Best Longbranch receiver for a project build?

LeeEnfieldNo.4_mk1

LeeEnfieldNo.4_mk1

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
EE REVOKED
Rating - 100%
28   0   0
Location
Alberta
I have a takeoff DCRA 7.62 barrel that I have been wanting to use for a few years now. I was originally going to use it to re barrel a pretty cut up DCRA rifle I have, but that rifle has a lot of "stuff" done to it by previous owners so I figure ill just leave it be.

I was thinking of grabbing a sporter Longbranch and putting together my own 7.62 No.4 to use as a go to shooting rifle, since 7.62/308 is way easier to come across and reload for. a 7.62 extractor should not be an issue to locate. Since this would be a full build. Just wondering what would the best receiver to track down.

I was thinking a 1950 dated CNo.4 Mk1* sporter. Although not sure how common a 1950 sporter would be. the 50's are reportedly the best Quality LB receivers made.

Another option of trying to track down a No.4 Mk1/3 FTR sporter. They pop up from time to time and would be an advantage with the Mk2 trigger. But are usually pretty well used.

Thoughts? I am aware the purists are not going to like this project, but i'm taking an already cut down rifle and giving it another life so I don't see an issue.
 
CAL rebarreled No.4 rifles are observed using a variety of receivers, Canadian and British. As long as the receiver was sound and in-spec, the new barrel would be fitted. DCRA members taking advantage of the program sent in their rifles. Some were from Cdn. Gov't. stores, others had been purchased on the surplus market.
If you want a LB receiver for your project, I would suggest you look for a nice clean one that hasn't been abused or messed with. If you want a LB with a hung trigger, I suppose it would have to be a FTR'd Mk. 1/3.
Seeing as the project rifle is going to be torn down to the stripped receiver, might as well get it and the other parts refinished. Fine grain blasted and parked would look good. That would get rid of the painted finish a FRT'd 1/3 would have.
 
Would a Mk2 Trigger be overly beneficial? My understanding is it kept the trigger ore consistent in varying climates that would cause the stocks to shrink/swell. For what is going to be a target rifle that might see occasional hunting use would I see the benefit over a standard trigger?

I am set on a Longbranch, I guess either the 1950 or the MK1/3 in sporter form would both be a little harder to find then a wartime receiver.
 
You probably would not notice the difference between a Mk. I and a Mk. II trigger - particularly if you do a good bedding job.
A 1/3 is going to be a wartime receiver, that went through FTR in the late '40s.
Just keep your eyes open - lots of sported No. 4s out there, one will turn up.
 
Apart from the slight difference in rear sight fitting holes, and the markings, I believe they are the same.
I have a one piece stock 7.62 rifle, not unlike Ganderite's shown above, that was built up on a .22 receiver. Perhaps by the same gunsmith.
 
enefgee said:
Stupid question, do the purpose built 22 receivers differ in any way other than markings from the centre fire ones?
Click to expand...

I was told ..... that CNo.7 .22 receivers were not heat treated. I know a competitive shooter who gunsmithed his 5.56mm rifle on a CNo.7 with .22 barrel rechambered to the bigger cartridge. He didn't die.
 
Which receiver by year? Yes.

The Canadian rifles started off a little shaky as they learned, by mid-war the LB rifles were made to a very high standard. I read a piece on the industrial culture at the plant. One section did nothing but record and sequence tool changes. The company developed a methodology where the tool operators and inspectors only worried about achieving a high standard of compliance. Someone else got involved when parts started getting out of specification. Were the post war rifles as good? Yes, because they weren't under such severe production schedules. No, because they were running on their reputation before the plant was shut down.
 
There were a quantity of 1955 dated LB receivers around, mostly never fitted with bolts IIRC.

For your project your best bet is a 1954 or 55 British Mk.2 action. It should be pretty easy to find a sporterized one with a chopped or rusted out barrel you can remove. The easiest way to do that is to undercut the barrel in a lathe just in front of the front face of the receiver. Leave a 20 thou or so "ring" of the barrel shoulder between your cutoff tool and the front face of the receiver. Once you've cut in about .2 of inch all round, take the barreled action out of the lathe and smack it around the junction a few times with a lead hammer to 'upset' the threads and you should be able to unscrew the barrel by hand.

You could take it to a gunsmith, but I have seen some which would not break loose with a six foot pipe over the wrench! Not worth the risk of damage or the cost unless you want to save the barrel.

When the receiver is off, turn the barrel around in the lathe and cut off the 20(?) thou 'ring'; you have now made a "breaching washer" to be used when a barrel's shoulder is too short to line up properly with sufficient tightness.

To ensure your barrel is properly positioned, put the backsight cross-pin in without the sight, put a couple of 1" or similar gauge blocks on a granite countertop and invert barreled action so that the backsight cross-pin rests on one block and the other rests on the flat of the Nock's Form. If you can't see gaps with a light or feel any rocking when you press down at either end, your barrel is correctly positioned.

If you don't have a lathe you could undercut with a hacksaw or even a zipdisk on a grinder or a Dremel tool with cut-off wheels.
 
I would never build a No. 4 on a * receiver. MKI, MK1/2 or MK2 only. The bolt release mechanism on the North American Made rifles sucks as far as I am concerned.
 
maple_leaf_eh said:
Which receiver by year? Yes.

The Canadian rifles started off a little shaky as they learned, by mid-war the LB rifles were made to a very high standard. I read a piece on the industrial culture at the plant. One section did nothing but record and sequence tool changes. The company developed a methodology where the tool operators and inspectors only worried about achieving a high standard of compliance. Someone else got involved when parts started getting out of specification. Were the post war rifles as good? Yes, because they weren't under such severe production schedules. No, because they were running on their reputation before the plant was shut down.
Click to expand...

So your saying the post war productions are not necessarily better?
 
LeeEnfieldNo.4_mk1 said:
So your saying the post war productions are not necessarily better?
Click to expand...

I am of two minds on production quality. The wartime ones were being made in large numbers to meet quota. The plant was not necessarily worrying about complying with absolutely every specification, just get past the inspectors and deliver LB No.4 rifles. We know the Canadian plant was not getting bombed every week like in UK, so there wasn't the same delivery imperative. That gave the workers, supervisors and managers the luxury of doing the right thing, as I mentioned with scheduled tool changes. To my mind, those mid-war rifles were LB's finest, especially compared to their UK counterparts.

The Canadian economy postwar was knocked back quite a bit. There were layoffs, there was a recession, there were significant re-employment programs for demobilized workers. All the ladies who came in from the small towns lost their jobs as the plant pared back to skeleton staff. I don't know if all the good ones were rehired in the 50s when LB or CAL restarted the lines. Chances are not likely. Instead they had male workers who probably had done all the training and could read the drawings just fine, but were not necessarily familiar with the momentum of LB at its peak. Or, if they were old hands, were not necessarily back at their old jobs pushing tool steel into raw metal on fixtures and jigs. Call me a chauvinist, but Ronnie the BREN girl and her production compatriots probably made better rifles in the first go-around.
 
RRCo. said:
There were a quantity of 1955 dated LB receivers around, mostly never fitted with bolts IIRC.

For your project your best bet is a 1954 or 55 British Mk.2 action. It should be pretty easy to find a sporterized one with a chopped or rusted out barrel you can remove. The easiest way to do that is to undercut the barrel in a lathe just in front of the front face of the receiver. Leave a 20 thou or so "ring" of the barrel shoulder between your cutoff tool and the front face of the receiver. Once you've cut in about .2 of inch all round, take the barreled action out of the lathe and smack it around the junction a few times with a lead hammer to 'upset' the threads and you should be able to unscrew the barrel by hand.

You could take it to a gunsmith, but I have seen some which would not break loose with a six foot pipe over the wrench! Not worth the risk of damage or the cost unless you want to save the barrel.

When the receiver is off, turn the barrel around in the lathe and cut off the 20(?) thou 'ring'; you have now made a "breaching washer" to be used when a barrel's shoulder is too short to line up properly with sufficient tightness.

To ensure your barrel is properly positioned, put the backsight cross-pin in without the sight, put a couple of 1" or similar gauge blocks on a granite countertop and invert barreled action so that the backsight cross-pin rests on one block and the other rests on the flat of the Nock's Form. If you can't see gaps with a light or feel any rocking when you press down at either end, your barrel is correctly positioned.

If you don't have a lathe you could undercut with a hacksaw or even a zipdisk on a grinder or a Dremel tool with cut-off wheels.
Click to expand...

Is there a proper guideline for proper barrel torque? I have access to a lathe and know enough to use it. Would need to buy an action wrench and a barrel vise though.
 
An new issue .303 barrel was expected to go in hand tight 14 degrees off index and then require 120 ft. lbs to bring it to TDC.
You will be installing a used barrel on a used receiver, so heaven only knows. You might get really lucky and have the barrel come to index with reasonable torque with correct headspace.
If it pulls up short, the shoulder will have to be adjusted; if it goes past index, you'll need a shim, or machine the shoulder back and go another turn.
Of course, correct headspace must be obtained, and cartridge projection (bolt face to barrel face) must be acceptable.
You will need an action wrench and barrel vise. And possibly a finish reamer.
 
Just to add to what tiriaq has said about lining up. I have receivers and barrels here that hand tight turn to about 2 or 3 o’clock and then tightened to tdc. Put some of those barrels in other receivers and a couple go past tdc and no way even with a wrench will they line up. I’ve swapped stuff around and had stuff go together properly. I have one receiver that I thought was stretched as all my barrels went past tdc. Found a barrel that fit. There are differences in tolerances. A lot more than I thought there would be.
 
iron cat said:
That is pretty cool Ganderite!!
Did you do the work?
Cat
Click to expand...

No, I did not. It was made by Charlie Collins.

He made me two of them. One with a Sportco barrel and one with a Shultz Larsen barrel. Both were in Robertson fibreglas stocks.

The plan was that I would practice with the cheap one (the Sportco barrel) and then take the good one (Shultz) to England to compete.

I practiced with the Sportco and got excellent long range elevations. It was compensating perfectly. When the time came to go, I took the Sportco.

I set a new record high score that year. At long range (900 and 1000 yards) I missed the bull only twice. One miss was because I twiddled the sight when there was no real wind change.

The action in the picture is the Sportco barrel action. The barrel got re-assigned a new action (a Mauser sporter).

The action is available for anyone who wants to build a single shot, one-piece #4.

I also have a number of similar complete rifles available to a good home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom