7.62mm DCRA LE No4 conversion thread

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.
 
No disagreements, Ian. Any No. 4 action served as the basis of a LR rifle.

The collectors of today might have a hard time understanding that the conversions were just rifles years ago. Thank God quite a few survived.

From the early years of going to Connaught, I found it extremely odd that little regard was given these conversions among the target shooters. Also, little regard to other bits like common and laminated stock sets. The latter being highly sought after today.

Those that think the 308 magazines (and other mentioned parts) should be a part of a DCRA conversion should take note of that letter.

Just prior to that letter, #### had received and adjusted the 1982 Palma Sportcos. The number was 120 total. One hundred were right hand and twenty left hand. I tend to wonder if that number didn't stick in ####'s mind, as I seem to recall that only about sixty of the 1967 rifles were produced for the three teams of twenty that attended the match. I certainly wish someone could straighten out my thinking on that issue.
 
My 7.62 DCRA is conversion #390 and it was built on a 1945 Longbranch. Rifle wears a PH5C rear sight and when I bought it it had no mag and a .303 extractor. The stock is packed towards the muzzle with cork.

I added an L42 type 7.62 mag and 7.62 extractor. Does this make me "bubba"? I hardly think so. Take the mag out and reinstall the .303 extractor and the rifle is back as it was when I bought it. Is it original? No. It it fun to shoot? Yes!

If you have a few minutes to waste there is a video of it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unz8v4ichx4&feature=channel_page
 
P.E. Islander said:
My 7.62 DCRA is conversion #390 and it was built on a 1945 Longbranch. Rifle wears a PH5C rear sight and when I bought it it had no mag and a .303 extractor. The stock is packed towards the muzzle with cork.

I added an L42 type 7.62 mag and 7.62 extractor. Does this make me "bubba"? I hardly think so. Take the mag out and reinstall the .303 extractor and the rifle is back as it was when I bought it. Is it original? No. It it fun to shoot? Yes!

If you have a few minutes to waste there is a video of it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unz8v4ichx4&feature=channel_page
Click to expand...

PEI,

Very nice. Not a bubba at all. In fact it adds to the practicality and "shootability" of such a fine rifle. I have done the same with both of mine.
 
You know Ian, every time a discussion like this comes up, you draw a line on the sand in regards to your opinion and become very bullish and confrontational, which is unnecessary.

To quote your own words and show your own contradiction:


Ian Robertson said:
Many seem to think there was a set way things were done but there is a lot of variety.
Click to expand...


This just another way to do things. In fact I have been on the shooting line at ORA matches in the early 80's with all kinds of mods including ones just like the ones being discussed.

And don't deflect. This thread is not to discuss what was and what wasn't an allowed mod. This thread was to discuss all the remaining rifles that are out there and to catalogue them.

You are entitled to your opinion, but keep in mind that it is only your opinion.
 
Light Infantry said:
You are entitled to your opinion, but keep in mind that it is only your opinion.
Click to expand...

+1

Ian Robertson said:
Call it what you want but if you want original then it's not that, which is what this thread is about.
Click to expand...

You should just drop it, not a single other person agrees with you - a DCRA with a 7.62 mag is not a bubba!

There now I shared my opinion.
 
I’d like to add my opinion on this but let me start by saying to those who have added the 7.62mm mag. to there rifles let me just say these are your rifles so do with them as you will. Who am I to judge.
Now my 2 cents:
As designed both the Enfield and Sterling 7.62mm conversions required modification to the receiver. You can get around this with a bit of modification of the mag but if you were going to do the job correctly these mods would need to be done. As I see it if these mods were not done by the armory, in this case Canadian Arsenals, at the time of conversion then that magazine does not belong on the rifle. If it did then they would have done the work needed to make the rifle function properly.
Having said all this I think that having a 7.62mm mag on an otherwise original DCRA rifle is a bonus and adds to the value. P.E. Islander put it very well when he said:
P.E. Islander said:
I added an L42 type 7.62 mag and 7.62 extractor. Does this make me "bubba"? I hardly think so. Take the mag out and reinstall the .303 extractor and the rifle is back as it was when I bought it. Is it original? No. It it fun to shoot? Yes!
Click to expand...
Now if someone is contemplating doing the work needed to the receiver to make an original DCRA rifle into a repeater I have one that someone has spent a lot of time on getting it ready for what looks like a Sterling magazine. It’s an original DCRA conversion built on a Brit. receiver that was FRT’d to a Mk2 trigger that I’ll be putting up for sale in the EE for a reasonable price as soon as I can find some shipping boxes.
 
