Mint Lee Enfield No. 4 Mk II

These photos are of a Fazakerley No, 4 Mk II built in 1954. What makes this rifle so unique (I think) is that the condition is mint and it has a target rear sight. The sight looks similar to the PH #4 but it is not exactly the same. It also has a Huber trigger for a No. 4 Mk I. There are no inspectors marks on the wood. The only marks on the wood is the serial number on the bottom of the forend between the bottom band and the muzzle. John Huber is sending me the correct trigger for this rifle. Very nice of him! I am asking you guys for help in obtaining any history of this piece and ideas as to why it has the marks (or lack thereof) as it does. I'm no expert on these but I know there are a number of experts on this forum. Thanks for your help.
Bigedac

Your sight is definately wrong. It is from the UK Military L81 target rifle but that's the good news. The BAD news is that it is that to work on your standard No4 rifle, the backsight ears have been modified somewhat. Apart from that and the trigger - that can easily be returned to normal, it's a bog standard No4 rifle made at Fazakerley, Liverpool in England in December 1954. Albeit in mint-ish condition......, except for the backsight ears which some might say takes it from being mint

Peter,
Thanks so much for taking the time to contact me on this. I just went and compared this rifle to another I have that was built in 53 and I can find no differences on the ears at all. The sight itself has some distance on either side for windage adjustment. Would the holes in the ears have to been drilled larger? Also what about the lack of stock marks? Thanks,
Bigedac

Unfortunately the rear sight axis pin holes have been drilled larger for the L81 rear sight screw. There will also be a hole drilled to accomodate the spring and detent for the clicks on the windage knob. The wood has been heavily stained by someone as they didn't leave the factory like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Your sight is definately wrong. It is from the UK Military L81 target rifle but that's the good news. The BAD news is that it is that to work on your standard No4 rifle, the backsight ears have been modified somewhat. Apart from that and the trigger - that can easily be returned to normal, it's a bog standard No4 rifle made at Fazakerley, Liverpool in England in December 1954. Albeit in mint-ish condition......, except for the backsight ears which some might say takes it from being mint

---

does anyone make a sight like that that is appropriate for a n0.4 .303? I'am and american and need the ability to adjust rear windage.

Errrr. Kentucky windage?? I don't recall Kentucky being a small town outside London on the A443. what you need is a parker Hale PH5C sight now that the holes for teh rear sight have been drilled out a bit. try ebay..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eddystone3006

... I'am and american and need the ability to adjust rear windage.

---

Eddystone, I'm sorry mate, but I read that and instantly thought, 'What? Wind only exists in America?'

I'll be the first to say windage adjustment is a nice to have feature, but one that in reality is neither necessary nor often used in reality. The exception there is the obsessive target shooter.

I know I'm telling something you already know, but wind changes from moment to moment. It may easily blow in 3 different directions and speeds and change just as often over the course of a bullet's flight from muzzle to target. Using windage sight adjustments for it can become an exercise reminiscent of a cat chasing a dot of light one shines on the floor in an erratic pattern. The reality is that the best marksmen, target shooters, military snipers and hunters alike all use 'Kentucky windage'. True, it is a skill born of familarity and experience paid for with practice and ammunition, but a priceless skill to have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

Unfortunately the rear sight axis pin holes have been drilled larger for the L81 rear sight screw. There will also be a hole drilled to accomodate the spring and detent for the clicks on the windage knob. The wood has been heavily stained by someone as they didn't leave the factory like that.

---

Brian,
Thanks for your info. however, I believe you are wrong on the stain. This is not my first rodeo, I have been collecting and gunsmithing for almost 50 years (old guy!) and the wood on this one is factory. I checked it inside and out, it all matches and no sign of "billy bob." I think it is beech wood as the grain doesn't quite look like plain walnut. There has been no sanding or original finish removal. There is no stain inside the rivets either. I wish I knew the story on this one, I hope some one does. I wondered if one of the employees could have made this up for himself? The smoothness of the stock wood is perfect, again no sanding, the numbers on the bottom of the stock are not touched and there is also an F54 toward the muzzle next to the wood stock serial number. I have just recently become interested in the SMLE so I am not as knowledgeable about them. I would have to take the rear sight off of both my 1954 and 1953 rifles to check the holes for sight mounting. Maybe someday!
Bigedac

You can be rest assured bigedac that your rifle wasn't a lunchbox special from Fazakerley. From the moment that the last machining operation was carried out on what is called 'the master component' (the rifle body in this case), the body becomes a controlled, highly regulated and accountable item. No doubt some did escape but you can be rest assured again that it didn't escape with a serial number because that was the last operation prior to final fitting up and any loss or mysterious disappearance would have meant the factory being turned upside down. Yours is just a bog standard (almost....) last-of-the-line Fazakerley No4's. The colour of the woodwork is of no significance and late Fazakerley replacement woodwork was produced from dark wood. I still have dark late foreends (without the recess for the magazine cut-off block) on my workshop shelf

Peter,
Thanks again. I was only making a "supposition" about the "lunch box." I didn't know that they used dark wood in the latter days, heck, there is a lot I still don't know, but we're learning fast. for an ol' guy, that is!

I've had hundreds of ROF Fazakerley No.4Mk.2 rifles but never one stained like that. I'm just referring to my experiences. Nothing is set in stone when it comes to these rifles. The L81 rear sights were sold by SARCO under false advertising pretenses and it's really unfortunate that folks have permanently altered rifles by drilling holes in the receiver. Especially when the correct target sights are available if one keeps an eye out. The axis pin holes can be sleeved with tubing soldered in and the hole in the side for the detent filled with steel filled epoxy and touched up. My uneducated guess is this is just one of the new Mk.2 rifles that was worked on by a previous civilian shooter.

I,ll tell you how you get that finish!
Take a 1 Factory Wraped Rifle, remove the wrapping, strip the wood from the metal parts of the rifle, take some white spirit and wire wool and clean off any mess from the wood, then apply some woodstain like Jacobean Dark oak with the same wire wool (not soft clean cloth), wait for it to dry and there you go!
I've done a few like that because the owners just didn't like the Blonde finish!

Brian,
Thanks for your help. Peter remarked that some of the end of production rifles did have dark wood, so who knows? It is a very nice rifle none the less.

I have a thought or two.

There are a few things in your original post, Bigedac, that strike me as significant. First of all, you mention it has a Huber target trigger, albeit the wrong one. Secondly, you mention it has a target back sight, and again not the right one. Finally, you mention that the furniture is very smooth, not terribly significant, and apparently devoid of proofmarks. It is also apparent that the metalwork finish is in top nick.

Now, reading what the premier experts here have said, and what you've posted, I wonder if this rifle has been worked over by someone wanting a pretty to look at target rifle. I wonder if the absence of proofs on the furniture is the result of being sanded, and if the dark wood may or may not be the result of stain. I wonder why an American-made aftermarket sight would be on a 'mint' British rifle if it hadn't been added by someone in the hope of improving accuracy.

I have a thought or two.

There are a few things in your original post, Bigedac, that strike me as significant. First of all, you mention it has a Huber target trigger, albeit the wrong one. Secondly, you mention it has a target back sight, and again not the right one. Finally, you mention that the furniture is very smooth, not terribly significant, and apparently devoid of proofmarks. It is also apparent that the metalwork finish is in top nick.

Now, reading what the premier experts here have said, and what you've posted, I wonder if this rifle has been worked over by someone wanting a pretty to look at target rifle. I wonder if the absence of proofs on the furniture is the result of being sanded, and if the dark wood may or may not be the result of stain. I wonder why an American-made aftermarket sight would be on a 'mint' British rifle if it hadn't been added by someone in the hope of improving accuracy.

I think XL39E1 and Paul S. have pretty much summed it up. That would be my uneducated opinion on this particular rifle.

That rifle looks to me as though at least some of it has been refinished. Those post 1968 GCA importers marks at the muzzle end of the barrel have paint in them.

Well, all of you guys have valid ideas. I have taken it completely apart and the stain inside is the same as the outside with none showing on the rivets that hold the various metal parts to the wood. As far as sanding, if that were the case wouldn't the serial number and F54 on the stock be diminished? They are not at all sanded. I'm sure someone wanted to make this a target rifle, but it is not refinished, at least that I can tell by holding it in my hands. Also the muzzle stamps don't have paint in them, the shadow on the photo makes them look darker than they are.
Bigedac

everyone out there, and I hate to be contrary, but you can be rest assured that there definately WAS dark woodwork for Mk2 rifles manufactured at Fazakerley, as I said earlier, including the very very late Mk2 fore-ends without the cut-off block recess. I have a stack of them on my Armourers shelf if you want to see them. They aren't highly polished (ugh.......) like the photos you can be rest assured that they exist. If I was any good with photos and computers, I'd show you one - or even three un-dyed, untouched, original dark late Mk2 wood from Fazakerley

Strewth Peter, when Rog Payne gets down to visit you, we'll get him to fix that, that excuse has been your mainstay for to long, it's gotta go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muffett.2008

Strewth Peter, when Rog Payne gets down to visit you, we'll get him to fix that, that excuse has been your mainstay for to long, it's gotta go.

---

well whats your excuse for existing then muff?!!! HaHaHaHa
I don't have one as it was handed in when they discharged me!
Got any water your way? Can't go outside cause the sand is so hot it will burn your feet here!!!
Cheers
Ned

Ned, I'm camping on Anzac Range wasting ammo competing in the QUEENS.
A combination of old tired eyes and a shattered back with enough metal in it to make a rifle is as good an excuse as I need.
Enjoy Australia day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muffett.2008

Ned, I'm camping on Anzac Range wasting ammo competing in the QUEENS.
A combination of old tired eyes and a shattered back with enough metal in it to make a rifle is as good an excuse as I need.
Enjoy Australia day.

---

and good onya!!
Cheers
Ned