Mystery No4 Mk1 308 conversion....calling all experts

new

Regular
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
A friend told me about this and it caught my attention

(Not shown in pics....magazine has an aluminum follower and "308 Win" is etched very nicely on the barrel 12'' from the receiver on the left side)

He bought it via auction, so he knows nothing about it.

cJrz4Yi.jpg


j80ZFsg.jpg


vwxKwvf.jpg


bNRHQWv.jpg
 
From the marks on the receiver ring and barrel, this was one of the rifles rebarreled to 7.62 at long Branch. From the dowels visible in the side of the forend toward the rear of the action, it was bedded to enhance accuracy.
It was subsequently sporterized.
 
would be great to restore to some sort of target configuration with a Parker Hale 5c or TZ rear micrometer sight
 
well looks like we found DCRA 946

we can add that one to the list


there is a sticky up above on DCRA conversions

Really?! There's a list?....I just so happen to know an old guy that lost one in a boating accident that had been handed down from his grandad from the war marked US property (or something like that?)....do you mean to say that if I could find the ser number... this may be another of those missing rifles? Hell! I know exactly what lake to check!

Edit....took a quick run out to the lake, cracked a hole in the ice...did the polar dip in my fave speedo and what do ya know! I found it!! Lucky I was able to read it clearly enough before it was once again grabbed from my cold wet hands by a hungry pike and dragged off into the darkness.
Turns out it's in 30-06 with ser# 8c4657?...add to said list, pretty sure that pike still has it, I tried to check his pal but he was a pike (exempt) and took off.
 
Last edited:
You've got something that is going to be hard to return to a "standard" configuration. It was a run of the mill No.4 MkI* made by Savage, made in 1943. Someone shot it well enough to want to spend $$$ for the Canadian Arsenals 7.62x51 conversion barrel, bolt head and extractor. That would have been in the late 1950s and early 1960s. It has the DCRA conversion markings. As Tiriaq spotted it also has the dowels and inletting to replace somewhat softer critical internal surfaces to make it an even better rifle. But by the shape of the foreend and the absence of inletting for the middle band, that is not its original stock. More likely a commercial target pattern. It was in UK at some stage in its life, and sold commercially, hence the ENGLAND marking despite its American manufacture. At one time this was a conventional and competitive target rifle, that after falling out of the running was sporterized with a shortened barrel. That butt could have been attached at any time and no one would know when.

You can't make it a target rifle without the sights and an original butt. You can't make it an arsenal original rifle with that barrel and foreend, and the DCRA conversion markings will always tell a buyer it has another barrel. But .... what you have my good friend is a primo candidate to make into an L42A1 clone.
 
Last edited:
would be great to restore to some sort of target configuration with a Parker Hale 5c or TZ rear micrometer sight

Not IMHO, leave it as it is. The sporterization was done nicely and it is now what it is, a nice light hunting rifle

There are other rifles out there that could benefit from such restoration where the effort would be worthwhile and more appropriate.
 
I agree. Clean it up, smooth it down, fill the holes, cerakote it, do whatever you want if the bore is good enough to justify the work and the bolt is an original. It's got no originality or hope of being restored to original now, so have at 'er.

You sometimes see rifles where the conversion numbers match, but the original rifle serials do not. Long Branch hardness tested the bolts and if your bolt failed, you could send in another. It would be logical to think that they took the trouble to properly lap in replacement bolts, but I don't recall hearing any definitive statement about that, so test the contact on the lugs with blue or magic marker ink in that case.

If you want to go the whole way, you can mill out the underside of the mag well as per the specs for the L42A1, if you can find an L8/L42 mag and extractor.

Maybe get ahead of the curve and get a five round mag or make one up from something else? ;)
 
I figured it may have been special at sometime, sad, I think I will indeed purchase it. As for what to do with it, who knows, thank you all for the fantastic info!

There was a time when you couldn't give any Lee Enfield away, just no takers or only to someone to financially distressed to be able to afford a commercial sporter.

Anything in martial garb still intact was avoided like the plague, other than Bubba, who would work some sort of magic, turn the rifle into an eyesore and proudly proclaim how it had been sporterized and would equal any commercial offering or even perform better.

Most of those firearms are not restorable, unless you have some original parts in your bins or gathering dust somewhere.

