The Lee-Enfield rifle: stalwart Brit! (revised 9/6/13)

Texas Star · Sep 6, 2013

mkk41 said:
The Brit rifles have always interested me in so far as the odd design and complex machining.

Haven't found an early model in the condition I'd like at an agreeable price. But I did pick up this Savage-made Mk.4No.1* or whatever it's called , in virtually unissued condition. And despite the wonky action , it is surprisingly accurate. Maybe not so surprising. It is made by Savage!

Try rocking the magazine back a little to latch properly. It should be touching the trigger guard.

And you got the name backwards. It's No. 4 MKI*.Think of them as the rifle No 1 and the No. 4. Then you can worry about the marks.

I see that your riifle looks to be in nice shape and has the more complex click-adjustable sight. I suspect it'd be a good hunting rifle with good commercial softpoint ammo. Winchester's bullet most resembles the shape of the military MK. VII ball load, and may shoot closest to the sights. The 180 grain weight is so close to the mil. 174 grainer that it won't matter.

Take care of that nice rifle. It's a part of history as well as a practical rifle. Congratulations on acquiring it.

Is your buttplate brass or what looks like pewter? WW II rifles sometimes have the latter butt plate. The Savage I owned had that. My No. 4 MK II has a brass one.

2152hq · Sep 6, 2013

"There are some issues with swapping barrels on Enfields."

I've never found them to be any different than most sporting rifles. Certainly not in the 1917 US Enfield potential degree of difficulty.

It's not a monkey wrench and rope trick,,a decent bbl vise and recvr wrench are needed with any bbl pull/assembly.
Never clamp around any part of the recv'r but the front ring when trying to do bbl work. The rear portion is pretty much a tube with slots in it and will collapse in either the mag well or the bolt handle race way if much pressure is applied.

The bottom wrench jaw is flat w/a cut out and the Enfield frame has a nice bolster there to allow a fit around. The top jaw IIRC I use the same 1/2 round jaw as from a SR Mauser.
Pad them with brass shim stock, tighten evenly and the bbl unwinds w/o much fuss. R/H thread.

Put a witness mark on the bbl/frame joint if it's to be re-assembled to make it easy. Otherwise, the extractor cut in the new bbl will decide for you anyway where it goes.

The threads on SMLE and the older Lee Metford and Lee Enfield (the Long Lee's) are the same. The bbls interchange. The threads are machined to 'clock' the same also. It's just something they did as a continuance of manufacture.

The MLM/MLE extractor cut in the bbl will have a rounded radius cut to it following the radius of the chamber. The later SMLE will have a flat straight cut to it. Extractors are similarly shaped on the bolts of each.
Changing profile of one or the other to fit is usually done when trading bbls. But they will function OK w/o it being done.

You may find a tight thread fit with any one combination over another but they can be coaxed into position with a bit of lapping. Armorers probably just spun them on and were done with it.

The replacement bbl if it's a MilSpec bbl will have the extractor groove already cut. When the bbl is set in place, that cut is in position for the extractor on the bolt.
You have a few degrees of rotation one way and the other to play with if needed by way of the width of that cut. You use this to bring the already machined front sight spline cut up to 12 O'clock.
I think they call that spline a 'key' also.

Front sight spline is simply set into that groove. The front sight base is hammer (protected) onto the bbl from the muzzle end till the cross pin hole lines up with the cut in the spline. Pin it. That's all there is to the front sight base installation. The front sight itself is a simple dovetailed insert as most are used to seeing

Before the front sight base & spline are set, be sure to slide the inner bbl band & rear sight base onto the bbl first if reassembling a Military.
Check headspace, feeding and ejection.
Adjust headspace by swapping bolt heads on the MkIII. The #4 &5 had specific #'d sizes available for adjustment, a later refinement.

PALADIN85020 · Sep 6, 2013

Texas Star said:
John-

Good article. I noted my editing of it in bold italics. I didn't correct for barrel length, but I think it is actually 24.25 inches, not an even 25.

Thanks much for the annotations and corrections! With respect to the barrel length, my U.S. Savage/Stevens-made example measures 25.12 inches. But then, Americans may have longer equipment than our British cousins...

You are correct regarding Chicopee Falls. I incorporated some of your comments in the original text; it's now somewhat longer than optimum for the Blue Press, but maybe they can cope with it.

John

mkk41 · Sep 6, 2013

Texas Star said:
Try rocking the magazine back a little to latch properly. It should be touching the trigger guard.

And you got the name backwards. It's No. 4 MKI*.Think of them as the rifle No 1 and the No. 4. Then you can worry about the marks.

I see that your riifle looks to be in nice shape and has the more complex click-adjustable sight. I suspect it'd be a good hunting rifle with good commercial softpoint ammo. Winchester's bullet most resembles the shape of the military MK. VII ball load, and may shoot closest to the sights. The 180 grain weight is so close to the mil. 174 grainer that it won't matter.

Take care of that nice rifle. It's a part of history as well as a practical rifle. Congratulations on acquiring it.

Is your buttplate brass or what looks like pewter? WW II rifles sometimes have the latter butt plate. The Savage I owned had that. My No. 4 MK II has a brass one.

Howdy Tex!

Being US marked and made by Savage were icing on the cake of how nice it was , especially the bore. I even have the spike bayonet. Think I paid $225 or so.

At a gunshow shortly after I acquired the rifle , I bought a literal ' big shoe-box' full of mixed WWII to '70s ball ammo for $20.

These eyes have enough trouble seeing a paper plate thru open sights at 100yds from a bench let alone hunting.

The butt plate was indeed black painted zinc alloy. But I had an NOS brass butt plate in my parts bin , so I swapped it out. Might not be 'correct' but it sure is purrr-dee!

I've heard the Savages were generally more accurate than the Brit-made rifles and were often selected to be made into sniper rifles.

But I've also heard that most Savages that made it over were never even issued , they sat in warehouses because the snooty Brits didn't want to defend the homeland with a foreign made rifle , let alone a YANK made rifle.

LVSteve · Sep 6, 2013

2152hq said:
"There are some issues with swapping barrels on Enfields."

I've never found them to be any different than most sporting rifles. Certainly not in the 1917 US Enfield potential degree of difficulty.

It's not a monkey wrench and rope trick,,a decent bbl vise and recvr wrench are needed with any bbl pull/assembly.
Never clamp around any part of the recv'r but the front ring when trying to do bbl work. The rear portion is pretty much a tube with slots in it and will collapse in either the mag well or the bolt handle race way if much pressure is applied.

The bottom wrench jaw is flat w/a cut out and the Enfield frame has a nice bolster there to allow a fit around. The top jaw IIRC I use the same 1/2 round jaw as from a SR Mauser.
Pad them with brass shim stock, tighten evenly and the bbl unwinds w/o much fuss. R/H thread.

Put a witness mark on the bbl/frame joint if it's to be re-assembled to make it easy. Otherwise, the extractor cut in the new bbl will decide for you anyway where it goes.

The threads on SMLE and the older Lee Metford and Lee Enfield (the Long Lee's) are the same. The bbls interchange. The threads are machined to 'clock' the same also. It's just something they did as a continuance of manufacture.

The MLM/MLE extractor cut in the bbl will have a rounded radius cut to it following the radius of the chamber. The later SMLE will have a flat straight cut to it. Extractors are similarly shaped on the bolts of each.
Changing profile of one or the other to fit is usually done when trading bbls. But they will function OK w/o it being done.

You may find a tight thread fit with any one combination over another but they can be coaxed into position with a bit of lapping. Armorers probably just spun them on and were done with it.

The replacement bbl if it's a MilSpec bbl will have the extractor groove already cut. When the bbl is set in place, that cut is in position for the extractor on the bolt.
You have a few degrees of rotation one way and the other to play with if needed by way of the width of that cut. You use this to bring the already machined front sight spline cut up to 12 O'clock.
I think they call that spline a 'key' also.

Front sight spline is simply set into that groove. The front sight base is hammer (protected) onto the bbl from the muzzle end till the cross pin hole lines up with the cut in the spline. Pin it. That's all there is to the front sight base installation. The front sight itself is a simple dovetailed insert as most are used to seeing

Before the front sight base & spline are set, be sure to slide the inner bbl band & rear sight base onto the bbl first if reassembling a Military.
Check headspace, feeding and ejection.
Adjust headspace by swapping bolt heads on the MkIII. The #4 &5 had specific #'d sizes available for adjustment, a later refinement.

I could have sworn that the barrel/receiver threads on No1s and No4s were cut in a way that did not guarantee that a barrel from another gun would clock up. I wonder what the deal was with the one I saw attempted.

LVSteve · Sep 6, 2013

mkk41 said:
And despite the wonky action , it is surprisingly accurate. Maybe not so surprising. It is made by Savage!

The butt plate was indeed black painted zinc alloy. But I had an NOS brass butt plate in my parts bin , so I swapped it out. Might not be 'correct' but it sure is purrr-dee!

I've heard the Savages were generally more accurate than the Brit-made rifles and were often selected to be made into sniper rifles.

But I've also heard that most Savages that made it over were never even issued , they sat in warehouses because the snooty Brits didn't want to defend the homeland with a foreign made rifle , let alone a YANK made rifle.

Not sure how much of the above is tongue in cheek. So, for those that take your comments seriously, I shall dispel a few myths.

1) And despite the wonky action , it is surprisingly accurate. The myth that rifles with rear locking lugs are "wonky" and inherently inaccurate is just that, a myth. If you don't believe look at the accuracy that can be squeezed from a MAS 36 or a Danish M47.

2) ... it is surprisingly accurate. Maybe not so surprising. It is made by Savage! A myth promulgated by the "American Stuff is Better" Society.

3) The butt plate was indeed black painted zinc alloy. But I had an NOS brass butt plate in my parts bin , so I swapped it out. Might not be 'correct' but it sure is purrr-dee! The noise you can hear outside your house is the Enfield Purists Club warming up their tar boiler and shaking up their sacks of feathers.

4) I've heard the Savages were generally more accurate than the Brit-made rifles and were often selected to be made into sniper rifles. More propaganda from the "American Stuff is Better" Society, I'm afraid. I'm am not going to say that Savage rifles were never selected to be snipers, because saying never when talking about milsurps is a quick way to get egg on your face. The great majority of No4 snipers were made at the BSA Shirley factory with some built using Long Branch rifles.

5) But I've also heard that most Savages that made it over were never even issued , they sat in warehouses because the snooty Brits didn't want to defend the homeland with a foreign made rifle , let alone a YANK made rifle.

Your little rolleyes chap is dead on there. I suspect this rumour may have been started by some Brits with poker faces winding up their American allies over beers in the ETO. Also the UK was so short of weapons there was little chance of anything being left to languish in stores.

The Japanese on the other hand were funny about using rifles that did not bear the chrysanthemum mark of the Emperor. Many of the Italian made Type-I rifles languished in warehouses in Japan for that reason. The Japanese naval forces used them quite a bit but the Army seemed to want nothing to do with them.

Your rifle has seen service with the South African armed forces looking at the mark on the receiver. If you remove the wood you may find that the barrel has been replaced and stamped something like 61, 62 or 63, indicating the year. During that refurb they would also likely have changed the rear sight for a micrometer type.

You wood looks nice but I suspect it has been refinished. The edges looked rather rounded, sure sign of a previous owner with too much sandpaper lying idle.

mkk41 · Sep 6, 2013

LVSteve said:
Not sure how much of the above is tongue in cheek. So, for those that take your comments seriously, I shall dispel a few myths.

1) And despite the wonky action , it is surprisingly accurate. The myth that rifles with rear locking lugs are "wonky" and inherently inaccurate is just that, a myth. If you don't believe look at the accuracy that can be squeezed from a MAS 36 or a Danish M47.

2) ... it is surprisingly accurate. Maybe not so surprising. It is made by Savage! A myth promulgated by the "American Stuff is Better" Society.

3) The butt plate was indeed black painted zinc alloy. But I had an NOS brass butt plate in my parts bin , so I swapped it out. Might not be 'correct' but it sure is purrr-dee! The noise you can hear outside your house is the Enfield Purists Club warming up their tar boiler and shaking up their sacks of feathers.

4) I've heard the Savages were generally more accurate than the Brit-made rifles and were often selected to be made into sniper rifles. More propaganda from the "American Stuff is Better" Society, I'm afraid. I'm am not going to say that Savage rifles were never selected to be snipers, because saying never when talking about milsurps is a quick way to get egg on your face. The great majority of No4 snipers were made at the BSA Shirley factory with some built using Long Branch rifles.

5) But I've also heard that most Savages that made it over were never even issued , they sat in warehouses because the snooty Brits didn't want to defend the homeland with a foreign made rifle , let alone a YANK made rifle. Your little rolleyes chap is dead on there. I suspect this rumour may have been started by some Brits with poker faces winding up their American allies over beers in the ETO. Also the UK was so short of weapons there was little chance of anything being left to languish in stores.

The Japanese on the other hand were funny about using rifles that did not bear the chrysanthemum mark of the Emperor. Many of the Italian made Type-I rifles languished in warehouses in Japan for that reason. The Japanese naval forces used them quite a bit but the Army seemed to want nothing to do with them.

Your rifle has seen service with the South African armed forces looking at the mark on the receiver. If you remove the wood you may find that the barrel has been replaced and stamped something like 61, 62 or 63, indicating the year. During that refurb they would also likely have changed the rear sight for a micrometer type.

You wood looks nice but I suspect it has been refinished. The edges looked rather rounded, sure sign of a previous owner with too much sandpaper lying idle.

Hmmm , my turn!

1. By wonky , I do mean unnecessarily difficult to machine. I'm a tool & die maker and knowing the type of machinery used in the days of the original , it was time consuming. Time is everything when making the numbers needed in wartime. Wasn't that why they started on the P-14 'Enfield' action before WWI? Granted the No.4 was somewhat less complex and supposedly stronger.
The 2-pc stock? Can't think of too many bolt action battle rifles with this desirable feature.

But the Brits have lots of 'wonky' designs. Take Lucas Electrics (The Prince of Darkness) and their wonderful idea of 'positive ground' in autos & motorcycles in a country where it rains 300 days a year.

2. SMLE's and their line are not generally regarded as accurate as a '95/'98Mauser , 1903 Springfield , Mosin-Nagant. Much is probably due to the shot out bores asnd throats eroded by Cordite. But I can't say I've seen a lot of target or hunting rifles made with , or rifle builders that pick that action as the first choice.

3. Wanna tar and feather someone , go find Piers Morgan. I'll put the old butt plate back!

4&5. well , ya know most of the people telling tales in gunshops are also fishermen. And ya know ya can't believe anything a fisherman tells ya!

I do recall story about a few thousand Garands sent over , proofed , painted with the big red stripe , put back in the crates , where they sat till after the war.

Then there's the story about how GB begged American citizens for arms to be sent over to help those poor disarmed subjects (Home Guard?) with the promise of their return after the defence of Britain, only to be collected after the war , put on barges and dumped in the channel.

Stock on mine seems to be a post-war birch replacement. I've seen similar stocks for sale.

PALADIN85020 · Sep 6, 2013

mkk41:

My Savage-Stevens-made example, produced in 1942, also has the more complex micrometer rear sight, and the buttplate has that "pewter" finish mentioned. The rear sight is marked "F," which would indicate to me that it originated at Fazakerley. Is it just a coincidence about the sights on our two rifles, or was this a wider practice, I wonder?

John

Duster340 · Sep 6, 2013

Nicely written article. Thanks! I have two 40's era Enfields, 1 as it was back then, and one that is an old sporterized rifle. Love em both. The sporter is very handy in the woods.

Thanks again for sharing.

Pat

fiasconva · Sep 6, 2013

I inherited a No. 4 mk1* from my FIL a few years back.(Savage Arms, 1942) He bought it from a Roses store back when they were selling them. He said by the time they quit giving him discounts for using his credit cards, being a vet, etc, he thought they were going to pay him to take the rifle. Sadly, he passed away before he ever got a chance to shoot it. Finding ammo is a challenge but it's a tank.

2152hq · Sep 6, 2013

LVSteve said:
I could have sworn that the barrel/receiver threads on No1s and No4s were cut in a way that did not guarantee that a barrel from another gun would clock up. I wonder what the deal was with the one I saw attempted.

You remembered correctly, I just didn't word it very well.
1s and 4s are different,,
1s and the MLM, MLE are the same.
I use the term 'SMLE' to mean the No1 rifle. I did in this case and caused to confusion.
Sorry for that,,my fault.
I'll spend the next evening cleaning the bores with the pull through.

