Another EAL Question: New Pics Added

John Sukey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Our government generally doesn't flog to dealers.....it smelters.
There were two purchases that I am aware of in the last decade. There was a purchase of the "Irish no4mk2s back around 99, and then, in the last couple of years, there was a purchase (around a thousand or so) of ex-Indian no4mk1s.

When I joined the CF back in 81, the Base maintenance I worked at was tasked with cutting up some 300 Long Branch rifles. This was to open up some storeage space in Base supply. About a year later the bolts came accross from supply to also be cut in half.
 
Some more pics. Different camera, I haven't figured out the settings yet.

eal001.jpg

eal002.jpg

eal003.jpg

eal007.jpg
eal004.jpg

eal006.jpg
 
Last edited:
This is weird. The forestock is wrong...it's too short in front of the swivel and shaped wrong. Also, the swivel is correct, but mounted incorrectly.

The little cutaway in front of the wrist strap is not present on mine, and the hole at the rear right top edge of the reciever is also not present on mine.
 
I don't know much about the history of this particular rifle. The guy I got it from brought it into a gunshop to have it drilled and tapped for a scope as now that he was approaching 70 he couldn't see the sights. I arranged to trade him for a scoped SMLE bubba.

Anything is possibe, but I doubt that he would have had any custom work done on this rifle. Given that, I suspect this rifle is exactly the way he bought it. No way to know for sure though, that's why I posted it here.
 
The front sight doesn't look correct to me either. I can't make out anything on the left side of the receiver, does it say EAL? bearhunter
 
bearhunter said:
The front sight doesn't look correct to me either. I can't make out anything on the left side of the receiver, does it say EAL? bearhunter
Click to expand...

The receicer is marked - 303 CAL. E.A.L. 28xx
 
bearhunter said:
The front sight doesn't look correct to me either. I can't make out anything on the left side of the receiver, does it say EAL? bearhunter
Click to expand...

Thanks for the pics Anvil.

Who's to say what is correct for this rifle? If it is in fact a third variant of the EAL, maybe it left the factory like this.

I wonder if anyone else has ever seen another like it?

Interesting that it doesn't appear to have the dovetail cut in front of the CA and also doesn't seem to have had the ears at the back for the EAL 200/400 flip sight.

BTW, when I registered my EAL, they called it a No 4 Mk I* Sporter EAL rifle.
 
Last edited:
Barrel is shorter than standard, front sight, forend are atypical. The hole in the rear right of the receiver is where the rear sight plunger & spring were. Usually plugged.
OK, the receiver is "military " pattern, as is the butt. Everything in front of the receiver is different from the established EALs. The forend has the reinforcing strap in front of the butt socket. This suggests that the forend is a cut down military piece, rather than the purpose made EAL forend. The absence of a sight dovetail in the barrel, coupled with the clean receiver suggest that the rear sight is original. Maybe the forend is a replacement, and the barrel has been shortened. Maybe the rifle left EAL like that. I don't think anyone knows enough about the EAL operation to say. It is an interesting rifle, a bit of an oddity.
 
Eal

Ok, might I suggest. Elderly former owner of a civi EAL finds he doesnt like original peep-sight. Has local gunsmith install cheapo buckhorn sight and fill off sight tabs on rear of receiver. Now years later cant see with this setup and wants it scoped, thats when member came across it.

Geoff
 
longbranch* said:
Ok, might I suggest. Elderly former owner of a civi EAL finds he doesnt like original peep-sight. Has local gunsmith install cheapo buckhorn sight and fill off sight tabs on rear of receiver. Now years later cant see with this setup and wants it scoped, thats when member came across it.

Geoff
Click to expand...

Possible- what bothers me is that hole there for the rear sight plunger- it was said that that hole is usually plugged. If a gunsmith removed it it might have been left open whereas EAL would have probably done whatever they do on the military models...does anyone have a picture of that area on a military EAL to show?