This includes the DCRA and even the EAL rifles that were once up on a pedestal for desirability, but lost their lustre as time went on, or their components wore to the point they were no longer competitive or surplus ammo dried up or or or.

Now, since so many of those fine rifles were repurposed as sporters people are crying foul.

No FOUL. Those rifles would have been turned in at amnesties, tossed into the lake, tossed into metal scrap piles or left to rust in poor storage conditions.

Those rifles, as good as they were, outlived their usefulness for their intended purpose.

People with some vision, saw another purpose for those accurate enough for hunting rifles and did what they deemed necessary to ''beautify" them and make them easier to carry and maintain in the field, under civilian conditions.

Not all of the 7.62 Nato conversions to the No4 rifles in Canada were done by the DCRA. Many were done in local gun shops, with the stipulation they had to fit within the specified parameters of configuration stipulated in DCRA rules.

I presently have on hand a No4 that was converted for such purposes, by a local gunsmith, now deceased, Les Viel of Vernon BC. It shoots very well, if I do my part.

I also have a "unit match rifle," or so I was told when I bought it over 40 years ago, that is still chambered for 303 Brit. The story goes that it was converted by a local REME for interunit matches. Yes, I know, you can't believe the stories and I've been burned on those stories before.

I tend to believe the story on this rifle though.

It was bought from a gentleman by the name of "Tiny Tim Ryan" who was a well known local in the Vernon area and about as feisty as they came. Alas, he's also gone on to afterlife endeavors along with his friends Les Viel and Walt Rogers.

I bought both of these rifles so that they wouldn't be cut down as sporters.

The 7.62 Nato version wears a PH5 sight and the 303 Brit version wears a PH4 sight.

Ryan took a M47C stamped Brit receiver, fitted a 5 groove barrel and completed the rest with Longbranch components and stamped a hollow knob bolt, "0" head to match the socket number.

This rifle shoots better than I can hold with ammunition it likes and shoots surplus/commercial ammunition into two inches or less, no matter which.

Yes, Mr Ryan was going to cut these fine rifles down for sporters. In his mind, they would be much more useful and functional for his puposes in sporter configuration. Not only that, at the time, he could easily access any parts he needed or wanted, just for the asking.

So many of the rifles we covet today as "something special'' met their ''demise'' and were relegated to lowly but highly functional and dependable sporters.

Many here just don't know how much of this stuff was available at one time and at firesale pricing. It's difficult for them to visualize pallets of surplus 303 Brit surplus ammunition on the Hudson's Bay gun section or a few hundred pristine No4s and FTRed No1 rifles of every mark spread out on a table or in bins, priced at $5-$15 depending on where and when you looked.

This anomaly went on for a couple of decades, right up to the late seventies, but the stigma of "crap surplus" hung on for another two decades to where we are presently.

Just take to mind the fine SKS and Mosin Nagant models that were available for under $100 less than a decade ago.

Now look at the M38 Carcano Calvary Carbines being offered at great prices.

These once maligned rifles are now desirable and IMHO a steal at present pricing for those that want to collect and shoot them.

I've already seen a half dozen Bubbas, done by folks looking for a light, cheap, beater for a "truck gun'' or "starter rifle for the kid" drilled and tapped with scopes mounted and excess wood/metal from the stocks cut off and discarded.
 
There was a time when you couldn't give any Lee Enfield away, just no takers or only to someone to financially distressed to be able to afford a commercial sporter.

Anything in martial garb still intact was avoided like the plague, other than Bubba, who would work some sort of magic, turn the rifle into an eyesore and proudly proclaim how it had been sporterized and would equal any commercial offering or even perform better.

Most of those firearms are not restorable, unless you have some original parts in your bins or gathering dust somewhere.

This includes the DCRA and even the EAL rifles that were once up on a pedestal for desirability, but lost their lustre as time went on, or their components wore to the point they were no longer competitive or surplus ammo dried up or or or.

Now, since so many of those fine rifles were repurposed as sporters people are crying foul.

No FOUL. Those rifles would have been turned in at amnesties, tossed into the lake, tossed into metal scrap piles or left to rust in poor storage conditions.

Those rifles, as good as they were, outlived their usefulness for their intended purpose.

People with some vision, saw another purpose for those accurate enough for hunting rifles and did what they deemed necessary to ''beautify" them and make them easier to carry and maintain in the field, under civilian conditions.

Not all of the 7.62 Nato conversions to the No4 rifles in Canada were done by the DCRA. Many were done in local gun shops, with the stipulation they had to fit within the specified parameters of configuration stipulated in DCRA rules.

I presently have on hand a No4 that was converted for such purposes, by a local gunsmith, now deceased, Les Viel of Vernon BC. It shoots very well, if I do my part.

I also have a "unit match rifle," or so I was told when I bought it over 40 years ago, that is still chambered for 303 Brit. The story goes that it was converted by a local REME for interunit matches. Yes, I know, you can't believe the stories and I've been burned on those stories before.

I tend to believe the story on this rifle though.

It was bought from a gentleman by the name of "Tiny Tim Ryan" who was a well known local in the Vernon area and about as feisty as they came. Alas, he's also gone on to afterlife endeavors along with his friends Les Viel and Walt Rogers.

I bought both of these rifles so that they wouldn't be cut down as sporters.

The 7.62 Nato version wears a PH5 sight and the 303 Brit version wears a PH4 sight.

Ryan took a M47C stamped Brit receiver, fitted a 5 groove barrel and completed the rest with Longbranch components and stamped a hollow knob bolt, "0" head to match the socket number.

This rifle shoots better than I can hold with ammunition it likes and shoots surplus/commercial ammunition into two inches or less, no matter which.

Yes, Mr Ryan was going to cut these fine rifles down for sporters. In his mind, they would be much more useful and functional for his puposes in sporter configuration. Not only that, at the time, he could easily access any parts he needed or wanted, just for the asking.

So many of the rifles we covet today as "something special'' met their ''demise'' and were relegated to lowly but highly functional and dependable sporters.

Many here just don't know how much of this stuff was available at one time and at firesale pricing. It's difficult for them to visualize pallets of surplus 303 Brit surplus ammunition on the Hudson's Bay gun section or a few hundred pristine No4s and FTRed No1 rifles of every mark spread out on a table or in bins, priced at $5-$15 depending on where and when you looked.

This anomaly went on for a couple of decades, right up to the late seventies, but the stigma of "crap surplus" hung on for another two decades to where we are presently.

Just take to mind the fine SKS and Mosin Nagant models that were available for under $100 less than a decade ago.

Now look at the M38 Carcano Calvary Carbines being offered at great prices.

These once maligned rifles are now desirable and IMHO a steal at present pricing for those that want to collect and shoot them.

I've already seen a half dozen Bubbas, done by folks looking for a light, cheap, beater for a "truck gun'' or "starter rifle for the kid" drilled and tapped with scopes mounted and excess wood/metal from the stocks cut off and discarded.

I have to speculate that you are channeling the spirit of our departed Smellie, I always like reading posts of those who are "in the know" and can shed insight on stuff like this rifle.
 
I grew up around competitive shooters. If the rifle wasn't winning, it was a candidate for selling or major investigation. Many of the shooters I knew were not the least bit interested in esthetics, only performance. The same focus and intensity exists in every competitive technical sport - motor racing especially!

The army armourers used to come to the matches with their parts bins and wizard skills. The CFAO encouraged military maintenance of private service pattern firearms, on the grounds that a civilian wouldn't have access to known good parts and could have a catastrophic failure alongside a serving member. When the FN C1s were issued in the 1950s, there were still many very good shooters who wanted to stay in the game. Gradually the "number 4 conversions" as they were called, became less competitive in the target rifle disciplines. If Johnny Crackshot could make the Bisley Team with a Sportco or a Musgrave or a Carl Gustav but not his conversion, you can guess what happened next. Those are the rifles that found new lives. At one point No.4s returned to vogue as required kit for the long ranges. The stiff tubular receivers didn't have that same mythical "flip" that the No.4s did, and every shooter chasing bullseyes had one with the de rigeur Enfield barrel. That lasted until even better rifles came along. When the army converted to 5.56, guys experimented with .22LR CNo.7s rechambered for 5.56 with modified bolt heads. Nothing was off limits!
 
I have to speculate that you are channeling the spirit of our departed Smellie, I always like reading posts of those who are "in the know" and can shed insight on stuff like this rifle.

I miss George a lot. We used to have some great online conversations, until his health failed him. Yes, George and I thought alike on many things firearms/politics related.

