Sporter No 4 Mark 1

[Gene L]

I got this rifle about 10 years ago. It's a sporterized No 4 Mark 1 and very well done. I will never know but I speculate it was a project rifle for a gunsmith school. The wood was replaced with plain but nice straight grained walnut which was finished well. All markings on the butt-stock iron and the Nocks form and all steel was buffed off and highly blued. Barrel shortened and front sight was replaced with a commercial sight. Rear sight is an early Mark 1 sight, machined rather than stamped, like the later ones. And the bore, which is brilliant, has 5 grooves, unusual. Later ones had 2 grooves. And has a 5-round mag.

I got this gun off the net, cheap. Can't remember how much, but $200-250,plus shipping. The gun arrived at my door; I think the seller shipped to my credit card address rather than my FFL. Included was a side scope mount with rings.

I like it; accurate and handy.

 

[azpolock]

That is a beauty! Really like the cut-down magazine. You got a very nice rifle at a great price.

 

[k22fan]

I like it! Many moons ago I owned a sporterized Enfield No. 4 or two. The one I remember the most clearly had a scope. Like yours it had a pistol grip commercial sporter stock.

The gunsmith who I used in the 1980s liked to tell how in the 1960s he bought surplus No. 4s, sporterized them then sold them for $60. He prefered leaving sanding and oiling the wood to the customer. That kept the price down while only leaving the customer a simple project.

Speculating that yours was a gunsmithing school project is a stretch. The schools are more interested in teaching how to rebarrel and bed a Mauser or Mauser derived action. That better trains students to work on commercial rifles. Also the sporterizing on yours would not have taught use of metal lathes or milling machines.

Excepting those made after WW II all the English made No. 4s I owned had over size chambers and groove diameters. with a little common sense reloader can work around those obstacles and make them shoot very well. The reduced capacity magazine was a desirable addition. It makes them easier to shoot off sand bags.

 

[BB57]

Reading the details on how it arrived, I'm curious how you addressed that to legally complete the transfer.

 

[Gene L]

Took it to the FFL dealer the next day. So it's recorded on my end.

As for the gunsmith school speculation, I can't imagine anyone spending all that time and machine-tool work and expense on an Enfield. Too much work for no profit. Who's going to buy a dolled up one? (Except me.)

A long time ago, asmith who went to the one in Colorado back in the 60s, he told me that when he was there, he had to submit a work exhibiting his skill in order to graduate. All this info is why I made the inference.
With a commercial rifle, what are you going to do to show your skill? Just about everything has already been done. I don't know how they do it now, but I understand using lathes and milling machinery is still taught rather than merely replacing parts.

I believe the original rifle was built in 1939 or 40 because no obvious wartime shortcuts are seen. The multi-rifled barrel seems to indicate this.

But it's all speculation. I'll never know the facts and only know that right now I have a very nice rifle in a caliber I like, and I'm satisfied with that.

 

[LVSteve]

Did they buff out the serial number on the wirst? That would identify the factory it came from.

Rear sight is an early Mark 1 sight, machined rather than stamped, like the later ones. And the bore, which is brilliant, has 5 grooves, unusual. Later ones had 2 grooves. And has a 5-round mag.

Not all late No.4s had 2-groove barrels. My 1950 Long Branch is a 5-groove, and 6-groove barrels are known. 2-groove barrels seems to turn up all over. I even have a BSA so fitted, probably during refurb.

Believe it or not, the only groove count that the Brits didn't produce was 3, but they did experiment with it. Legend has it that 6-groove barrels were used when only Bren barrels were available.

 

[Gene L]

Yep, all buffed out except a faint No 4 and a broad arrow on the socket, if that's what it's called. A serial number is on the left side of the Nocks form. I don't know it is original or added later.

I think the 2-groove barrels were a war-time expedient. I didn't know if they continued this after WW2, apparently they didn't. Did they go back to the milled rear sights as well? They say 2-grooves didn't affect accuracy. Mine may have 6 grooves, I can't remember exactly. I know it has at least 5. I threw away the bore patches I used, looked for them in the trash but couldn't find them.

All the videos I've seen are about WW2 era guns. I've never seen anything on post-War guns.

 

[LVSteve]

IIRC, the British produced rifles post WWII went to a milled sight again, but not the Canadian examples. The Canadian guns have a pressed steel adjustable aperture sight. My Pakistani No.4 Mk2 has a milled sight, which makes sense because they were given the entire Fazakerley factory plant. The post-war British rifles all had 5-groove barrels and all the refurbs of that period I have seen are also so equipped.

 

[k22fan]

[...] I can't imagine anyone spending all that time and machine-tool work and expense on an Enfield. Too much work for no profit. [...]

That's called a hobby. Our member steelslaver turns perfectly good S&W revolvers into different configuration and different caliber revolvers with no collector value all the time just because he can. It gets cold in Montana and he's got to do something inside until spring. Many of us without the machinery and skill pay good money to have unjustifiable projects made. Eventually smarter men buy them for a fraction of what they cost.

Here's examples of both. In 1985 I turned a 1917 .30-06 that I bought for $75 into a, counting its scope, $700 6.5-06 hunting rifle. About 1990 I bought a nicely reblued Arisaka that had been rebarrled to .300 Savage and bedded into a fancy walnut sporter stock. As he accepted my $100 the seller said his father who had the work done was probably rolling over in his grave.

 

[steveno]

before I went into the air force I bought an unfinished sporter stock from Herter's for my Enfield. when I got out in 1973 I decided to finish it. I'm not sure if my patience or determination was going to run out first. I did get it finished but I learned that stock makers deserve all the money they get when doing stock work

 

[LVSteve]

before I went into the air force I bought an unfinished sporter stock from Herter's for my Enfield. when I got out in 1973 I decided to finish it. I'm not sure if my patience or determination was going to run out first. I did get it finished but I learned that stock makers deserve all the money they get when doing stock work

That's especially true of the SMLE, No.4 and No.5 rifles. The way the wood fits was clearly designed by the cabinet makers' union. Arcane is the most polite description I can come up with for the way the wood fits into the draws. There just had to be an easier way.

 

[Frank46]

Speaking about enfields I have two. A 1949 Faz #4MKII and a 1942 Long Branch that now is a Parker Hale rework done after the war. Barrel has been cut to 21.5 ",front forend cut back so basically as low budget sporter. But still has the military ladder sight and a marked Parkier Hale ramp front sight thet will tame the military front sight inserts. Came with a 5 round mag but couldn;t get it to work properly. Stuck in a 12 rounder ithat I know does work. Since the original forend has been cut down I have another that I have been playing with these last few weeks. Got most if not all scars,dings,dents and sanded it down with 100 grip paper. Also bought a snipers cheek rest from Sarco so I can see through the scope I plan on installing. A barrel band with swivels and sling hangar, and a upper handguard. Than disassemble everything and glass bed the complete action and first1.5" of the barrel.Nay not look like much but since I cannot hunt anymore more for my pleasure than anything else. And I plan on shooting cast bullets in it. Frank

 

[Gene L]

There is a lot of info on Enfields on YouTube. I got re-interested in them from watching a series on the Great War and eventually the SMLE and et al. They're better than I and I think a lot of us in the US give them credit for.

Maybe because they were so cheap back when they first started being imported in numbers back in the 60s. I remember then at a local hardware store in my small town they had a barrel full of SMLEs at $15 each. Deer hunting was just getting kicked off back then (deer were very scarce in GA) and a lot of folks bought one.

Same thing applies to the Arisaka being devalued because it was cheap and available in huge numbers. They're excellent rifles, but unlike a Mauser, you can't make them pretty. Even the Last Ditch ones are strong, I've read, though crude. I think P.O. Ackley worked up a lot of his Improved cartridges with that action.

Can't make a Mosin-Nagant pretty, either. I think shooters realize that today and accept them for what they are-ugly, sturdy, accurate-enough battle rifles.

The Enfields can be fired extremely quickly by working the bolt with the thumb and middle finger and using the middle finger to pull the trigger. And, unlike Mausers or Springfields, you don't have to come off the stock or sights to fire, you stay lined up.

That's not at all important to us, but was important to soldiers.

 

[fiasconva]

Quick question: Did the 5 round mag come with any stripper clips, or chargers as the English called them? If so, were they shortened to accommodate the shorter mag?

 

[gwpercle]

The No4 MK I British Enfield is my idea of a proper tactical rifle , you can keep your black plastic AR - whatever .
I paid $20.00 for it in 1967 ... never did get around to "sporterizing it" so last year I refinished the military wood in tung oil .
made in 1942 , BSA Ltd , Birmingham England manufactured ... a really nice one with a tight bore and chamber. Got reloading dies and bullet moulds , it's a sweet shooter .
We all ready for action .
Gary

 

[Gene L]

Quick question: Did the 5 round mag come with any stripper clips, or chargers as the English called them? If so, were they shortened to accommodate the shorter mag?

No, the chargers only hold 5 rounds so there was no reason to modify it. To load the original rifles took two chargers of 5. The short mag loads fine with a charger, so long as you stagger the rounds in the charger to avoid rim lock.

 

[Texas Star]

DON'T "sporterze" these. Collectors want them in military form, and so many were modded that nice clean originals have increased enormously in price.

 

[GyMac]

Very nice! I have a sporterized one, too, but it is not nearly so nice. It is my favorite rifle.

 

[Gene L]

DON'T "sporterze" these. Collectors want them in military form, and so many were modded that nice clean originals have increased enormously in price.

Exactly right. If left original, the rifle would have been worth a lot more. Now, mine is a nice example of what shouldn't be done to a warhorse. It's tempting when the originals are plentiful and cheap, and a lot of hunters cut them down because they're heavy for hunting but decades later any value as a collector is gone.

Back when they were plentiful and cheap very few people collected them, and for me, in that era and my area, fewer people could afford to be a collector. Unmolested military rifles, especially with matching numbers are hard to find and bring high prices.

 

[LVSteve]

Sporterizing is especially hard to take when it is done to a rifle like this.

WWII Unicorn rifle

I was in a gun shop when I found another No.4 with a cut down forend but everything else intact. Grumbling about folk who had hacksaws, I took a look. @#$%^&***!!!! The rifle was a Maltby built gun that was part of an unusual mismarked batch. They were marked as a No.4 Mk1* when they were clearly good old Mk1s. To make matters worse, it had been upgraded with the Mk2 trigger and remarked No.4 Mk1*/3 as if it were a real Mk1*. The conversion had been done using the original forend modified to take the Mk2 trigger instead of new Mk2 wood. I was fit to be tied.