Recent Purchase: LB C No.7 Mk1

beltfed

beltfed

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 99%
96   1   1
Location
Calgary
Recent local purchase on the spur of the moment (see here for background: http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/foru...o-kick-myself-for-passing-but-it-needs-a-home )

Had a chance to do a bit of light cleaning and a bit of a tear down to see what I have.
I've never seen the Parker Hale sights on a No. 7, but judging from old catalogs, they did market them for the .22s.
Looks to me like it might be a well completed re-furb. based on what appears to be a worn down LB stamp low down on the right side of the receiver (just below the bolt head in the closed position).
In addition, some of the bluing and finish work appears too good to be true from some other areas where there are still light machining marks showing through the bluing. I did need to scrub a few spots where the cosmo hardened into a varnish, so I would guess that if it was a refurb., it was done some time ago.
I'm a Lee Enfield neophyte though, so I'd like to know what the experts on here think.
Onto the photos:

































 
Last edited:
It looks right on to me. Perhaps it has been accurized a bit, with the paper strips under the band, and is that a hint of accu glass on the wood in front of the receiver?

The serial is a little low for a 46, but the stampings look right on and I don't see the usual signs of scrubbing. Normally on the scrubbed receivers the LB over the serial is gone. A high definition photo of the serial number area will tell with more certainty.

The bolt and head look awful black. Was it painted, a build-up of cosmoline,or have you purchased an almost unfired rifle?

It would have been a good price for a put-together. It is a great price for an original. One test you can do is lay a ruler across the flat of the knox, and across the flat of the charging bridge. While not the perfect test, they should be very very close to being on the same plane. Most put togethers do not get the barrel indexing right. The true test would be to remove the PH5C and run a dowel through the rear sight holes. Remove the front sight and run a small straight edge across the front sight base. If those are parallel, then that is a very good sign.
 
Last edited:
I don,t understand why they did not advertise the rifle?They lost out big time.That should have went for double the price.
 
Very Nice. Absolutely gorgeous rifle. even if it was a parts rifle its still one very nice example of the No.7. I wish their were more LB No.4s in similar condition.
 
Lou will be drooling over that.

Would you be able to take some measurement of the inner plate on the rear site please. Also if able the tread type for that screw as well.
 
That is one of the nicest Cno7's I've ever seen!

Quite a score!


beltfed said:
Recent local purchase on the spur of the moment (see here for background: http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/foru...o-kick-myself-for-passing-but-it-needs-a-home )

Had a chance to do a bit of light cleaning and a bit of a tear down to see what I have.
I've never seen the Parker Hale sights on a No. 7, but judging from old catalogs, they did market them for the .22s.
Looks to me like it might be a well completed re-furb. based on what appears to be a worn down LB stamp low down on the right side of the receiver (just below the bolt head in the closed position).
In addition, some of the bluing and finish work appears too good to be true from some other areas where there are still light machining marks showing through the bluing. I did need to scrub a few spots where the cosmo hardened into a varnish, so I would guess that if it was a refurb., it was done some time ago.
I'm a Lee Enfield neophyte though, so I'd like to know what the experts on here think.
Onto the photos:

































Click to expand...
 
Belt Fed that is one of the smartest looking LB's I've ever seen. The No7 was never really on my radar but man that looks like a million dollars and would have had to be snapped up. Congrats.
 
stencollector said:
It looks right on to me. Perhaps it has been accurized a bit, with the paper strips under the band, and is that a hint of accu glass on the wood in front of the receiver?
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with accu glass. It looks to me like graphite.

stencollector said:
The serial is a little low for a 46, but the stampings look right on and I don't see the usual signs of scrubbing. Normally on the scrubbed receivers the LB over the serial is gone. A high definition photo of the serial number area will tell with more certainty.
Click to expand...






That is just it. There is no degradation of any of the stamps with the exception of a few spots. The serial number on the wrist and the bolt look, for lack of a better word 'new'. I'll try and get a high quality macro and post it.

stencollector said:
The bolt and head look awful black. Was it painted, a build-up of cosmoline,or have you purchased an almost unfired rifle?
Click to expand...



It is blued. There is almost no wear on the bolt, with the face being bare metal - no discernible wear on the extractor or bolt face.



stencollector said:
One test you can do is lay a ruler across the flat of the knox, and across the flat of the charging bridge. While not the perfect test, they should be very very close to being on the same plane. Most put togethers do not get the barrel indexing right. The true test would be to remove the PH5C and run a dowel through the rear sight holes. Remove the front sight and run a small straight edge across the front sight base. If those are parallel, then that is a very good sign.
Click to expand...

I pulled apart the 5c - with the exception of two exterior areas where some rust has formed, there is no wear on the sight.
The bluing on both male and female ends of the elevation dovetail are pristine.
Measuring the flat of the barrel Knox compared to the top of the rear sight bolt holes with a machinist level indicates they both are nuts on with one another.

When I get time I'll post photos of the chest and EIS.
 
Last edited:
Then with those items correct, it would seem to be as correct as it looks. The high macro shot of the serial number will be the real deciding number, but my bet is it will be OK. As I mentioned, the serial number is just about the lowest I have seen on a 46 dated receiver, but I have in no way seen what I would call a lot. The serial ranges I give on the writeup over in milsurps is based on production numbers and what I have seen, and takes in to account the overlap of rifle dates as previous year dated receivers would get mixed with current year and serialized after assembly.

Currently there are still around 10,000 Cno7s in the DND system. Shame a guy could not get a printout of years and serials, however that data is not likely to exist. The CF will have a listing of serials of course. The serial ranges will often weed out the fakes from the factory originals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom