Official Enfield-Made 7.62mm / 308 Win Target Rifles: L39A1, No4. 7.62 CONV and Envoy 

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 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

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

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.

It is a test of marksmanship not technology Testing ones mettle need not be Luddite nor remove the human equation

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.

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.

Yup.

@@BlokeontheRange Look forward to it. Keep up the great videos. Thanks.

Thx!

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NOAHKzyYWYo.html

@@thebotrchap ty

I would love to see a video on the enforcer as well

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?

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"?

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...)

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

Never. It's just expressed in fractions or decimals.

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.

It didn't go anywhere... It's still there.

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.

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.

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.

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...

This video is about target rifles, so no :)

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.

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.

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.

Some of us have never gotten over going metric!lol