LVSteve · Sep 6, 2013

PALADIN85020 said:
mkk41:

My Savage-Stevens-made example, produced in 1942, also has the more complex micrometer rear sight, and the buttplate has that "pewter" finish mentioned. The rear sight is marked "F," which would indicate to me that it originated at Fazakerley. Is it just a coincidence about the sights on our two rifles, or was this a wider practice, I wonder?

John

For rifles with South African provenance, it is very common. It is also a common retrofit by civilian owners, too.

Texas Star · Sep 6, 2013

LVSteve said:
For rifles with South African provenance, it is very common. It is also a common retrofit by civilian owners, too.

The Savage No. 4 I had as a boy had that sight, and I THINK it had the F marked sight. But I've seen a number of their No. 4's with the two leaf sight, set for either 300 or 600 yards. I think Savage may have been supplied with both sights, or armorers fitted the better sights after the war.

I am not surprised to learn that South Africa fitted the better sights. They were known as a nation of riflemen, especially on the Boer/Afrikaaner side.

I saw a South African marked one, but couldn't afford it at the time. If you saw press photos of the SAP at the Sharpeville mass shooting of black rioters about 1960, some officers are seen carrying these No.4's. SA also modifed the spike bayonet to a more conventional bladed sort. It differed from the UK sort of that type in that the blade was more of a dagger shape, ground much like our M-3 trench knife.

They replaced the rifle with FN autos, made locally as the R-1. It was eventually replaced with the R-4, a locally made version of the Israeli Galil, but with a longer stock, to fit their generally taller troops.

My present No. 4 is a 1952 Fazakerly one with a rack number painted on the stock. It is well made, with the micro sight. I've wondered if it saw service against the Mau-Mau in Kenya or in Korea or in Malaya, during the fighting against terrorists there.

LVSteve · Sep 7, 2013

Texas Star said:
My present No. 4 is a 1952 Fazakerly one with a rack number painted on the stock. It is well made, with the micro sight. I've wondered if it saw service against the Mau-Mau in Kenya or in Korea or in Malaya, during the fighting against terrorists there.

What's this "one Enfield" business? My "does not compute" light is glowing brightly.

LTC · Sep 7, 2013

I just became the new owner of a fairly nice No.2 Mk.4. A .22 conversion of a No.1 Mk.III* 303. The conversion to a .22 trainer was done by Parker Hale. In this case a new .22 barrel was installed. Many early LE trainers were sleeved 303's to .22. It is now a single shot as the gutted 303 magazine only acts as a brass catcher. I've had it to the range once and it was great fun.

LTC

GyMac · Sep 7, 2013

Clean Break said:
I love my No. 1 Mk111*. It is my standard deck gun, the one I reach for to cull the larger varmints. I also like hunting with it during the winter. The full wood stock is warm on the hands; the open sights reliable in the snow. Clean Break

Wow! That area looks familiar.

I love the SMLE. I have a #4 that I had cut to 20" and put in a synthetic stock. It has a sourdough on a ramp up front and I use the battle aperture modified with a tiny washer insert. It's the rifle I use when I go hunting, although I have other, more modern ones available.

2152hq · Sep 7, 2013

PALADIN85020 said:
"Long range sights on the side of the rifle were eliminated and the magazine cut-off was deleted. "

(c) 2013 JLM

Three big changes in the MkIII to become the MkIII*
The two above....and the windage adjustable rear sight replaced w/an elevation only adj one.

Oddly they continued to mfg'r the rear sight protector wings with the off set right side wing that allowed room for the now non-existant windage adjustment knob.,,and off set sling swivels to allow use of the non-existing volley/long range sights.

(c) 2013 JLM[/QUOTE]

The Lee-Enfield rifle: stalwart Brit! (revised 9/6/13)

Texas Star

US Veteran

2152hq

Member

PALADIN85020

US Veteran

mkk41

US Veteran

LVSteve

Member

LVSteve

Member

mkk41

US Veteran

PALADIN85020

US Veteran

Duster340

Member

fiasconva

Member

2152hq

Member

LVSteve

Member

Texas Star

US Veteran

LVSteve

Member

LTC

US Veteran

GyMac

US Veteran

2152hq

Member

Similar threads

Latest posts