lee Enfield trainer question

G

gerry303ca

Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Location
Fredericton, NB
I have a Long Branch that is sleeved to .22 cal. but not marked as such. It's a No.4Mk1* 1943 There is a /53 in front of the serial number, but in a different and larger print. there is also 3(F)FTR on the receiver. I'm wondering if the /53 might be the FTR date, although it is nowhere near the FTR stamp, and what would the 3 in front of the FTR mean?
 
gerry303ca said:
I have a Long Branch that is sleeved to .22 cal. but not marked as such. It's a No.4Mk1* 1943 There is a /53 in front of the serial number, but in a different and larger print. there is also 3(F)FTR on the receiver. I'm wondering if the /53 might be the FTR date, although it is nowhere near the FTR stamp, and what would the 3 in front of the FTR mean?
Click to expand...

I forgot to mention that there is no serial number on the bolt.
 
I'm not an expert, and you haven't posted pics, but I'll give it a go.

From your description I would say that the rifle left Longbranch and found it's way to England where is was eventually "Factory Thorough Repaired" (FTR) at the Fazakerley armoury in 1953 (we call it a Faz FTR).

Once back in Canada sometime after '53, but most likely before the mid '70's a Canadian Cadet Corps (Army/ Navy/ Air) had it converted to .22LR for rifle competition. Also, secondary schools used to have rifle competition teams and many schools built in prior to the 1970's would have indoor ranges in the basement. We were a firearms society.

Proper military trainers were .22LR rifles, the Canadian ones were more often than not Cooey's, rather than .303Br Lee Enfields converted to .22LR.
 
I shot Lee Enfield in cadets at our high school. I think they had peep sights, so were probably No.4's. Even my elementary school had a range in the gym. The RCRA shot there. Most of the high schools had ranges. Now they can only shoot air rifles, 22's are far too dangerous. The person I bought this one from said he was told it came from high school cadets
 
When a no4mk1* was converted to the receiver hung trigger, it became a no4mk1/3. Had it been a no4mk1 (no star) it would have become a no4mk1/2. Had it been made with a hung trigger in the first place, it would have been a no4mk2. The 53 would be the conversion date at which time the rifle also went through a Factory through repair.

It is extremely unlikely any Canadian cadet organization (or even the Canadian Forces) had anything to do with the conversion of the rifle to .22 cal. Canada used purpose built barrels, and not sleeved barrels. The Canadian 22 training rifle was based on the no4, and officially is the Cno7. The Cooey 82s were relegated to drill purpose rifles and given the model number of C2B1.
 
So my rifle should be called a No.4MK1/3. The trigger is hung the same as my Fazakerley MK1/2. Is there anything here that designates .22 cal. or is the 1/3 for .22 only? Thanks for your help.
 
The no4mk1/3 is the designation for a .303 modified to the hung trigger. Your conversion to .22 is more likely either a commercial conversion or a gunsmith conversion.

Photos could help take some of the guesswork out of all this. Show photos of the top of the barrel, the chamber end of the barrel, and the muzzle end, along with photos of the wrist and the left side.
 
I can't take photos but I gave you the info from the right side of the receiver. The wrist has the serial number and well below it, and widely spaced, G 2 6. On top of the barrel under the handguard, the LB symbol, 35, and the Canadian broad arrow. Looking at the muzzle, it is definitely sleeved. The mag is LB, but an unmatched serial number, and in missing the internal parts but acts as a brass catcher. It's the most accurate trainer I've had. I can't see the military or cadets having it sleeved commercially, but there are quite a few LB rifles out there that don't fit the accepted patterns. I'm told that after the Enfields were taken out of service armorers were given leftover action & other parts to do with as they wished. I had a LB No.5 in .22 cal. I don't believe they were officially made there, but the marked parts were all LB.
 
Yes, there are many LB no7 conversions out there that do not fit the accepted patterns. But not in the Canadian Military. Some of them were done by guys who wanted 22 trainers, and some were done by guys who wanted to sell them for the price of 22 military trainers.

Enfields in both .303 and .22 have not left Canadian military service yet, and there have never been official give-aways of surplus parts to the armourers. Did it happen, yes, But was it legal, no.

Does your rifle have the bayonet lugs on the end of the barrel? Are the bayonet type lugs under the front sight base, or is it the double pinned type like a 22 trainer?

The "G26" sounds like the Canadian Arsenals rebuild markings, although that has not been solidly verified. Stens that had been refinished also had similar markings on them.
 
plinker 777 said:
I know enough to never say "never" when it comes to Enfields, but I don't believe that LB ever made a barrel without bayo lugs...(we were at war). Is your barrel a cut down?

:needPics:
Click to expand...

LB made two barrel types that I know of without lugs. The 22 barrels had no lugs for either the front sight base or the front sight. Post war, the 7.62 barrels had no lugs for the bayonet.

There is a retired armourer in Calgary that makes up Cno7 look-a-likes. He sleeves .303 barrels for the conversions. I believe he also removes the bayonet lugs.....can't recall if he removes the sight lugs as well.

I agree with the photos requirement. It woudl take away a million questions and speculation.
 
stencollector said:
LB made two barrel types that I know of without lugs. The 22 barrels had no lugs for either the front sight base or the front sight. Post war, the 7.62 barrels had no lugs for the bayonet.

There is a retired armourer in Calgary that makes up Cno7 look-a-likes. He sleeves .303 barrels for the conversions. I believe he also removes the bayonet lugs.....can't recall if he removes the sight lugs as well.

I agree with the photos requirement. It woud take away a million questions and speculation.
Click to expand...

I took some pictures, not great. I have tried many times in the past to post on the forum using explicit instructions form those who know how, without success. I'm no good with computers. If someone with computer savvy could give me an email address, I could forward the photos for him to post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom