No4t Cocking pieces, which is best.

The “safety” on a vintage Lee Enfield is functional but decidedly inelegant.

A couple of things spring to mind.

1. The firer has to change the position of the firing (“master”) hand to apply or release it.
2. It adds significant weight to the back of the striker and thus increases lock time.

There was an early attempt to employ a “lever” style mechanism on the side of the body, but it appears to have been ditched on the probably correct grounds of insufficient ruggedness.

I also suspect that the rifle was regarded as a very expensive pike (remember the change from the ’03 to the ’07 bayonet), that could, if necessary be used at distances on rare, ungentlemanly occasions.

Thus, rapid operation of a “safety catch” was not uppermost in the thoughts of certain people.

The safety “catch” system on the SMLE / No4 / 5 is a work of industrial art.

Just two small components manage to perform several tasks wth style and an unequaled ergonomic efficiency.

Unlike in previous Lee Enfield rifles, (and also Mausers) the firer does not have to remove their “master” hand from the wrist of the butt to go from “stab and club” mode to “shoot” mode. Just roll the thumb forward and apply fire as required. Try that with a Mauser or Arisaka!

Likewise, to “apply” the safety mechanism, (PROPERLY), the trigger finger is removed from the trigger and used to drag the lever rearwards to “lock” position. Adherence to this simple drill probably prevented a LOT of “own goals” over the years.

Furthermore, rotating the lever (proper name “Lever, Locking”) rearwards withdraws the striker slightly so that, if you have “one up the spout” but the action forward it cannot discharge if dropped or “roughly handled”

The “other bit” the Safety Catch proper (the funny looking ring and stick thing) is driven in and out by the wonderful multi-start thread on the Locking Lever. This crafty bit of machining is the other important function of the system. As the “catch” is driven in by rotation of the lever to the rear, it engages the body of the bolt and prevents it from rotating. This, in turn, prevents “embarrassing incidents, like a cocked action flying open at an “inopportune” time, for instance whilst bayoneting and butt-stroking your way through the enemy trenches.

A “safety” that could be flicked to “hot” without changing your grip was a VERY good idea when you were bayonet fighting and suddenly needing something with a bit more “reach” than a SMLE with an ’07 on the front.

As “pikes” go, the combination of “ugly” butt and long bayonet was not bad……………..

I'm not sure if I am restating the obvious here but the reason that some No.4Ts have the rounded cocking piece is because they were built from "Trials Rifles", which have that style of cocking piece - as simple as that. (That is to say, other than the usual: that was the one on the armourer's spares box during a repair.)

As to the "experts", even they can't "get around" the physics. At least not without some help from Gene Roddenberry.

Hi All,
Thanks to all for your responses, well it seems I was way off in my thinking this had anything to do with the purpose of the weapon as a sniper. I would never thought for a second about the points you made, all valid, and I'm so glad I asked. I would still be trying to figure it out, must say it's a damn shame, I love the way it looks, just right to my mind, but I want this to fire small tight groups that's my objective, so I guess the Button cocking piece may have to go if a significant difference is noticed.
Although I won't be bayonet fighting with it, the half cock/re-cock feature is bloody nice to have, I've only had it happen a few times, but when it does I hate it, much rather hit it again safely and then wait, and I'm confident it's dead.
Thanks to all for humouring me, and the helpful info too, I would never of thought about that.

The change back to large knobs was dealt with either on this forum or Gunboards a while back, the documented info was from AWM and 3RAR war records, in Oz use the halfcock was used a lot, as per early training manuals.(not that this has any bearing on the OP's original question, but I do remember seeing a lot of pic's of Canadian snipers in white conditions.)

Never heard of using the index finger to apply the safety; the thumb seemed easier, but what do I know? The ability to apply or release the safety quietly is also a great advantage

Regarding locktime and certainty of ignition, best convenient reference I have is Stuart Ottesons' book : The Bolt Action: A Design Analysis.
Has a fair bit of theorical calculations and actual measurements of rifles from the 1888 commision rifle onwards. Not much directly related the the L-E, but it's not needed for this discussion. Energy, not momentum, is what makes primers detonate. Which means a light striker with a strong spring is ideal. Also helps lock time, too.

The drama is that the Enfields are cock on close. So the upper limit of spring strength is reached much sooner than with cock on close designs. Gotta be able to close the bolt!

I reckon the ability to pull back the striker by hand is a vestigial feature left over from the black powder era. Minor utility value, but not enough to include said feature in any modern design of which I'm aware.

Did try a stronger spring (Wolff "Blitzschnell") with a lightened & shortened stroke cocking piece a ways back, but couldn't see any improvement downrange. Would probably need a well sub-MOA rifle to notice any difference.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ields007-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ields008-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Never heard of using the index finger to apply the safety; the thumb seemed easier, but what do I know?

---

Using the index finger to apply the safety is the correct British Army drill. As the index finger of the right hand is applying the safety, the remaining three fingers brush the bolt handle down. The thumb of the right hand is used to take the safety off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beerhunter

Using the index finger to apply the safety is the correct British Army drill

---

First I've heard that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

First I've heard that.

---

Likewise.

Trying to chamber a round with the tips of three fingers pushing on the bolt handle and ending up with your index finger on one side of the cocking piece and the rest on the other side, rather than all four fingers and the thumb in the normal grasp of the butt wrist, ready to aim and fire? I'd like to see a demonstration of the advantages thereof as opposed to just sliding the hand around the butt wrist slightly to use the thumb.

And me BAR. Sounds a bit cack handed to me, especially when the left thumb, that MUST be redundant on the butt if you want to apply the safety, is only a gnats knacker away!

The question of the half cock has always been a bit contentious as some insist that it is an APPLIED safety. NOT SO......... It is an inbuilt MECHANICAL SAFETY.

However, as I am sure Gil will agree, there was an unwritten tacit agreement during 'the troubles' that the Browning pistol could be carried loaded and ready (one in the chamber) but instead of the applied safety, to put the hammer into the half cock position. You can't apply the safety there. It being easier to get your pistol and fully cock it is easier than using the small safety lever. But like all these tacit agreements, it was all very well but come the accident and subsequent Court of Enquiry, it wouldn't wash. THen it was by the book or nothing.