There are lots of #4's turned into 762 target rifles ad then there are "official" DCRA conversions. They are not the same thing.

It's like saying a rifle is an all original wartime issue #4 in 762. Therefore it can't be all original wartime issue.

Bubba is perhaps an extreme name but if you want an official DCRA conversion we know what it should have. Your gun and you can do whatever you like with it. I have a body that was chopped for a target rifle years ago so when I have time I am going to build a 308 tactical out of it, now that's a bubba!
 
Last edited:
Nowadays it would be a shame to alter an intact, original condition rifle. Exchanging magazine or extractor without altering the rifle isn't going to do any harm. Nothing to do with how the rifle was originally used, and intended to be used, but certainly not harmful. Many - most? - of the CAL conversions were altered while still being used for target shooting. That makes an intact version that much more collectible.
When CAL rebarrelled these rifles, did they do anything other than the barrel work? I find it difficult to believe that CAL would have performed centre bedding in addition to the calibre conversion.
 
In the 303 days there were "approved" bedding methods. I believe the idea was you could do a rifle that belonged to HRH this way because it was suitable for service as well or removable. Most of these ideas would have carried over to 762 conversions as well. I don't believe that any rifles were done when converted but bedded afterwards by a wide range of people.
 
I have the DCRA newsletter which describes tests of different bedding techniques used with the 7.62mm conversions in an effort to get them to shoot well. Don't know if there ever was an optimum system developed for the conversions before the rules changed, and major modifications were permitted.
 
# 517 1950LB Maj. C. M. Brown
# 544 1943LB Maj. R. W. Hampton
# 636 1944LB George Bjornstad

Maj. Brown's rifle has been converted to target rifle, but still makes use of a portion of the original laminated forestock. The barrel is a heavy Omark. The butt, I think, is Parker-Hale. The addition of the Sterling magazine was done without modification to the receiver.

Maj. Hampton's rifle remains in the service wood, with barrel rigidly packed with cork.

George Bjornstad's (long time Sec'y of the Illinois State Rifle Asso.) rifle uses center bedding and came to me with a sporting butt.

Being familiar with each prior owner adds special meaning to me, regardless of any modifications.

http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr153/corben1_photo/003.jpg
 
#315 1942LB F/Lt Phoenix (when actively shooting) retired Captain, CD, QM

And it has a rough Monte Carlo stock put on by "the last winner of the RCAF Queen's Medal" at a match at Connaught....Is it now a "Bubba" ??
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tree mugger
#315 1942LB F/Lt Phoenix (when actively shooting) retired Captain, CD, QM

And it has a rough Monte Carlo stock put on by "the last winner of the RCAF Queen's Medal" at a match at Connaught....Is it now a "Bubba" ??



I have to stop doing this.

I won't use the B word but it doesn't matter who had or used it it is not "original". Not to mention that he did not win the QM with that rifle. A Queens "Medal" is a service conditions match and he would have been using an FN in 1967 when he won it. Besides, the #4 would not feed or eject as converted to 762, unless those parts were changed as well, which they very rarely were.

Either it is original or it is not. Pretty simple. How many guns are there were we can say "if only I had this part it would be original". Of course changed parts can be put back if they are not lost or misplaced.
 
A photo of action #599 LB 1945. From the collection of Alan Reid. The fellow that was in charge of making those funny markings on the conversion actions. No history on this action other than it was at some point converted to hung trigger by Alan Reid. Probably long before it was subjected to the conversion process.

Also found conversion barrel #529 and would love to once again connect it with the original action. There are other conversion barrels around here, but have not had the time to search. At least one is new and assumed to be one of the 700 (or so) replacement barrels that Alan Reid told me were produced.

http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr153/corben1_photo/Action599001.jpg

If making a rifle 'original' means only to replace a common butt, I would not consider the rifle to no longer be original. When making the trip to Bisley in the days of the No. 4 SR, the competitors would normally take a rifle, minus the butt. I have one of the boxes that was made by the recently deceased, Col. W. J. Strachan, for rifles without butts. The reason for making such a box was the fact that a butt could be found anywhere. Sounds reasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom