The Queens Prize was won in the final shoot by Geoff Cox RAFTR (in the 80's) using a converted No 4 which he re-bedded the night before. The NRA (UK) received service ammunition so hence the change from .303 to 7.62, the cadet forces continued with the No 4 until the supply of .303 was limited and the Cadets were issued the PH L81A1 when that was withdrawn they used the Cadet GP rifle in 5.56. The issue of service ammunition was a testing ground, as cadets we would fire more rounds in one year per cadet than a service man would fire in nine years of service. the NRA kept with the 7.62 for TR. The cadet forces were issued batch of 5.56 which give a number failures when firing and the batch was removed but was issue to the ISCRM meeting with the same results. Those who may recall 9.9.90, RG were under pressure to supply 5.56 for the first gulf war, rumour has it that someone thought it a good idea to speed up the production run, which lead to the miss sitting of the heads. Luckily it was not issued to the front line troops when they went forward. So in peace time TR shooting is a way to proof batchs, cos who would like it when you are fae by the enemy hoard and your rifle fails.
A few other tings: The Lee Enfield "two-piece" furniture arrangement started out, following the Martinis, as a VERY useful "military logistics" thing. Firstly, has anyone ever seen any other service rifle of a similar vintage, with the ability to easily be set up to better fit soldiers of various "statures"? The modern "six-position" AR butt assemblies are about as closes as anyone gets, but that caper was to accommodate operating out of vehicles and the widespread adoption of body armour. The other interesting thing about the L. E. action is the transfer of recoil. The rear-locking action has "some" flex, hence it may want to move under recoil. Note the lack of anything resembling the serious recoil lugs under the breech ring. as opposed to all the Front-lockers of various denominations. These "conventional" rifles transfer the recoil to the butt, primarily via the thin wooden side-panels of the stock, around the magazine area.. The beauty of the L. E. setup is that the rear-fitted locking surfaces have a very short transfer path to the butt, via the generously- proportioned "Butt Socket' (actually referred to in official documents as a "Ferrule"). Rear-locking actions "inaccurate"? The Steyr SSG and the French FRF2 , and even the "budget" Remington 788.might beg to differ. There is another fine detail that a lot of people miss: The recoil thrust id supposed to be transferred to the butt ONLY by the centre of the "tenon". There is SUPPOSED to be a small gap between the OUTER circumference of the "ferrule" and the "shoulder of the wrist of the butt. If there is no "gap", recoil will soon start to rip chips off the butt wrist. The Whittaker specials tossed all of this "subtlety out of the window. The Canadians did the same when they were developing the Ultra-light "carbine", the J-5550. This was a proposed alternative to the more Prosaic" No5 series. There seem to be two versions of the J-5550, and the major difference is at the rear of the receiver. One version seems to have gone all out to shed weight and thus the 'ferrule was basically completely cut away, as it was "not needed" in a one-piece" stock. There was a small "tag" at the top to transfer the rather substantial recoil to teh butt area. The other one I have seen is a bit more "thought-out". The "ferrule" was reduced to a "leg", with the sides od the ferrule and the recoil plate machined away. Interestingly, this "leg" functioned much like the rear "recoil" leg of an SKS, a somewhat different rear-locker with a dubious stock. It works. Funny how nobody seems to make a "modern Sporting rifle" with one-piece furniture, (apart from the M-1A and its cute cousin, the Mini-14.. L1A1 rifles could be set up for differently-statured troops; with the traditional wood, it was a bit fiddly and there were stocks of differently-sized buts to be "warehoused". The UK polymer stuff came with a ""bantam" (very-short) butt and additional "spacer (slices) capped of with a "standard, one-size fits all" plastic butt-plate. That Maranyl stuff can get quite hot just being exposed to sunlight, BUT, it was adopted primarily because wooden furniture gets ugly, fast after a few trips through the NBC warfare "decontamination" steam cleaner. And ANYTHING "black", (Think; "Chocolate Chip cammo uniforms), lights up like a Christmas tree when viewed through Night-vision / "thermal" optics.
When I got my L39a1 it was all greased up and never used, the seller told me that it was one on a batch ordered by the UK police snipers, apparently some senior guy threw a tizzy when he fould out saying that the Btitish police do not have snipers. It came with the PH 5c target sight and a butt stock with the cheek piece also the magazine is not like the standard No4 mag. I ntersting doc I learn something new (or forgotten) most times, thanks.
ooo, I have a few of these in my collection except Lithgow/Sportco conversions and then gunsmithed in Australia. I will one day make a video about them when I find some primary historical source on them. (ie. visiting the Lithgow archives)
Canadian arsenals converted about 2000 No.4s to 7.62 in the late 50s early 60s. All they did was swap out the .303 barrels for a same profiled 7.62 barrel. The bolts were hardness tested and bolt heads also hardness tested. Most of the rifles were kept in their original full length military stock with only less obvious upgrades done to the rifle such as tuned triggers, bedding and quite a few rifles received a Parker Hale sight.
The Enfield 7.62mm magazines often work as a drop in fit when either Savage or Longbranch No4 Mk1* actions are used. The British made No4 Mk1 or Mk2/3 though do not as you mentioned.
N.B. Canada - In 1979 or so, I bought a SMLE #4MK1, heavily fitted for target shooting. The Magazine well had a pair of nuts brazed into the action. The barrel was a slim 7.62 barrel with a sleeve fitted the whole barrel and welded at the top - 0.25 inches in front of the barrel. Imagine a 1.25 diameter sleeve from front sight back and finishing at the action, just 1/2 in in front of the chamber. The fore-stock was bedded in some very hard mixture I did not recognize. The trigger was the old version. Sights were the PH 5. There was lead in the rear stock. The front ring - was lined with cork, and fit snug. The magazine cap was truncated and a couple sheet metal screws attached it to the action. It was a single shot. Back in those days, my eyes saw 20/15 to 20/10. With IVI ball, I put 4 shots on a playing card, at 400 yds. It has been the most accurate rifle to ever pass my hands.
....Geez was whatever gunsmith who did that work building a rifle or Frankenstein. I am surprised you were willing to put rounds through it's action. I certainly wouldn't have , not that brave. But hey while my first rifle may have been a M1 Garand I have no love for anything older than me both automotive and gun wise.
I have recently acquired the Service Rifle B Fazakerley 1953 much better looking than the 7.62 conversion and pretty accurate so far. Looking forward to shooting it when the range opens after lockdown.
Nice old Bisley footage. Those conversions are fun shooters, accurate enough for most of us, not so accurate that every tiny twitch shows on the target.
There was also the Swedish target rifle CG63, built on a m96 Swedish Mauser action, thicker barrel, new stock and various things similar to this. Believe they tried to compete with this kind of conversion.
Oh, there's zillions of types of such conversions. The British ones were normally either No.4's, P14/M17's or various Mauser 98's. I saw a couple of K31's back in the day too. I rather liked the look of the Norwegian ones built on Mauser 98 actions, known as "Kongsberg target rifles" since they had a top handguard. There really wasn't any difference between them, but people believed that the No.4 conversions were better at long range (900 and 1000 yds) and that the others were better at short range (300, 500 and 600 yds). And since 90% of high-level shooting is psychology... ;) They can't consistently keep up with the modern rigid actions though so are only suitable as entry level guns these days.
@@BlokeontheRange Yea, here in Sweden you can get them basically for free (cg63),the action is not as strong as m98s but a great budget precision rifle.
Same in the UK - the old conversions cost almost nothing, but are brilliant starter rifles and are still capable of surprisingly good shooting. I shot my first highest possible score with a Mauser 98 conversion.
@@cgdeery I sadly don't know much about the export 308 rifles. They had high hopes for that market but it turned out they could not compete with other modified surplus rifles like Enfield's in price. This is what a sale's brochure said: CG63 EA. (export variant) Caliber 308 (7.62 Nato) or 6.5x55mm. Weight 9,9lbs +- 0.4 lbs. Length 49". Sight Radius 33.4". Barrel length 29.1". Trigger weight 4+ 0.65 lbs. Barrel twist 12" and 8.66" respectively. Cocks on closing stroke of the bolt. Stock made from Nutwood (?). Sight adjustment 200-1200 yds. Swivels for two point sling. However many rifles were modified and some converted to 308 later.
That's sweet I'd have to get a walthar lothar barrel fitted plug the mag with red delrin to make it true single shot and I'd mount fwb diopter sights get a trigger job done by a top rifle tuner here in the UK and the barrel would be the 12 together bull barrel @21 ich
Interesting rifle! I would like to get one just to shoot casually. A heavy barrel plinker! Lol! Work up a non-punishing load for 100m or so, 90-110 gr bullets. Change of pace! Thanks again! Cool rifle.
The ENFORCER was a police variant of the Enfield and typically mounted with a German Pecar scope, although police units could mount others according to preference and budget. It would be more appropriate to say this conversion is reminiscent of the MoD L39A1 or the commercial ENVOY variant.
I have a No. 4 Mk.2 however the electropenciled codes have been obscured with a rather heavy layer of black paint (attacked by a Sea Cadet "armourer"), however all the stamped markings begin with an F prefix. Would that be indicative of a Fazerkely rifle? The serial number on the bolt and stock starts with N and is in the high 2000's, there is a (C) underneath.
Weird, the first 3 minutes i totaly focused on the canted looking picture in the background, then i realised that the table and the backrest were canted at the same angle, so it may have been the tripod....
omg i want one. please bring these to canada. I love my enfields so much i really wish i could have the enfield bolt in a 308. a true battle rifle. the tikka arctic ranger yeah yeah yeah its nice, but it doesnt have the reverse bolt. the speed bolt!
Ha! Yes, I'd forgotten about that. To the firer, the Swing ping is very much louder than the shot! And carrying a small rubber mallet to beat the bolt open due to the horrendous primary extraction was fun (I did a couple of seasons with a Paramount).
@@BlokeontheRange Paramount? Look at Mr fancy over here! I'm considering a scaffold pole for Swing M4's bolt lift. Though I will say I've never had an issue with the lack of primary extraction, but I haven't really shot mine enough yet to really have that many problems. Maybe better ammo these days helps with that too?
The paramount was a loaner. Thanks to CCRS :) I suspect that the modern ammo is indeed a bit slicker on the cases rather than the 10+ year old RG 144g we used to use before the 155gn came in.
Is this still a thing in the UK? service rifle competition? I know how the Swiss and Americans still do the National Match type thing with service type rifles of current issue, but given how poor UK gunrights are on a whole, are straight pull L85s even a thing? and would an L85 even be accurate enough or capable of being made accurate enough to do such a thing?
Civilian Service Rifle competition is a small thing, mostly straight-pull AR15's, Lee-Enfields, Remington 700-based tacticool bolt actions and so on. The small number of straight-pull L98A1's on the market are too small (and they're too crap) to feature at all. Undoubtedly more straight-pull Bushmaster M17's out there (they were briefly fashionable in the late 90's).
It's a shrinking discipline. Those of us who shot it back in the day are getting older, our eyes aren't as good as they used to be and our bones object, so many have given up. Youngsters aren't interested and it's got much harder for new shooters to get the necessary FAC. *Edit: happily no longer a shrinking discipline. Misinformation corrected thanks to @clangerbasher *
@@Matt_The_Hugenot CSR is one of the fastest growing disciplines in the UK. www.accurateshooter.com/competition/civilian-service-rifle-competition-uk-style/
@@BlokeontheRange There was a chap who worked for British Aerospace back in the day who had a straight pull, or would that buy L98A1 with an LSW barrel? It was a Frankengun. It was awesome.
Australian fullbore target shooters followed a similar path however SAF Lithgow designed a single shot 7.62mm target rifle based on the SLR. Around 100 or so were built for trials but they were too unconventional for the the National Rifle Association of Australia and were rejected. In the end, No4 conversions proof tested at Lithgow and fitted with Lithgow made heavy barrels were built but were not as accurate as had been hoped (see positive and negative compensation actioned no4 conversions for more arguments as to why). The Omark single shot rifle along with modified M1917's, P1914's and M98's were eventually approved and so the divergence of fullbore target shooting and true military shooting began. Now it seems only the elitists are left, with their squillion dollar single shot, open sighted rifles.....
Well assuming the Mosin isn't caked in Stalin era cosmoline I'd be willing to wager odds on it. I owned one, a Mosin-Nagant Model 1891/30 and damn did that thing shoot like a dream...once I spent a ungodly amount of time cleaning off cosmoline from every nook and crevice. That being said I have never actually used a Mauser type rifle so who knows.
OK.... thumbs up... anyone know the case capacity on a case .404 at the base, .380 at the shoulder, 40mm in length and case thickness the same for 5.56..???? I want a .264 diameter bullet in that case if it matters.
Contrary to what Bloke says it is real. A factor in Australians doing well at Bisley in the 303 days with Radway Green supplied ammunition which was of inferior quality to their usual Australian made MF Mk7. It is a simple concept if explained clearly and interesting quirk of the Le Enfield.
I've always wondered, do modern army's cater for leftys? Are there a percentage of rifles etc to suit south paw shooters. Or is it a Cass of modern rifles can flip or something? Just wondering.
It is more about making each soldier ambidextrous. i.e. if you are on the left side of a car, or a wall, perhaps you want to run your gun lefty. If you are on the right side, you want to be a righty. If you are shooting long range, you want to shoot whichever way you shoot best. All while sticking the least of your silhouette in the other guy's line of sight.
@@BlokeontheRange The FAMAS can be changed by the user. I think the Steyr AUG can be, too. According to an SASC officer I worked with when SA80 was being brought into service, it could/would have been convertible for left handed shooters but the feature was dropped to reduce cost of manufacture, and it was decided that no one left-handed would be recruited to the infantry because it would be too much trouble to train them to shoot wrong-handed well enough, but other arms and services had lower marksmanship standards. (A shortage of infantry recruits soon changed their minds about that.)
@@thetooner8203 The AUG needs a different bolt. IIRC the FAMAS isn't supposed to be changed by the user (soldier), but can be. And your SASC officer is not quite right - at the prototype stage they were planning on making 10% of rifles left-handed. There was never a convertible option (the position of the cam stud and corresponding guide rail on the receiver prohibit it).
@@BlokeontheRange My experience with the FAMAS was on a visit to a French unit. Certainly all the soldiers knew how to convert it. I think my colleague from SASC was talking about earlier than prototype stage, perhaps they then thought of making a proportion permanently left-handed when they realized designing it for every rifle to be convertible was too expensive (difficult)? I don't remember hearing of the idea of some rifles being built for the left-handed but that doesn't mean I wasn't told. (It was almost thirty years ago and I got out a couple years later.) The recruitment/manning factions certainly clamored against eliminating the left-handed from the recruiting pool so having left-handed rifles would have then been an obvious option to have considered. But settling on what proportion would have been an illustration of "every solution brings its own problem." I was training the first batch of recruits to do their basic with SA80 and it was expected that the compact platform with a low recoil cartridge and optical sight would bring significant improvement in marksmanship. That expectation was so much exceeded, the rifle was so much easier to shoot well, that it probably allowed them to soon change their mind about training left-handed shooters. In that context we were very impressed with SA80, (I never went back to a field force unit, didn't experience the quality problems exposed by more arduous service.) Recruits had no prejudice against it, and no difficulty learning on it. It was easy to shoot well. I had had several years of the SLR (and the C1, C2 in Canada before) and liked it very much. Although an SA80 with optic and a full mag weighed slightly more than an SLR with full mag, it felt lighter and was easier to carry and to live with because it is compact, and it made sense for an army mainly concerned with mechanized operations. If it had a longer, more thorough development before its introduction, SA80 could have a very different reputation. (But almost all of us who lived and worked with the FAL would still get misty-eyed reminiscing.)
Provided you've got a gunsmith on tap to re-bed it when the bedding inevitably craps out on you. They seem to be rather sensitive highly-strung racehorses - when they're running well they're running super-well, but when they decide it's time, it's back to the 'smith for a new bedding. On a similar note, there's a Carlos Hathcock Vietnam anecdote where, when he fainted while walking after a mission his spotter grabbed his scoped M14 to stop it from being damaged and let Hathcock fall to the ground. Whether true or not, it's interesting.
@@BlokeontheRange The type 2 NM M1 has essentially the same bedding set up and suffered from similar fall off over time, there is good reason why the AR type rifles came to dominate service rifle shooting from the late eighties onward they are just plain better than everything else that meets the rules be it the Krag, the M1903, the M1917, BAR, M1 or M-14
Yup. When all you need in an AR15-type rifle is a wedge between the upper and lower and a solidly-mounted free-float forend, all the bedding-related hassle is taken out of the equation.
@@BlokeontheRange And that wedge is of rather debated and dubious value. All the bits related to accuracy are mounted on the upper. The wedge can just reduce a little bit of play which is taken up by your shooting stance anyway. Also, you can do similar things by fitting the lower to the upper, or using special oversize or eccentric take down pins. IMO the fitting is the way to go if you really hate that .2mm play. Or, what I have done, which is to take a punch to the underside of the upper and raise several volcano shaped divots which bear tightly against your lower and eliminate play. In gun smithing terms this is called "striking up" metal.
@@BlokeontheRange You may be right, but I can remember these turning up in Bisley in 71 and I recall the conversations at the time. I had one of these barrels on a rifle made by Robin Fulton built on a P14 action, and I was under the impression it was German. I always thought the Enfield hammer rifling machine was not brought in until the mid 70s and the first L39/42 barrels were imports... I will ask my gurus..
The Queens Prize was won in the final shoot by Geoff Cox RAFTR (in the 80's) using a converted No 4 which he re-bedded the night before.
The NRA (UK) received service ammunition so hence the change from .303 to 7.62, the cadet forces continued with the No 4 until the supply of .303 was limited and the Cadets were issued the PH L81A1 when that was withdrawn they used the Cadet GP rifle in 5.56. The issue of service ammunition was a testing ground, as cadets we would fire more rounds in one year per cadet than a service man would fire in nine years of service. the NRA kept with the 7.62 for TR.
The cadet forces were issued batch of 5.56 which give a number failures when firing and the batch was removed but was issue to the ISCRM meeting with the same results. Those who may recall 9.9.90, RG were under pressure to supply 5.56 for the first gulf war, rumour has it that someone thought it a good idea to speed up the production run, which lead to the miss sitting of the heads. Luckily it was not issued to the front line troops when they went forward.
So in peace time TR shooting is a way to proof batchs, cos who would like it when you are fae by the enemy hoard and your rifle fails.
But isn't the enemy politicians?
@@ancientmariner7473 You mean Guns don't kill people, Accountants kill people.
@@zippydastrange Like "in the pockets of"
A few other tings:
The Lee Enfield "two-piece" furniture arrangement started out, following the Martinis, as a VERY useful "military logistics" thing. Firstly, has anyone ever seen any other service rifle of a similar vintage, with the ability to easily be set up to better fit soldiers of various "statures"?
The modern "six-position" AR butt assemblies are about as closes as anyone gets, but that caper was to accommodate operating out of vehicles and the widespread adoption of body armour.
The other interesting thing about the L. E. action is the transfer of recoil. The rear-locking action has "some" flex, hence it may want to move under recoil. Note the lack of anything resembling the serious recoil lugs under the breech ring. as opposed to all the Front-lockers of various denominations. These "conventional" rifles transfer the recoil to the butt, primarily via the thin wooden side-panels of the stock, around the magazine area..
