's in 308 started life as an official conversion although I am sure some did get cut up and "improved". In the start conversions were tested for cracks etc but by the end any #4 was used and approved after a visual inspection. I am not aware of any problems with this method.

Interesting to take note of the last dozen or so lines of Dicks letter with reference to mags, extractors and ejectors. I rest my case.

#### gave me a new in the white conversion barrel at one point which I still have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom