Hello all, I am new here and I thought I would ask all the experts their opinion on the two rifles. Many of the changes on the No4 were to make it easier to produce, I personally have always favored the No 1 Mk 3's ( Which I currently own after bringing 53 Lithgow back from being hacked into a hunting rifle.) What do you all think and why?
I am a die hard No1 man... but you have to appreciate the No4 rifle was an improvement of the rifle design that dated back to the 1890's. A couple of points that have made the No4 rightfully more accurate.. Heavier barrel, aperture sight, longer sight radius, in the MkII, better trigger set up....
Ok, now having stated the obvious, one of each rifle off the rack these days compared for accuracy might give an entirely different result to what you would expect. I would say the No4 was an easier rifle to learn to shoot, and an easier rifle to become proficient with. At 1000yds, the right rifles in the right hands, there may not be so much between them...
JerryB08
History seems to have answered your question.
During WW2, the British had stocks of both rifles but chose the No4 for Sniper conversion.
Post WW2 as the sport of Target Rifle shooting continued to develop, in countries where both rifles were available, the No4 was the main rifle chosen.
Having said that, any rifle that groups can be deadly accurate in the right set of hands, be it a No1 or a No4
Paul
Attachment 31631Every thing would point to the no4 rifle being more accurate than the SMLE, i think it is all down to what rifle suits best, i have always achieved better scores with my NO1 Mk3 i just prefer it over the no4 it comes to the shoulder so easy it feels nice in the hand and it is very point able i love those rear sights on the SMLE.
I wonder how much the No.4's slab side had to to with that decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by paulseamus
I really am a fan of the No 4. I found it interesting though that Australian forces stuck with the number 1 all the way to and through the Korean War. I didn't know that until I got my 53 with the original Butt stock which is stamped 1943. Did they recycle wood when producing the post war ones? I guess I'm assuming its the original as it's coachwood. If anyone can tell me how that can be I would love to know. The advantage of the sights there's no question goes to the No 4. I myself was lucky enough to land a MUES no1 improved sight which would negate that advantage if I could shoot as well as the rifle is capable of. Which I can't. lol..
The being able to teach recruits to shoot easier in my mind would have very important.
Australian Forces didn't have a lot of choice - Lithgow wasn't tooled up to make the No 4.
The No.4 was easier to set up for accurate shooting, and more likely to stay put once done. No.1s can 'go off' at unpredictable intervals.
One wonders that while Canada chose to re-tool, that H.M. Australian Government chose not to re-tool for a reason. Could it have been that Australia was faced with a harsher strategic situation and the consequent reality of a greater logistic need?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxwell Smart
Afterall, we know that there was every expectation in Canberra that the war with Japan would last at least until 1948 --- that is until Hiroshima and Nagasaki compelled Hirohito to consider other options.
Canada more or less set up for No 4 rifle production with a "green-field" site; they had no pre-existing SMLE works in place - fairly simple to go straight for the new factory for the new rifle.
I suspect that there was very little cash about in the Commonwealth coffers at the time to effect the changeover, and in any case the strategic picture, at least at the time that the No 4 factories overseas were being set up, was that the defence of Australia would rest on "Fortress Singapore".
Once the futility of that notion became apparent, then it was too late to change over. The Lithgow factory was just going to have to churn out SMLEs as quickly as it could.