I'll bet Jan misses him terribly as well.
 
#4's were still the basis of competitive target rifles until about the mid-80s. Then the front locker rifles (Musgrave - Swing - Shultz Larsen - Grunig - Paramount, RPA) with 30" barrels took over.

At one time the #4 was allowed to be used in "tuned up" configuration. It looked like a stock #4, but had a good Parker Hale , A J Parker or Century rear sight and a good bedding job. It looked stock, but was actually a target rifle.

Around 1955 we changed from shooting 3030 to 308. The #4 rifles got re-barreled. Hence the DCRA Longbranch rifles with the special stamp.

Then the rules changed, around 1970, and we could use any rifle we wanted. The CIL/Savage single shot was popular, along with Carl Gustav M96 conversions, and some Winchester and Remington target rifles. We found that the new rifles were better than #4s at short range (up to 800 yards), but at long range the #4 was better. I had trouble getting my head around this concept and ran my own test at 1000 yards, comparing a Musgrave single shot rifle to my #4 using ammo with a huge ES (a 2 grain range of powder charges). At 1000 yards the #4 put them all in the bull. The Musgrave put a few shots off the bottom of the 10 foot target. I became a "believer".

My short range rifle was a Grunig in a Ian Robertson fiberglass stock (modeled after an Anshultz target rifle). My #4 felt very different to shoot. I wanted it to feel more like my Grunig, so the #4 was modified to become a once-piece stock rifle, and put into another Ian Robertson stock.
OrSmGrO.jpg

2Dk3ANB.jpg



Now my rifles all felt the same. ( I had 2 Grunigs and 2 #4s).

In 1984 I went to Bisley and won the Grand Agg (total score for a week of shooting). My score was a record high score. The next year they made the bull smaller. At 1000 yards I only missed the bull twice - using my one piece #4.

The next year, and most, if not all years thereafter, the winner used a front locker rifle at long range. I may have been the last guy (gal) to use a #4. I still have that rifle, and notice it has a DCRA stamp on it.

I have several of those one-piece stock #4s. They deserve a better fate than being cut up once again to becomes "sporters".
 
Last edited:
I have a No4 Mk1 no star that was converted from 303 Brit in a shortened stock, with an L42 barrel fitted and an aftermarket set trigger.

The rifle is a dedicated single shot as the trigger assembly replaces all of the normal No4 trigger parts with a rather large unit that takes up room in the mag well.

It also wears the PH5C rear sight and a Globe front sight with interchangeable inserts, which are a clear plastic with different diameter holes.

This is another competitor that is still extremely accurate but was no longer capable at the matches. It to was purchased to save it from the sporter/hunting rifle class. I picked this rifle up for less than the cost of the trigger assembly. The fellow just wasn't interested in having it around if it wasn't competitive.

It isn't in a one piece stock but I hated to see it messed with and likely discarded because of it's single shot capabilities and of course, weight.
 
....

My short range rifle was a Grunig in a Ian Robertson fiberglass stock (modeled after an Anshultz target rifle). My #4 felt very different to shoot. I wanted it to feel more like my Grunig, so the #4 was modified to become a once-piece stock rifle, and put into another Ian Robertson stock.
...

2Dk3ANB.jpg

....

In 1984 I went to Bisley and won the Grand Agg (told score for a week of shooting). My score was a record high score. The next year they made the bull smaller. At 1000 yards I only missed the bull twice - using my one piece #4.

.....

That is impressive shooting. Not many shooters can claim their high scores prompted a rule change.

and, your stock looks like it could have come off Hans Adlhoch's workbench.
 
Hi Ganderite. The #4 rifle in .303 was used up to 1968. That was the last year .303 was made available at DCRA in Ottawa matches or at the provincial level. BUT for $75 you could arrange to have your No.4 sent in thru the DCRA and it would be returned in 7.62 all set to go for the 1969 matches. I decided to keep my Fulton Regulated No.4 untouched in .303 and opted for an education. I can prove what I say as I have photos of the 1968 Cadet Bisley team with their .303 No. 4s. The unavailability of ammo was the reason CA started 7.62 conversions and of course the DCRA had to allow all kinds of target rifles in to keep the sport alive and their matches packed. JOHN
 
Back
Top Bottom