I just noticed something btw. All the pics I have of military EAL's have no tie strap at the rear of the forend. All the pics I have of civilian EAL's have the tie strap there. This rifle from Anvil has the tie strap, ergo...civilian?

http://www.telusplanet.net/public/philqgbr/enfieldeal.html

(from Joe Salter)
http://www.joesalter.com/detail.php?f_qryitem=4807

Gunsmith bobs barrel, installs front and rear matching sights, removes rear sight ears, leaves hole open, shortens forend to match shorter barrel. 10 rd mag. Could be it or could be completely wrong. Look how perfect the machining is on top of the receiver...

Does anyone have a civilian EAL rifle with no tie strap on the forend?
 
Last edited:
I took the fore endoff the rifle today. The sight is definitely not from EAL, it is reasonably well fitted but the band doesn't fully encirle the barrel and it soldered on with soft solder. the workmanship on the rear sight is not up to the standard of the rifle.

The foreend itself is not a cut down military stock, it is wider than the military one and it doesn't have the lightening slots in the barrel channel. It may have been shortened, but I can't say for sure. It has a pressure pad at the foreend tip and is about three inches long.

All in all, it would appear that it was chopped after it left EAL. Looks like I have a new truck gun.

Does anyone have a clear picture of the muzzle crown on an unaltered EAL?
 
The "military" EAL forend IS different than the "civilian"

Anvil said:
I took the fore endoff the rifle today. The sight is definitely not from EAL, it is reasonably well fitted but the band doesn't fully encirle the barrel and it soldered on with soft solder. the workmanship on the rear sight is not up to the standard of the rifle.

The foreend itself is not a cut down military stock, it is wider than the military one and it doesn't have the lightening slots in the barrel channel. It may have been shortened, but I can't say for sure. It has a pressure pad at the foreend tip and is about three inches long.

All in all, it would appear that it was chopped after it left EAL. Looks like I have a new truck gun.

Does anyone have a clear picture of the muzzle crown on an unaltered EAL?
Click to expand...
 
The receiver has certainly had its sides cut way down like a military EAL. If EAL didn't do it, perhaps the person who did was trying to emulate the EAL modification.
Just out of curiosity, how is the front ramp affixed to the barrel? The ramp on the military EALs is fitted into a dovetail in the barrel.
 
tiriaq said:
The receiver has certainly had its sides cut way down like a military EAL. If EAL didn't do it, perhaps the person who did was trying to emulate the EAL modification.
Just out of curiosity, how is the front ramp affixed to the barrel? The ramp on the military EALs is fitted into a dovetail in the barrel.
Click to expand...

The front sight ramp is fitted into a shallow dovetail and coined front and back. It may be solder as well, but I cant say for sure. If I had to guess, I would say it isn't soldered. I drifted the sight blade out and there is no screw underneath it. The muzzle is beveled and crowned like a Lee Enfield.
 
The dovetailed front sight ramp is an EAL characteristic. Not something that a gunsmith would be likely to do. In the photos, it doesn't appear that the rear sight lugs were removed and the area recontoured, to convert a civilian receiver into a military pattern one.
 
tiriaq said:
The dovetailed front sight ramp is an EAL characteristic. Not something that a gunsmith would be likely to do. In the photos, it doesn't appear that the rear sight lugs were removed and the area recontoured, to convert a civilian receiver into a military pattern one.
Click to expand...

Have you examined a military model EAL recently? If so do you remember whether they had that open hole or how it was plugged? Or maybe it was never drilled in the first place?
 
The plug can be made out in my military pattern EAL. If a No. 4 receiver does not have this hole, it was never finished.
 
tiriaq said:
The dovetailed front sight ramp is an EAL characteristic. Not something that a gunsmith would be likely to do. In the photos, it doesn't appear that the rear sight lugs were removed and the area recontoured, to convert a civilian receiver into a military pattern one.
Click to expand...

The front sight on my new EAL is dovetailed into place...interesting, don't think I've seen such a setup on any other rifle...although I'm sure it exists somewhere. There's a peen which holds it in place.
 
That would be, no tie strap! That military front sight looks a lot beefier than the civilian one does. Interesting- no visible plug for the plunger hole...even looking at it very closely you can't see any sign of a line?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom