Another EAL Question: New Pics Added

Anvil

Anvil

Regular
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
15   0   0
Location
SK
Has anyone seen this sight variation on an EAL ? The serial number is 28xx. I don't think this an add on sight it appears to have come from the factory this way.

clinic001.jpg


clinic002.jpg
 
Last edited:
EAL sight

Definetely not an EAL sight , nor the work of a talented gunsmith I'm afraid. Should be able to remove it and only have a screw hole to plug, that is assuming they didnt remove the sight tabs from the receiver. Sure as heck,someone will suggest it's some pre-production, proto-type EAL. How about pics of the rest of it?
Geoff
 
As mentionned above, if the receiver has been cut down, and all provisions for a rear sight removed, the receiver is military pattern. If military pattern, the standard rear sight is a 2 leaf flip sight dovetailed into the breech of the barrel, about where the CA stamp is. Yours obviously does not have the barrel dovetail. What is the pattern of the receiver? Does it have the lugs for a standard rear sight? If the receiver has been cut down, and in the absence of a sight dovetail in the barrel, it COULD be a variant. I don't know if anyone really knows the entire EAL story. There are the two recognised versions, but who knows what else they did. If the rear sight lugs are still on the receiver, I would assume that someone didn't like a peep sight, and installed the open sight. How is the band secured to the barrel?
 
tiriaq said:
As mentionned above, if the receiver has been cut down, and all provisions for a rear sight removed, the receiver is military pattern. If military pattern, the standard rear sight is a 2 leaf flip sight dovetailed into the breech of the barrel, about where the CA stamp is. Yours obviously does not have the barrel dovetail. What is the pattern of the receiver? Does it have the lugs for a standard rear sight? If the receiver has been cut down, and in the absence of a sight dovetail in the barrel, it COULD be a variant. I don't know if anyone really knows the entire EAL story. There are the two recognised versions, but who knows what else they did. If the rear sight lugs are still on the receiver, I would assume that someone didn't like a peep sight, and installed the open sight. How is the band secured to the barrel?
Click to expand...


Actually, with the military the sight is well forward of the broadarrow mark.
Heres mine:
EALCU1_1_1.jpg


So the only questions that remain are:
What is the serial #
Are the rear sight tabs still in place (civilian)
How is that replacement sight band attached?
 
wrongway, if you look at the above pics, there is a side profile. There isn't a dovetail cut out that can be seen, unless its been filled.
I have to admit, it looks like an add on to me. I've seen sights that look like that before. I wonder if there is a makers mark on the underside. If it's homemade, it's not a bad looking job at all and is at least removeable. The only real issue is that the fore end looks to be inlet for the bbl band. bearhunter
 
If there were a dovetail on the rifle pictured, it would be very close to the CA. Yours has the CA mark further to the rear. My military pattern EAL, 6###, has its CA in the same position as yours, closer to the receiver.
If the receiver is altered, it would suggest that the banded sight is the only sight ever fitted, and is probably original. Standard No. 4 receiver, the sight is an add on.
In the first situation, I don't think the sight should be touched. In the second, removal would leave the cuts in the stock, and probably marks on the barrel.
 
Eal

A little bedding compound etc could fill the inletting for the barrel band and not be to noticable. IMHO, EAL's are more a "curio" than a milsurp, so a little personalizing isnt going to hurt them to much.
Geoff
 
The civilian EAL is a commerial rifle assembled from surplus parts. Whether it is any more desirable than a Parker Hale, Churchill, Ellwood Epps, Globe, etc. rework is an open question. An EAL actually issued and used officially is different. It is an ex-service rifle.
 
Eal

Couldnt have said it better myself tiriag. I'd have thought the "civilian" model would have been more suited for the military and the "military" version more appropriate for hunting when you think about it. The ones I've had were "civilians". They're handy little rifles for sure.
Geoff
 
The rear sight on the military is mickey mouse compared with the service sight. The open notch aperture is too close to the eye, the sight is fragile, and in service, the leaves tend to fall over. Similarly the 5 round magazine makes little sense for service use. I do not know how the Gov't. came to buy the EAL .303s. It makes no sense for these to have been assembled from parts from Long Branch and bought back, when CAL could just as easily have turned the rifles out. The EALs issued to the Ranger Patrol where I lived were unpopular.
 
tiriaq said:
The rear sight on the military is mickey mouse compared with the service sight. The open notch aperture is too close to the eye, the sight is fragile, and in service, the leaves tend to fall over. Similarly the 5 round magazine makes little sense for service use. I do not know how the Gov't. came to buy the EAL .303s. It makes no sense for these to have been assembled from parts from Long Branch and bought back, when CAL could just as easily have turned the rifles out. The EALs issued to the Ranger Patrol where I lived were unpopular.
Click to expand...
I think the issue was timing rather than logic. How many times have we seen government contracts being let after some significant milestone has passed.

I also think the EAL rifles were intended as "handy rifles" versus day-to-day rifles. Easy to store on an aircraft. Easy to lug around by survey crews already burdened with 50lbs of theodolite and tripod.
 
tiriaq said:
The civilian EAL is a commerial rifle assembled from surplus parts. Whether it is any more desirable than a Parker Hale, Churchill, Ellwood Epps, Globe, etc. rework is an open question. An EAL actually issued and used officially is different. It is an ex-service rifle.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...it's still a Canadian made quasi-military rifle. Holds plenty of interest from me...they're certainly not your run of the mill sporter.
 
tiriaq said:
The rear sight on the military is mickey mouse compared with the service sight. The open notch aperture is too close to the eye, the sight is fragile, and in service, the leaves tend to fall over. Similarly the 5 round magazine makes little sense for service use. I do not know how the Gov't. came to buy the EAL .303s. It makes no sense for these to have been assembled from parts from Long Branch and bought back, when CAL could just as easily have turned the rifles out. The EALs issued to the Ranger Patrol where I lived were unpopular.
Click to expand...

If they were issueing them to the airforce, it (generally) wouldn't really matter if they had no sights on them. The worst shots I have ever seen wore blue.
I remember working the targets on an FN qual while emplyed in Aircommand (Wpg) in the 80s. The guy shooting only got two holes in his target out of 58 shots, and one of those was a ricochet. He continually shot into the dirt just above me, making sure I stayed in the protection of the cement cover.

J
ust out of curiousity...why? Hell...they are still current issue (the military ones anyway) I believe they were surplussed by the gov't...so wouldnt that make it a milsurp?
Click to expand...

When I checked on the relevant stock number back around 2002, there were only a couple hundred still held as survival rifles. And according to the LCMM back in the day, they were being replaced. Not so sure they are still current issue, save for the odd ones which may be held under regular #4 stock numbers by the rangers.
 
OK I will take a few more pictures of the rifle. It will take a day though, my digital camera crapped out after I took the second picture ( Anyone know about Sony DSC-P73 cameras?)

The rifle does not have the rear aperature sight. It does not appear to ever had one. The blue is consistant over the whole of the rifle. The front sight is a ramp and blade and looks the same as the civilian EAL pattern. I don't have another EAL to compare though.
 
Wrong Way said:
Nope. Not an EAL sight....how's it attached?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how the barrel band is attached, I haven't taken the forestock off yet. There is a thin ring that could be silver solder, or it could just be accumlated crud.
 
well , for one , they are NOT current issue. they just couldn't stand up to the conditions they were used in. The guvmint was forced to reissue the standard No4.
I don't know if this is true, but I read somewhere that the guvmint, in it's wisdom flogged off all the No4's and was forced to re-purchase them from the dealers they sold them to in order to rearm the Rangers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom