Read a document accurizing the enfields and now im turning my sported no1mk3 shtle into a target rifle. By doing all the steps shown in the doc i should have a fairly decent shooting sporter for target shooting. It will also be a hunting rifle. I already took out the draws and i am currently fitting in new wood. Its going to be a fun project .
I have several DCRA converted rifles in 7.62. They're fantastic rifles and are real tack-drivers. I highly recommend you getting your hands on one if you're given the chance.
Wow this brings back some very happy memories, I used to shoot an Envoy back in the early 80s, my friend now owns it, I also shot a Sportco and the fantastic Whittaker Special. I spent many happy days working in the butts on Century to pay for ammunition and practicing on the old military range at Kibworth. I remember sharing a range day with what must have been a local gun club, they had AR15s, M1’s both Garand and carbine plus SLRs with the lovely wood stocks. I remember the Garand seemed really fat in my teenage hands when they let me have a go.........happy days, can you do a presentation on Burt Whittaker’s great rifle the Whittaker special.
A couple of years ago I was convinced to buy a Sporterized Enfield in .308. Turns out it was a DCRA conversion, then someone took it and added an enfield barrel, Monte Carlo stock, TZ sights, and had Fulton modify it as well. I gave up on finding a Stirling Mag, so it is a single shot with the .303 mag. It is a tack driver. It was an interesting find.
i would check with the Wirksworth Gunroom at www.thewirksworthgunroom.co.uk/ they were the ones (or atleast one of their employees or founder) who helped the bloke do the no.4 tests wich you can see here on youtube to see when it would fail. They might be able to help you
The dowels visible at the rear of the forend on the Fulton Reglated Palma rifles which you refer to as 'positioning dowels' were in fact to secure the replacement boxwood inserts at the draws. These were fitted because the wood of the forends was too soft and would compress in use which affected accuracy
Interestingly the same sorts of things were said initially about the M1, M14 and M16 in turn. And each has come to dominate National Match type competition in the U.S. in turn as well. If you aren't using an AR platform now you are choosing to handicap yourself from the start.
Cooooooooool. I find it amazing and fascinating how much life the that particular action got to live and still lives today. I absolutely adore my #4 Lee Enfield. Still can't believe I managed to get ahold of one. 🤘
I agree to a point. I used to shoot all the service rifles and indeed was a weapons instructor and Its a simple fact that in those days (SLR era) you were asking a lot for an SLR to reach out beyond 500 yards with any degree of accuracy. Hence L39. Heavy barrel and so on.
In earlier days, I started at a local small-bore indoor rifle club (with BSA Martini rifles). Although it needed some skill, the wealthier club members with their heavy barreled custom made .22" rifles and heavy padded and rigid clothing always out-performed, so it became a little boring. When I got into full-bore, initially with a P14 conversion, the sport became much more to my taste. My final rifle was a No.4 conversion, that still had a .303" magazine and extractor, which I replaced with the 7.62mm NATO magazine and extractor. That was my favourite rifle, and to shoot a 1000 yards with it at Bisley was one of the most challenging and rewarding sports. I was never near the top league, but to get out in the fresh air, watching for wind changes, and get a reasonable group with such a comfortable rifle as the No.4 was exhilarating. I have fired a SLR (then a current service rifle and but for Tony Blair, I might have bought one!), but it was always the No.4 that I enjoyed the most. A good rifle.
Imagine being Bloke, releasing a video at 1:13AM my time, assuming I wouldn't be awake for viewing. Also, imagine having a 7.62 NATO anything. Damn, I wish I were that cool. Seriously, it's 5.56, 9mm, and .30 carbine in my life. I've heard 7.62 NATO is the best round to learn the long game on, and I would love to learn.
for anything inside of 500m 5.56 will do alright (not certain on terminal ballistics beyond 400), for 600+ then you want at least 7.62 NATO though there are a number of rounds that will work well but with 7.62 NATO being the most available in a lot of places it's where a lot of people go. Keep in mind tho at 800m you'll really be wanting hand loads
As far as learning to shoot long range, i completely agree that .308/7.62x51 is by far and away the best cartridge to learn with. Mostly because of the fact that it is NOT very flat shooting, or very ballistically efficient. This forces you to learn how to calculate firing solutions with more precision, and make wind calls the same way. Another reason is barrel life; with most overbore long range cartridges barrel life suffers and adding a rebarrel every 1500-2000 rounds to your training costs is not adventageous. .308 is proven to have significantly longer barrel life than pretty much all other long range cartridges. With modern powder/projectile combinations the .308 is a ballistically capable cartridge out to 1000m (and thats a conservative estimate) so using it to train is easily the most logical cartridge choice in my mind.
@@kaseyowens3065 You can however custom load a 7.62x51 to close the 6.5 Creedmoor results with the right projectile/powder loads. You can get a 7.62x51 rifle to shoot like a 6.5 but it takes a lot of effort
Thanks bloke on the range, watching this video has just made me realize the origins of my own no.4 m2, always new it was a "bitsa" the reciever is scrubbed bar its low "A" prefix double digit serial no. & just noticed the cutouts for the 7.62mm magazine. Always wondered why it was different cheers!
At 12.40 we have Major Walter Magnay winning the Queens prize in 1976; if you ever come across a No.4 conversion with a plate brazed into the top to stiffen the action Walter did them for and on behalf of Robin Fulton. Modern thinking, (and trying them) will tell you it made no difference to the performance of the rifle. Good vid, I shall look forward to a future one on the Whitaker Special when you're in the UK next, (I'll supply them!)
A conversion almost certainly done without any thought about the effect of brazing temperatures on the original heat treatment of the action. Simply having it re-proofed (assuming they were) would not show up any long term effects.
314299 Shooting Channel I know. I’m building a l42a1 clone and it’s the only part I can’t find. I’m thinking about buying a couple of the pro mag magazines and trying to make them look the part.
Do you have any good sources of information about the DCRA .308 conversions? I have been looking around for a good source about them but haven't been able to find much on the topic outside a few forum posts. Particularly information about whether the rifles were ever used with regular Enfield battle sights and not the target sights.
Never seen a picture of one with service sights. And given what they were intended to be used for, you'd have a very hard time indeed without the wind arm of a target sight.
There are two DCRA conversion forums. Surf to milsurps.com for a serial number listing and conversation. The other is sort of a vanity forum on Facebook.
and NRA now in trouble with Charity Commission over among other things its failure to promote/support defence of the realm through not using service rifles.
Not only a gross over-simplification but inaccurate as well. Perhaps it has escaped your attention that the current service rifle requires Section 5 authority and would have even in 1968. Its predecessor the L1A1 SLR has been a prohibited weapon requiring Section 5 authority since 1988. The original FN design which was modified in the L1A1 was also full auto and classified S5(1)(a). You would not get an FAC for either. Divergence of rifles which could be used for civilian target shooting from military weapons was inevitable from commencement of changeover from the No.4 as a target rifle in the late 1960's . The complaint to the Charity Commission was made by a group of entirely self-serving individuals who wanted a special deal on clubhouse rent for one of their mates. This special deal would have course have been paid for by the rest of the membership. It is significant that the CC rejected any kind of special deals on rents.
@@johnspencer6270 Having read the findings of the Charity Commission in full, and applying my lawyers eye, your answer avoids the findings about the way the NRA was operating. No personal axe to grind here, as I am not a member nor even a target shooter. But I do think you should consider the findings and not obscure matters by your claim about the motivation of the complainers.
@@simonsaorsa Not being a shooter, but thinking of it as a sport, I can see that the NRA has a difficult path to tread. You can probably see that even more clearly. Can you think of any plan that might make shooting a more generally acceptable sport in the UK?
The last person to win HM The Queens Prize using a No.4 in the Final was John Bloomfield in 1990. That rifle was a much altered Envoy with a cut down No.4 .303 narrow military forend, special butt which he made himself, speed-locked firing pin (fall reduced to about 6mm) and John Light made match trigger unit. Rifle Serial Number D69 E244. If you watch the video of the 1990 Queens Prize, th-cam.com/video/L09wNHVaJAE/w-d-xo.html at 39.20 you can just about see the much reduced striker travel on his rifle compared with Baldwin's a minute or so earlier
Thanks for another excellent video. I own a Parker Hale T4 which isn't cut for the 7.62 magazine and thus has "leisurely" feeding and ejection. But it does easily shoot sub MOA with ordinary GGG NATO 144gr ammo and has a nice trigger.
Anything on the P14 Winchester conversions to 7.62x51 with hammered parkerhale barrels and 5a sights. Many concidered it better for under 1000yds than Envoy (no 4 variants, with its Mauser action).
Fascinating stuff. Thank you. I'm always intrigued where the mysterious L8 rifle sits in the history of Lee Enfield .303" to 7.62mm. A subject for another time?
2:39 you mention the DCRA 7.62 rifles being "not particularly successful" at short range, could you elaborate a bit on that? I have a very nice example of a DCRA rifle but admit I have used it very little.
I believe the DCRA bedding was limited to the existing wooden stock so an aluminum or titanium frame could nt be used. Had a frame similar to the Accuracy International been allowed on the the L39A1 it would still be in use today, in my opinion. The Weak Link of accuracy to the LeeEnfield was bedding and Barrel rigidity over time. My father was an armour. if there were tricks to true accuracy of the LeeEnfield he knew them.
Nah, it wouldn't. Not rigid enough. The modern rigid actions are sooooo much better than any of the earlier military actions, without exception. You started to really see that once the 155gn ammo came in at Bisley, and now with the SMK-loaded ammo it's absolutely no contest.
on the SLR subject i assume you have seen pictures of the SLR single shot done by Lithgow (approximately 131 made) i have no experience with them but have seen a couple over the years . Was anything done in a similar fashion with the No1Mk3? , when i use to shoot "F" Class here in Aus they would turn up now and then but i have no idea if they were made that way or Smith-ed that way
Palma is technically a team match at long ranges with single shot target rifles for a trophy. For a while the host country supplied the rifles and ammunition to offer a level competitive playing field. I have seen Sportco M44s, Winchester Model 70s, Parker Hale M1200s (?) and Lee Enfield No.4s made up in batches. Team members were offered the opportunity to buy their rifles after the match. Most did because they were as good or better than their home rifles. However, supplying several hundred really good rifles all at once was quite a challenge, and the practice fell by the wayside.
What do you think modern British firearms laws would look like if the link between the firearms used at the British NRA matches and the firearms used by the British Military were not broken with the adoption of the SLR? Normally, and I think for good reason, we decry the "gravel bellies" and their interference in the adoption of new service rifles. Would this be a case where keeping the "gravel bellies" happy during the adoption of a new semi-automatic rifle would have been a worthwhile trade-off? Particularly in the long term?
If accurised SLR's had been the primary rifles used for the mainstream competition programme the NRA might not have maintained a "dignified silence" after the Hungerford massacre which led to semiauto rifles being banned. Here in Switzerland the SSV were very vocal in being against the EU ban, and helped get it massively watered down.
@@BlokeontheRange And all that having been said, Dunblane still happened and let to outright bans on all proper handguns. Even if semi auto rifles has not been banned after Hungerford, I think they'd have been "dealt with" after Dunblane.
@@BlokeontheRange Thanks a lot, I really enjoy your channel. I think the design and Construction of target rifles here have been heavily influenced byt the popular sport of bench rest shooting. We have quite a few very good barrel makers and action makers here in the US. The need for shooting rapid fire strings with magazine changes in our national match course along with the success of accurized AR-15 variants has lead to our service rifle matches still being very popular. Sadly the situation with ranges is not nearly as good as it should be. There is not one for several hundred miles from where I live. The other ecent development is the use of optical sights in service rifle as the armed forces have gone to them.
As can be seen from the L39's, that were made over several years and hence have D numbers that vary, it's the manufacture year :) See this one for instance forums.gunboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2768810&d=1515021501&thumb=1
@@BlokeontheRange Um, sorry no it's not. The L39's have a UE number that varies according to year of manufacture. I think there were 3 batches of L39 made in 1970, 71 & 72?. In the case of the Envoy, the D69 refers to the design year - I worked in the RSAF Drawing Office at the time! Look carefully at the letter 'D', it is in fact a combination of letters 'D' and 'E', there is a small horizontal stroke in the centre of the 'D' - it stands for "Design Enfield". This is shorthand for DD(E) (Design Drawing Enfield) which was the designation of all factory drawings. You will find some No.4 7.62 barrels have a DD(E) number on the knox form, again if memory serves these were the barrels sold into the civilian guntrade. If I recall correctly (and unfortunately memory dims with age and we are talking over 50 years ago now) the concept which became the Envoy originated from the NRA who required rifles for the Palma Match which they were hosting in 1970 but wanted an improved version of the L39 type No.4 conversion. There was at least one meeting held at RSAF with people from the NRA at which the design was discussed and then agreed. One other part of your video which is incorrect is where you discuss the difference in how the action is machined to accommodate the 7.62 magazine. The main alteration to the action cuts for the 7.62 mag are for the front feed lips on the mag not those at the rear as can be seen if you attempt to fit a 7.62 mag into an unmodified action. The front feed lips on the 7.62 mag are larger than on the .303 version consequently the action cuts are longer. There are a number of other minor mods including to the shape of the feed ramp.
You're right about the UE numbers on L39's, my bad... Sorry, but in respect of the "D" with bar marking I think you're mis-remembering... that's the Enfield monogram you're talking about, found on all manner of Enfield-made parts, from extractors to milled No.4 rear sights. It's also on Enfield-made BREN guns. It's a combination of the letters E, F and D superimposed, and this is the first time I've heard anyone claim it's a design date mark, which is contradicted entirely by how it's used in practice. At 9:03 in this video there's a No.4 CONV with D69. The first No.4 CONV's were produced in 1968: lee-enfield.org/lera-info/15-target-rifle/76-enfield-l39-and-7-62-conv-rifles-manufacturing-records Here's a 1944 BREN Mk.3 (my 1944 dated BREN Mk.1 has the same marking): www.thegunner.net/bren/brenident/bren_mk3_stamps.jpg But back at the plot... We can also look at Enforcers. Here's one with D80: www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2012/10/enforcer2png-1.jpg D73: lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/4lp9_yuHYR8zApz22pRC8uUSDzLeC4oeoy0nGPvtp9_488Obp2Biy94UYXvZjcYW0dNAzusMVv4k30sq6yziUnLoZG8 Another D73: www.young-guns.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/IMG_2745.jpg Most Enforcers seem to be D73. Also L42A1: D70: s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/awm-media/collection/REL/16987.001/screen/3833258.JPG D71: i0.wp.com/www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-27-at-8.39.57-AM.png?fit=967%2C537&ssl=1 D72: www.highwoodclassicarms.co.uk/Firerms%20For%20Sale/0181/5.JPG D75: www.proxibid.com/Firearms-Military-Artifacts/Firearms/Enfield-L42A1-Sniper-Rifle-w-Case/lotInformation/44276317 So clearly can only be an indication of manufacture date.
My dream rifle is an SMLE in 762. Ishipour, gunsmith job. I don't care. A comfortable bolt gun in an easy to access cartridge that can kill steel, deer or that piece of shit who keeps setting off huge fireworks behind my house upsetting my dogs. Since those dogs are German shepherd who have spent two tours in Afghanistan, they won't like to meet them in their present state.
Yes, more Lee-Enfields!
Read a document accurizing the enfields and now im turning my sported no1mk3 shtle into a target rifle. By doing all the steps shown in the doc i should have a fairly decent shooting sporter for target shooting. It will also be a hunting rifle. I already took out the draws and i am currently fitting in new wood. Its going to be a fun project .
Just watched Ian's video on Push v. Control feed, and here it is. LE's are control fed.
I have several DCRA converted rifles in 7.62. They're fantastic rifles and are real tack-drivers. I highly recommend you getting your hands on one if you're given the chance.
Please Mike, make some more videos about those rifles!!
There’s people out there who don’t understand enfield rifles capabilities
Wow this brings back some very happy memories, I used to shoot an Envoy back in the early 80s, my friend now owns it, I also shot a Sportco and the fantastic Whittaker Special.
I spent many happy days working in the butts on Century to pay for ammunition and practicing on the old military range at Kibworth. I remember sharing a range day with what must have been a local gun club, they had AR15s, M1’s both Garand and carbine plus SLRs with the lovely wood stocks. I remember the Garand seemed really fat in my teenage hands when they let me have a go.........happy days, can you do a presentation on Burt Whittaker’s great rifle the Whittaker special.
We still shoot full bore competitions in 303 here in South Africa. Rifles as issued with Parker-Hale peepsights.
Nerdy Enfield blather. My cup of tea.
A couple of years ago I was convinced to buy a Sporterized Enfield in .308. Turns out it was a DCRA conversion, then someone took it and added an enfield barrel, Monte Carlo stock, TZ sights, and had Fulton modify it as well. I gave up on finding a Stirling Mag, so it is a single shot with the .303 mag. It is a tack driver. It was an interesting find.
i would check with the Wirksworth Gunroom at www.thewirksworthgunroom.co.uk/ they were the ones (or atleast one of their employees or founder) who helped the bloke do the no.4 tests wich you can see here on youtube to see when it would fail. They might be able to help you
How much you want for it
@@RebelSandGaming Sorry, not for sale.
@@dakohli well if you ever change your mind let me know
@@RebelSandGaming ok
The dowels visible at the rear of the forend on the Fulton Reglated Palma rifles which you refer to as 'positioning dowels' were in fact to secure the replacement boxwood inserts at the draws. These were fitted because the wood of the forends was too soft and would compress in use which affected accuracy
Thank you Mike for some additional content on the L39A1.
Mine came with a .308 magazine, Enfield variety.
Interestingly the same sorts of things were said initially about the M1, M14 and M16 in turn. And each has come to dominate National Match type competition in the U.S. in turn as well. If you aren't using an AR platform now you are choosing to handicap yourself from the start.
It is a test of marksmanship not technology Testing ones mettle need not be Luddite nor remove the human equation
Cooooooooool. I find it amazing and fascinating how much life the that particular action got to live and still lives today. I absolutely adore my #4 Lee Enfield. Still can't believe I managed to get ahold of one. 🤘
I agree to a point. I used to shoot all the service rifles and indeed was a weapons instructor and Its a simple fact that in those days (SLR era) you were asking a lot for an SLR to reach out beyond 500 yards with any degree of accuracy. Hence L39. Heavy barrel and so on.
In earlier days, I started at a local small-bore indoor rifle club (with BSA Martini rifles). Although it needed some skill, the wealthier club members with their heavy barreled custom made .22" rifles and heavy padded and rigid clothing always out-performed, so it became a little boring.
When I got into full-bore, initially with a P14 conversion, the sport became much more to my taste. My final rifle was a No.4 conversion, that still had a .303" magazine and extractor, which I replaced with the 7.62mm NATO magazine and extractor. That was my favourite rifle, and to shoot a 1000 yards with it at Bisley was one of the most challenging and rewarding sports. I was never near the top league, but to get out in the fresh air, watching for wind changes, and get a reasonable group with such a comfortable rifle as the No.4 was exhilarating. I have fired a SLR (then a current service rifle and but for Tony Blair, I might have bought one!), but it was always the No.4 that I enjoyed the most. A good rifle.
So good to see your arm fully healed!
Congrats!
My Husband has Enfield Envoy , excellent rifle and accurate
We had one in the CCF in the 80s when we were still on No4 rifles.... it used Special Ammunition! Now all the mystery is gone :-(
Imagine being Bloke, releasing a video at 1:13AM my time, assuming I wouldn't be awake for viewing.
Also, imagine having a 7.62 NATO anything. Damn, I wish I were that cool.
Seriously, it's 5.56, 9mm, and .30 carbine in my life. I've heard 7.62 NATO is the best round to learn the long game on, and I would love to learn.
for anything inside of 500m 5.56 will do alright (not certain on terminal ballistics beyond 400), for 600+ then you want at least 7.62 NATO though there are a number of rounds that will work well but with 7.62 NATO being the most available in a lot of places it's where a lot of people go. Keep in mind tho at 800m you'll really be wanting hand loads
As far as learning to shoot long range, i completely agree that .308/7.62x51 is by far and away the best cartridge to learn with. Mostly because of the fact that it is NOT very flat shooting, or very ballistically efficient. This forces you to learn how to calculate firing solutions with more precision, and make wind calls the same way. Another reason is barrel life; with most overbore long range cartridges barrel life suffers and adding a rebarrel every 1500-2000 rounds to your training costs is not adventageous. .308 is proven to have significantly longer barrel life than pretty much all other long range cartridges. With modern powder/projectile combinations the .308 is a ballistically capable cartridge out to 1000m (and thats a conservative estimate) so using it to train is easily the most logical cartridge choice in my mind.
@@kaseyowens3065 You can however custom load a 7.62x51 to close the 6.5 Creedmoor results with the right projectile/powder loads. You can get a 7.62x51 rifle to shoot like a 6.5 but it takes a lot of effort
Thanks bloke on the range, watching this video has just made me realize the origins of my own no.4 m2, always new it was a "bitsa" the reciever is scrubbed bar its low "A" prefix double digit serial no. & just noticed the cutouts for the 7.62mm magazine. Always wondered why it was different cheers!
At 12.40 we have Major Walter Magnay winning the Queens prize in 1976; if you ever come across a No.4 conversion with a plate brazed into the top to stiffen the action Walter did them for and on behalf of Robin Fulton. Modern thinking, (and trying them) will tell you it made no difference to the performance of the rifle. Good vid, I shall look forward to a future one on the Whitaker Special when you're in the UK next, (I'll supply them!)
A conversion almost certainly done without any thought about the effect of brazing temperatures on the original heat treatment of the action. Simply having it re-proofed (assuming they were) would not show up any long term effects.
Love the British rifles. Reminds me that I need to reassemble my Lithgow . Thanks Bloke.
I believe that the Lithgow is Australian...
Randall Perea Same rifles tho
@@randallperea7845 it is, but commonwealth/ british at least back then was the same. I assume he means a no. 1 mk3
I’ve been looking everywhere for one of those 7.62 magazines.
Should you find one brace yourself for sticker shock, they are damn expensive.
314299 Shooting Channel I know. I’m building a l42a1 clone and it’s the only part I can’t find. I’m thinking about buying a couple of the pro mag magazines and trying to make them look the part.
Scarce as Rocking Horse Poo. Maybe Indian ones for the Ishapore 2A1.
Do you have any good sources of information about the DCRA .308 conversions? I have been looking around for a good source about them but haven't been able to find much on the topic outside a few forum posts. Particularly information about whether the rifles were ever used with regular Enfield battle sights and not the target sights.
No, they were set up as target rifles so will always have been used with target sights.
Never seen a picture of one with service sights. And given what they were intended to be used for, you'd have a very hard time indeed without the wind arm of a target sight.
There are two DCRA conversion forums. Surf to milsurps.com for a serial number listing and conversation. The other is sort of a vanity forum on Facebook.
and NRA now in trouble with Charity Commission over among other things its failure to promote/support defence of the realm through not using service rifles.
Indeed. That flows directly from breaking that link back in the day.
Not only a gross over-simplification but inaccurate as well. Perhaps it has escaped your attention that the current service rifle requires Section 5 authority and would have even in 1968. Its predecessor the L1A1 SLR has been a prohibited weapon requiring Section 5 authority since 1988. The original FN design which was modified in the L1A1 was also full auto and classified S5(1)(a). You would not get an FAC for either. Divergence of rifles which could be used for civilian target shooting from military weapons was inevitable from commencement of changeover from the No.4 as a target rifle in the late 1960's .
The complaint to the Charity Commission was made by a group of entirely self-serving individuals who wanted a special deal on clubhouse rent for one of their mates. This special deal would have course have been paid for by the rest of the membership. It is significant that the CC rejected any kind of special deals on rents.
@@johnspencer6270 Having read the findings of the Charity Commission in full, and applying my lawyers eye, your answer avoids the findings about the way the NRA was operating. No personal axe to grind here, as I am not a member nor even a target shooter. But I do think you should consider the findings and not obscure matters by your claim about the motivation of the complainers.
@@simonsaorsa Not being a shooter, but thinking of it as a sport, I can see that the NRA has a difficult path to tread.
You can probably see that even more clearly. Can you think of any plan that might make shooting a more generally acceptable sport in the UK?
The last person to win HM The Queens Prize using a No.4 in the Final was John Bloomfield in 1990. That rifle was a much altered Envoy with a cut down No.4 .303 narrow military forend, special butt which he made himself, speed-locked firing pin (fall reduced to about 6mm) and John Light made match trigger unit. Rifle Serial Number D69 E244. If you watch the video of the 1990 Queens Prize,
th-cam.com/video/L09wNHVaJAE/w-d-xo.html at 39.20 you can just about see the much reduced striker travel on his rifle compared with Baldwin's a minute or so earlier
I have a Geoff Hart No.4 conversion with one of John Light's Brindles triggers fitted, I believe Geoff did the conversion in the early 1980's.
There's a D71 number I seen on envoy also.
I’m taking up this sport ASAP!
Super = ] Official Enfield-made 7.62mm / 308 Win Target Rifles: L39A1, No4. 7.62 CONV and
Thanks for another excellent video. I own a Parker Hale T4 which isn't cut for the 7.62 magazine and thus has "leisurely" feeding and ejection. But it does easily shoot sub MOA with ordinary GGG NATO 144gr ammo and has a nice trigger.
Loved the video, I am very interested in this era of target rifles!
Great Video
I love full wood Lee Enfield
I wouldn't buy sportster
Very nice presition Rifles!!!!!!!
😎😁🤝👍
Stupid question but what is the correct name for the bottom rifle in the still photo at 6.08. I have one with a 4 x Pecar Berlin scope on it.
Not a Enfield fan......
Still, very interesting and enlightening.
Good job,
Anything on the P14 Winchester conversions to 7.62x51 with hammered parkerhale barrels and 5a sights. Many concidered it better for under 1000yds than Envoy (no 4 variants, with its Mauser action).
Loads of gunsmith-conversions of P14's and M17's, believed not to shoot well over 600 yds (it's all in everyone's head is my considered view...)
Fascinating..!
Fascinating stuff. Thank you. I'm always intrigued where the mysterious L8 rifle sits in the history of Lee Enfield .303" to 7.62mm. A subject for another time?
Yup.
@@BlokeontheRange Look forward to it. Keep up the great videos. Thanks.
Thx!
Génial 👍👍👍👍
Hey I'm kinda new to ww2 guns and stuff and I'm pretty interested on your frankenrifle. How did you make it?
th-cam.com/video/NOAHKzyYWYo/w-d-xo.html
@@thebotrchap ty
I want an Envoy! If only I had been born rich instead of so good looking XD
2:39 you mention the DCRA 7.62 rifles being "not particularly successful" at short range, could you elaborate a bit on that? I have a very nice example of a DCRA rifle but admit I have used it very little.
According to the book they didn't group as well as .303" ones at the shorter ranges.
@@BlokeontheRange I can see how the 174gr .303 bullet would do better at extreme range. Does the .308 take some distance to "go to sleep"?
Very interesting , do you know much about the the uk police Enfield Inforcer ? If so it would be nice if you could do a video about it .
I would love to see a video on the enforcer as well
When you get down to 1/4 MoA, at what point will the terminology turn to Seconds of Angle?
Never. It's just expressed in fractions or decimals.
I believe the DCRA bedding was limited to the existing wooden stock so an aluminum or titanium frame could nt be used.
Had a frame similar to the Accuracy International been allowed on the the L39A1 it would still be in use today, in my opinion.
The Weak Link of accuracy to the LeeEnfield was bedding and Barrel rigidity over time.
My father was an armour. if there were tricks to true accuracy of the LeeEnfield he knew them.
Nah, it wouldn't. Not rigid enough. The modern rigid actions are sooooo much better than any of the earlier military actions, without exception. You started to really see that once the 155gn ammo came in at Bisley, and now with the SMK-loaded ammo it's absolutely no contest.
@@BlokeontheRange Well they did not call it the "Green Meany" for no reason
@@courierdog1941 the "green meanie" was the Accuracy International L96A1, which is a modern, rigid action...
on the SLR subject i assume you have seen pictures of the SLR single shot done by Lithgow (approximately 131 made) i have no experience with them but have seen a couple over the years .
Was anything done in a similar fashion with the No1Mk3? , when i use to shoot "F" Class here in Aus they would turn up now and then but i have no idea if they were made that way or Smith-ed that way
I have seen pics of various Lithgow single-shot L1A1's. I've not seen a No.1 Mk.3 done as a 7.62mm target rifle.
According to Skennerton action steel too soft and would stretch
so the NO 4s were more accurate than the P14s at long range?
I always thought it was the other way around.....
yes I heard that and thought is it mixed up - Bloke, put us out of our ignorance if you can please.
The folklore was the whip of the barreled No.4 action had a node or sweet spot in the harmonics at 8, 9, and 1000.
Are you allowed to use a Palma rifle like we have in the US?
Yes. Palma is basically the same thing.
Palma is technically a team match at long ranges with single shot target rifles for a trophy. For a while the host country supplied the rifles and ammunition to offer a level competitive playing field. I have seen Sportco M44s, Winchester Model 70s, Parker Hale M1200s (?) and Lee Enfield No.4s made up in batches. Team members were offered the opportunity to buy their rifles after the match. Most did because they were as good or better than their home rifles. However, supplying several hundred really good rifles all at once was quite a challenge, and the practice fell by the wayside.
What do you think modern British firearms laws would look like if the link between the firearms used at the British NRA matches and the firearms used by the British Military were not broken with the adoption of the SLR? Normally, and I think for good reason, we decry the "gravel bellies" and their interference in the adoption of new service rifles. Would this be a case where keeping the "gravel bellies" happy during the adoption of a new semi-automatic rifle would have been a worthwhile trade-off? Particularly in the long term?
If accurised SLR's had been the primary rifles used for the mainstream competition programme the NRA might not have maintained a "dignified silence" after the Hungerford massacre which led to semiauto rifles being banned. Here in Switzerland the SSV were very vocal in being against the EU ban, and helped get it massively watered down.
@@BlokeontheRange And all that having been said, Dunblane still happened and let to outright bans on all proper handguns. Even if semi auto rifles has not been banned after Hungerford, I think they'd have been "dealt with" after Dunblane.
My old target rifles fetish will bankrupt me one of these days.
I have an idea, @jeremie C just send me your entire collection, you may even pay for the shipping as well, then you can start again.
I shot one in the imperial for years , fab at 1000 yd , why did I sell it ?
Could you show us a state of the art target rifle as used in the UK?
At some point when I'm in the UK I'll try to show one.
@@BlokeontheRange Thanks a lot, I really enjoy your channel. I think the design and Construction of target rifles here have been heavily influenced byt the popular sport of bench rest shooting. We have quite a few very good barrel makers and action makers here in the US. The need for shooting rapid fire strings with magazine changes in our national match course along with the success of accurized AR-15 variants has lead to our service rifle matches still being very popular. Sadly the situation with ranges is not nearly as good as it should be. There is not one for several hundred miles from where I live. The other ecent development is the use of optical sights in service rifle as the armed forces have gone to them.
No Enfield 2A/2A1?
This video is about target rifles, so no :)
Correct, you said modern action
इस राईफल का रेज कितना है कितने मिटर दूर जाती
NEAT
The D69 refers to the design year.
As can be seen from the L39's, that were made over several years and hence have D numbers that vary, it's the manufacture year :)
See this one for instance forums.gunboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2768810&d=1515021501&thumb=1
@@BlokeontheRange Um, sorry no it's not. The L39's have a UE number that varies according to year of manufacture. I think there were 3 batches of L39 made in 1970, 71 & 72?. In the case of the Envoy, the D69 refers to the design year - I worked in the RSAF Drawing Office at the time! Look carefully at the letter 'D', it is in fact a combination of letters 'D' and 'E', there is a small horizontal stroke in the centre of the 'D' - it stands for "Design Enfield". This is shorthand for DD(E) (Design Drawing Enfield) which was the designation of all factory drawings. You will find some No.4 7.62 barrels have a DD(E) number on the knox form, again if memory serves these were the barrels sold into the civilian guntrade.
If I recall correctly (and unfortunately memory dims with age and we are talking over 50 years ago now) the concept which became the Envoy originated from the NRA who required rifles for the Palma Match which they were hosting in 1970 but wanted an improved version of the L39 type No.4 conversion. There was at least one meeting held at RSAF with people from the NRA at which the design was discussed and then agreed.
One other part of your video which is incorrect is where you discuss the difference in how the action is machined to accommodate the 7.62 magazine. The main alteration to the action cuts for the 7.62 mag are for the front feed lips on the mag not those at the rear as can be seen if you attempt to fit a 7.62 mag into an unmodified action. The front feed lips on the 7.62 mag are larger than on the .303 version consequently the action cuts are longer. There are a number of other minor mods including to the shape of the feed ramp.
You're right about the UE numbers on L39's, my bad...
Sorry, but in respect of the "D" with bar marking I think you're mis-remembering... that's the Enfield monogram you're talking about, found on all manner of Enfield-made parts, from extractors to milled No.4 rear sights. It's also on Enfield-made BREN guns. It's a combination of the letters E, F and D superimposed, and this is the first time I've heard anyone claim it's a design date mark, which is contradicted entirely by how it's used in practice.
At 9:03 in this video there's a No.4 CONV with D69. The first No.4 CONV's were produced in 1968: lee-enfield.org/lera-info/15-target-rifle/76-enfield-l39-and-7-62-conv-rifles-manufacturing-records
Here's a 1944 BREN Mk.3 (my 1944 dated BREN Mk.1 has the same marking): www.thegunner.net/bren/brenident/bren_mk3_stamps.jpg
But back at the plot...
We can also look at Enforcers. Here's one with D80: www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2012/10/enforcer2png-1.jpg
D73: lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/4lp9_yuHYR8zApz22pRC8uUSDzLeC4oeoy0nGPvtp9_488Obp2Biy94UYXvZjcYW0dNAzusMVv4k30sq6yziUnLoZG8
Another D73: www.young-guns.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/IMG_2745.jpg
Most Enforcers seem to be D73.
Also L42A1:
D70: s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/awm-media/collection/REL/16987.001/screen/3833258.JPG
D71: i0.wp.com/www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-27-at-8.39.57-AM.png?fit=967%2C537&ssl=1
D72: www.highwoodclassicarms.co.uk/Firerms%20For%20Sale/0181/5.JPG
D75: www.proxibid.com/Firearms-Military-Artifacts/Firearms/Enfield-L42A1-Sniper-Rifle-w-Case/lotInformation/44276317
So clearly can only be an indication of manufacture date.
Soooo.... Youre telling me that the britts use MOA instead of Milliradians?!?!?!?!?! You guys secretly like the imperial system... Dont you ;)
Some of us have never gotten over going metric!lol
It seems like there actually used to be shooting sports and shooting tradition in the UK. I wonder where it all went.
It didn't go anywhere... It's still there.
My dream rifle is an SMLE in 762. Ishipour, gunsmith job. I don't care. A comfortable bolt gun in an easy to access cartridge that can kill steel, deer or that piece of shit who keeps setting off huge fireworks behind my house upsetting my dogs. Since those dogs are German shepherd who have spent two tours in Afghanistan, they won't like to meet them in their present state.
Lemme buy a no4 mk1 in 308 lol
Bloody boring!