The beauty of the L. E. setup is that the rear-fitted locking surfaces have a very short transfer path to the butt, via the generously- proportioned "Butt Socket' (actually referred to in official documents as a "Ferrule"). Rear-locking actions "inaccurate"? The Steyr SSG and the French FRF2 , and even the "budget" Remington 788.might beg to differ.
There is another fine detail that a lot of people miss: The recoil thrust id supposed to be transferred to the butt ONLY by the centre of the "tenon". There is SUPPOSED to be a small gap between the OUTER circumference of the "ferrule" and the "shoulder of the wrist of the butt. If there is no "gap", recoil will soon start to rip chips off the butt wrist.
The Whittaker specials tossed all of this "subtlety out of the window.
The Canadians did the same when they were developing the Ultra-light "carbine", the J-5550. This was a proposed alternative to the more Prosaic" No5 series.
There seem to be two versions of the J-5550, and the major difference is at the rear of the receiver. One version seems to have gone all out to shed weight and thus the 'ferrule was basically completely cut away, as it was "not needed" in a one-piece" stock. There was a small "tag" at the top to transfer the rather substantial recoil to teh butt area.
The other one I have seen is a bit more "thought-out".
The "ferrule" was reduced to a "leg", with the sides od the ferrule and the recoil plate machined away.
Interestingly, this "leg" functioned much like the rear "recoil" leg of an SKS, a somewhat different rear-locker with a dubious stock. It works.
Funny how nobody seems to make a "modern Sporting rifle" with one-piece furniture, (apart from the M-1A and its cute cousin, the Mini-14..
L1A1 rifles could be set up for differently-statured troops; with the traditional wood, it was a bit fiddly and there were stocks of differently-sized buts to be "warehoused". The UK polymer stuff came with a ""bantam" (very-short) butt and additional "spacer (slices) capped of with a "standard, one-size fits all" plastic butt-plate. That Maranyl stuff can get quite hot just being exposed to sunlight, BUT, it was adopted primarily because wooden furniture gets ugly, fast after a few trips through the NBC warfare "decontamination" steam cleaner. And ANYTHING "black", (Think; "Chocolate Chip cammo uniforms), lights up like a Christmas tree when viewed through Night-vision / "thermal" optics.
When I got my L39a1 it was all greased up and never used, the seller told me that it was one on a batch ordered by the UK police snipers, apparently some senior guy threw a tizzy when he fould out saying that the Btitish police do not have snipers. It came with the PH 5c target sight and a butt stock with the cheek piece also the magazine is not like the standard No4 mag. I ntersting doc I learn something new (or forgotten) most times, thanks.
ooo, I have a few of these in my collection except Lithgow/Sportco conversions and then gunsmithed in Australia. I will one day make a video about them when I find some primary historical source on them. (ie. visiting the Lithgow archives)
Informative review - Cheers - old git who fired No.4 in competition at Bisley in the late 60s
Canadian arsenals converted about 2000 No.4s to 7.62 in the late 50s early 60s. All they did was swap out the .303 barrels for a same profiled 7.62 barrel. The bolts were hardness tested and bolt heads also hardness tested. Most of the rifles were kept in their original full length military stock with only less obvious upgrades done to the rifle such as tuned triggers, bedding and quite a few rifles received a Parker Hale sight.
The Enfield 7.62mm magazines often work as a drop in fit when either Savage or Longbranch No4 Mk1* actions are used. The British made No4 Mk1 or Mk2/3 though do not as you mentioned.
That Faz is dreamy!
I covet it immensely
N.B. Canada - In 1979 or so, I bought a SMLE #4MK1, heavily fitted for target shooting. The Magazine well had a pair of nuts brazed into the action. The barrel was a slim 7.62 barrel with a sleeve fitted the whole barrel and welded at the top - 0.25 inches in front of the barrel. Imagine a 1.25 diameter sleeve from front sight back and finishing at the action, just 1/2 in in front of the chamber. The fore-stock was bedded in some very hard mixture I did not recognize. The trigger was the old version. Sights were the PH 5. There was lead in the rear stock. The front ring - was lined with cork, and fit snug. The magazine cap was truncated and a couple sheet metal screws attached it to the action. It was a single shot. Back in those days, my eyes saw 20/15 to 20/10. With IVI ball, I put 4 shots on a playing card, at 400 yds. It has been the most accurate rifle to ever pass my hands.
....Geez was whatever gunsmith who did that work building a rifle or Frankenstein. I am surprised you were willing to put rounds through it's action. I certainly wouldn't have , not that brave. But hey while my first rifle may have been a M1 Garand I have no love for anything older than me both automotive and gun wise.
I have recently acquired the Service Rifle B Fazakerley 1953 much better looking than the 7.62 conversion and pretty accurate so far. Looking forward to shooting it when the range opens after lockdown.
Man I would love to have that. The sight is awesome.
They do look very nice indeed, that hammered barrel especially cool.
Nice old Bisley footage. Those conversions are fun shooters, accurate enough for most of us, not so accurate that every tiny twitch shows on the target.
Ishipore armoury in India produced a Lee Enfield chambered in 7-62 NATO they had a 12 round magazine
I bought one a few months back. Liked the smle but didn't want to increase my calibers!
my husband has a Enfield Envoy
There was also the Swedish target rifle CG63, built on a m96 Swedish Mauser action, thicker barrel, new stock and various things similar to this. Believe they tried to compete with this kind of conversion.
Oh, there's zillions of types of such conversions. The British ones were normally either No.4's, P14/M17's or various Mauser 98's. I saw a couple of K31's back in the day too. I rather liked the look of the Norwegian ones built on Mauser 98 actions, known as "Kongsberg target rifles" since they had a top handguard.
There really wasn't any difference between them, but people believed that the No.4 conversions were better at long range (900 and 1000 yds) and that the others were better at short range (300, 500 and 600 yds). And since 90% of high-level shooting is psychology... ;)
They can't consistently keep up with the modern rigid actions though so are only suitable as entry level guns these days.
@@BlokeontheRange Yea, here in Sweden you can get them basically for free (cg63),the action is not as strong as m98s but a great budget precision rifle.
Same in the UK - the old conversions cost almost nothing, but are brilliant starter rifles and are still capable of surprisingly good shooting. I shot my first highest possible score with a Mauser 98 conversion.
@@PaletoB just bought a CG63 in 7.62 . Should be with my gun dealer next week.. any information on this rifle would be great..
@@cgdeery I sadly don't know much about the export 308 rifles.
They had high hopes for that market but it turned out they could not compete with other modified surplus rifles like Enfield's in price.
This is what a sale's brochure said:
CG63 EA. (export variant)
Caliber 308 (7.62 Nato) or 6.5x55mm.
Weight 9,9lbs +- 0.4 lbs.
Length 49".
Sight Radius 33.4".
Barrel length 29.1".
Trigger weight 4+ 0.65 lbs.
Barrel twist 12" and 8.66" respectively.
Cocks on closing stroke of the bolt.
Stock made from Nutwood (?).
Sight adjustment 200-1200 yds.
Swivels for two point sling.
However many rifles were modified and some converted to 308 later.
Bloke video and breakfast on a friday, that is how i like to start the last productive day of the week.
That's sweet I'd have to get a walthar lothar barrel fitted plug the mag with red delrin to make it true single shot and I'd mount fwb diopter sights get a trigger job done by a top rifle tuner here in the UK and the barrel would be the 12 together bull barrel @21 ich
My dream rifle just hard to find in the USA
There is still a 303 class in South African Full -Bore shooting.
man, Im so glad I bought a beat up SMLE. Those arsenal rifles are nice, they lack any soul though.
Looking very thin these days, Bloke! Well done!
Interesting rifle! I would like to get one just to shoot casually. A heavy barrel plinker! Lol! Work up a non-punishing load for 100m or so, 90-110 gr bullets. Change of pace! Thanks again! Cool rifle.
I'm sorry but that 1955 Fazakerley looks far more attractive
Anything that comes out of Liverpool looks better than the rest, take it from me ;)
I have a fazakerly no4mk1 from 07/1943
@@slaughterround643 dont know, have you seen the girls from fazakerley, definatly not better
Shhhh don't tell them! What else has Fazak got left?
I guess it is kinda off topic but does anyone know a good place to watch newly released series online?
Very nice 👍. I would like to see how the shooting sling worked on this rifle. Thanks
Very nice! I would love to have one. This looks the first generation of the Enfield Enforcer. Thanks
The ENFORCER was a police variant of the Enfield and typically mounted with a German Pecar scope, although police units could mount others according to preference and budget. It would be more appropriate to say this conversion is reminiscent of the MoD L39A1 or the commercial ENVOY variant.
That is a beautiful no 4. I havent found one in that condition for a reasonable price yet
And you won't find it. Every day that passes are more expensive.
Thanks! Very interesting video.
I have a No. 4 Mk.2 however the electropenciled codes have been obscured with a rather heavy layer of black paint (attacked by a Sea Cadet "armourer"), however all the stamped markings begin with an F prefix. Would that be indicative of a Fazerkely rifle? The serial number on the bolt and stock starts with N and is in the high 2000's, there is a (C) underneath.
Weird, the first 3 minutes i totaly focused on the canted looking picture in the background, then i realised that the table and the backrest were canted at the same angle, so it may have been the tripod....
teheee, i like these pre-launch things... i get in real early
omg i want one. please bring these to canada. I love my enfields so much i really wish i could have the enfield bolt in a 308. a true battle rifle. the tikka arctic ranger yeah yeah yeah its nice, but it doesnt have the reverse bolt. the speed bolt!
Can you do an ishapore 2a or 2a1 in 7.62 nato review?, they are a nice version of Lee-Enfield!!
If I get one.
Weren't the Lee Enfield rifles 303 caliber. So I'm guessing they must have been modified to use 7.62 mm rounds
Sorry, I'm not quite sure why you're guessing something that's clearly stated in the video ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You didn't mention how the Swing ping will totally get you killed, innit. And if that doesn't the effort of trying to lift the bolt will.
Ha! Yes, I'd forgotten about that. To the firer, the Swing ping is very much louder than the shot! And carrying a small rubber mallet to beat the bolt open due to the horrendous primary extraction was fun (I did a couple of seasons with a Paramount).
@@BlokeontheRange Paramount? Look at Mr fancy over here! I'm considering a scaffold pole for Swing M4's bolt lift. Though I will say I've never had an issue with the lack of primary extraction, but I haven't really shot mine enough yet to really have that many problems. Maybe better ammo these days helps with that too?
The paramount was a loaner. Thanks to CCRS :)
I suspect that the modern ammo is indeed a bit slicker on the cases rather than the 10+ year old RG 144g we used to use before the 155gn came in.
Is this still a thing in the UK? service rifle competition? I know how the Swiss and Americans still do the National Match type thing with service type rifles of current issue, but given how poor UK gunrights are on a whole, are straight pull L85s even a thing? and would an L85 even be accurate enough or capable of being made accurate enough to do such a thing?
Civilian Service Rifle competition is a small thing, mostly straight-pull AR15's, Lee-Enfields, Remington 700-based tacticool bolt actions and so on.
The small number of straight-pull L98A1's on the market are too small (and they're too crap) to feature at all. Undoubtedly more straight-pull Bushmaster M17's out there (they were briefly fashionable in the late 90's).
It's a shrinking discipline. Those of us who shot it back in the day are getting older, our eyes aren't as good as they used to be and our bones object, so many have given up. Youngsters aren't interested and it's got much harder for new shooters to get the necessary FAC.
*Edit: happily no longer a shrinking discipline. Misinformation corrected thanks to @clangerbasher *
@@Matt_The_Hugenot CSR is one of the fastest growing disciplines in the UK.
www.accurateshooter.com/competition/civilian-service-rifle-competition-uk-style/
@@BlokeontheRange There was a chap who worked for British Aerospace back in the day who had a straight pull, or would that buy L98A1 with an LSW barrel? It was a Frankengun. It was awesome.
There were indeed a few LSW-based straight pulls sold too, which were apparently free-floated rather than being bolted to the outrigger.
Bloke, how does the scoring work?
Australian fullbore target shooters followed a similar path however SAF Lithgow designed a single shot 7.62mm target rifle based on the SLR. Around 100 or so were built for trials but they were too unconventional for the the National Rifle Association of Australia and were rejected. In the end, No4 conversions proof tested at Lithgow and fitted with Lithgow made heavy barrels were built but were not as accurate as had been hoped (see positive and negative compensation actioned no4 conversions for more arguments as to why). The Omark single shot rifle along with modified M1917's, P1914's and M98's were eventually approved and so the divergence of fullbore target shooting and true military shooting began. Now it seems only the elitists are left, with their squillion dollar single shot, open sighted rifles.....
Sir which long range rifle 303 bartsh vs mauser vs Mosin
Well assuming the Mosin isn't caked in Stalin era cosmoline I'd be willing to wager odds on it. I owned one, a Mosin-Nagant Model 1891/30 and damn did that thing shoot like a dream...once I spent a ungodly amount of time cleaning off cosmoline from every nook and crevice.
That being said I have never actually used a Mauser type rifle so who knows.
OK.... thumbs up... anyone know the case capacity on a case .404 at the base, .380 at the shoulder, 40mm in length and case thickness the same for 5.56..???? I want a .264 diameter bullet in that case if it matters.
If you can't do the calculations, are you sure you should be wildcatting?
lordsummerisle87 I like putting people up to doing it for me while I hide in my concrete bunker! J/K ;)
Googled positive compensation. Holy crap, I dived into the deep end of accurate target shooting...
Contrary to what Bloke says it is real. A factor in Australians doing well at Bisley in the 303 days with Radway Green supplied ammunition which was of inferior quality to their usual Australian made MF Mk7. It is a simple concept if explained clearly and interesting quirk of the Le Enfield.
I've always wondered, do modern army's cater for leftys? Are there a percentage of rifles etc to suit south paw shooters. Or is it a Cass of modern rifles can flip or something? Just wondering.
Aside from some bullpups, most rifles can be fired from either shoulder. Some bullpups can be switched over by an armourer.
It is more about making each soldier ambidextrous. i.e. if you are on the left side of a car, or a wall, perhaps you want to run your gun lefty. If you are on the right side, you want to be a righty. If you are shooting long range, you want to shoot whichever way you shoot best. All while sticking the least of your silhouette in the other guy's line of sight.
@@BlokeontheRange The FAMAS can be changed by the user. I think the Steyr AUG can be, too. According to an SASC officer I worked with when SA80 was being brought into service, it could/would have been convertible for left handed shooters but the feature was dropped to reduce cost of manufacture, and it was decided that no one left-handed would be recruited to the infantry because it would be too much trouble to train them to shoot wrong-handed well enough, but other arms and services had lower marksmanship standards. (A shortage of infantry recruits soon changed their minds about that.)
@@thetooner8203 The AUG needs a different bolt. IIRC the FAMAS isn't supposed to be changed by the user (soldier), but can be. And your SASC officer is not quite right - at the prototype stage they were planning on making 10% of rifles left-handed. There was never a convertible option (the position of the cam stud and corresponding guide rail on the receiver prohibit it).
@@BlokeontheRange My experience with the FAMAS was on a visit to a French unit. Certainly all the soldiers knew how to convert it.
I think my colleague from SASC was talking about earlier than prototype stage, perhaps they then thought of making a proportion permanently left-handed when they realized designing it for every rifle to be convertible was too expensive (difficult)? I don't remember hearing of the idea of some rifles being built for the left-handed but that doesn't mean I wasn't told. (It was almost thirty years ago and I got out a couple years later.)
The recruitment/manning factions certainly clamored against eliminating the left-handed from the recruiting pool so having left-handed rifles would have then been an obvious option to have considered. But settling on what proportion would have been an illustration of "every solution brings its own problem."
I was training the first batch of recruits to do their basic with SA80 and it was expected that the compact platform with a low recoil cartridge and optical sight would bring significant improvement in marksmanship. That expectation was so much exceeded, the rifle was so much easier to shoot well, that it probably allowed them to soon change their mind about training left-handed shooters.
In that context we were very impressed with SA80, (I never went back to a field force unit, didn't experience the quality problems exposed by more arduous service.) Recruits had no prejudice against it, and no difficulty learning on it. It was easy to shoot well. I had had several years of the SLR (and the C1, C2 in Canada before) and liked it very much. Although an SA80 with optic and a full mag weighed slightly more than an SLR with full mag, it felt lighter and was easier to carry and to live with because it is compact, and it made sense for an army mainly concerned with mechanized operations. If it had a longer, more thorough development before its introduction, SA80 could have a very different reputation. (But almost all of us who lived and worked with the FAL would still get misty-eyed reminiscing.)
Interesting that around the same period the U.S. had the move towards the national match M-14 from the then M-1.
the M14 basically was a target rifle from the start, infact it's a much better target rifle then military rifle.
Provided you've got a gunsmith on tap to re-bed it when the bedding inevitably craps out on you. They seem to be rather sensitive highly-strung racehorses - when they're running well they're running super-well, but when they decide it's time, it's back to the 'smith for a new bedding.
On a similar note, there's a Carlos Hathcock Vietnam anecdote where, when he fainted while walking after a mission his spotter grabbed his scoped M14 to stop it from being damaged and let Hathcock fall to the ground. Whether true or not, it's interesting.
@@BlokeontheRange The type 2 NM M1 has essentially the same bedding set up and suffered from similar fall off over time, there is good reason why the AR type rifles came to dominate service rifle shooting from the late eighties onward they are just plain better than everything else that meets the rules be it the Krag, the M1903, the M1917, BAR, M1 or M-14
Yup. When all you need in an AR15-type rifle is a wedge between the upper and lower and a solidly-mounted free-float forend, all the bedding-related hassle is taken out of the equation.
@@BlokeontheRange And that wedge is of rather debated and dubious value. All the bits related to accuracy are mounted on the upper. The wedge can just reduce a little bit of play which is taken up by your shooting stance anyway. Also, you can do similar things by fitting the lower to the upper, or using special oversize or eccentric take down pins. IMO the fitting is the way to go if you really hate that .2mm play. Or, what I have done, which is to take a punch to the underside of the upper and raise several volcano shaped divots which bear tightly against your lower and eliminate play. In gun smithing terms this is called "striking up" metal.
Fantastic
Not sure these early 70s hammered barrels were made at Enfield.. I think they were made in Germany at that time..
They're stamped with the "EFD" monogram and I've never heard anyone claim until now they were made anywhere else :/
@@BlokeontheRange You may be right, but I can remember these turning up in Bisley in 71 and I recall the conversations at the time. I had one of these barrels on a rifle made by Robin Fulton built on a P14 action, and I was under the impression it was German. I always thought the Enfield hammer rifling machine was not brought in until the mid 70s and the first L39/42 barrels were imports... I will ask my gurus..
कितने मिटर दूर जाती है और काटरेज मिल जाते है बद तो नहीं हुऐ है
These were used up to 1000 yards, and they shoot modern .308 Win ammunition.
Inb4 milsurp purists come in and have a stroke
HOW DARE YOU MAKE A RIFLE IN A MORE FAVORABLE CALIBER ANON
Wow is that blonde furniture!
रेज कितना मिटर दूर जाती है👌
Historically interesting, but sadly they were rubbish.😒
And yes I hve owned and used them, certainly don't miss them.
How do you get to fire rifles in the UK? I'm sure that's illegal.
Many people are sure of things that just aren't so.
You know what they say about assuming
Lee Enfields are cheaper than mosins and I think that's crazy
Not in theUK
The No4 Mk2 is going for about £1K for a decent rifle
The mosin about£700