Printable View
I picked up a Lee Enfield at auction, The rifle is marked as No4 MK1, but the stock and front sight look different from any of the ones I've seen online. I've been trying to identify the markings with not much luck. I was hoping some one with more Enfield knowledge than myself would be able to shed a little light on it. Thanks in advance.
Attachment 92731Attachment 92732Attachment 92733Attachment 92734Attachment 92735Attachment 92736Attachment 92737Attachment 92738Attachment 92739
Sporterised.
Markings on body faint, but could be highlighted with chalk and different angle photo.
Original stock, most of the front wood removed and reshaped. Butt and butt plate retained.
Barrel shortened and new front sight added.
Back sight one of the simplified ones to speed up production, replaced the original one.
Experts will be along just now with more information.
Sporterized BSA barrel dated 1943
M47 indicates originally a BSA made No.4.
Well, it was once a No.4, but as said already it's been heavily sporterised.
In principle it is restorable as the receiver is good, but whether it is economic is another question.
Thanks for the information. I picked the rifle up for 110 USD, and another 100 for the missing bolt and mag so I dont have a lot into it. I've thought about restoring it, I have found original stocks for cheap, but no luck on the barrel. I get why some people cut shorten the barrels, but I dont understand why some one would only cut off only a couple inches, and not enough to make a actual difference.
Perhaps so that they can lose the very military looking original foresight block?
Not sure how relevant it is to No4's but I know people used to do the same thing with old Martini Cadet rifles here in Aus: After being cleaned from the bore end by those with little training the first inch or so may as well be smooth bore, so you hack that much off and suddenly it is much more accurate. Just my two cents on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tromas
So my question relates to the bolt if its not been fitted correctly then there may be consequences not desirable in firing the rifle one would/should err on the side of caution and have it checked over by a gunsmith conversant with the fitting up of a bolt on the Lee Enfields as its not just a case of popping in a H/Space gauge and saying its good to go.
As there are recoil surfaces that need to be correctly fitted up so they take the firing of the rifle correctly, the mag you should be able to adjust if it has feed issues from searching this site for info otherwise there are the chaps who have the knowledge to assist you with your inquiries.
Serial looks like A ? (C) 2 ? (3) 9 9 (A C 2399)
I believe the serial is AQ2199, thanks for the heads up, Ill be sure to find a gunsmith to run it by first.Quote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS
Length of barrel is what you make of it.
The LE barrel length [25.5"] was decided about 120 years ago [down from 30.5"], and had a lot to do with target shooters wanting a longer barrel for accuracy. Thinking at that time hadn't progressed far from volley firing on command but all military forces wanted to be able to shoot to at least 2 000 m/yds. Since that barrel length and its ammunition worked very well it wasn't changed. Similar to all military rifles from that era.
If you compare the military cartridges of that time they all have similar ballistics.
The long Lee barrel was 30.2 inches in length, and the rifle the same length as that of the Martini Henry that it replaced. The LE cavalry carbine barrel was 20.75 inches.
My metal arithmetic (Ummmm!) tells me that the Sht.LE barrel length of 25.2 was pretty much half way between the two.
There was a bit of controversy about the new Sht.LE and it did not get very good press when it was first rolled out as the new service rifle. The target shooting fraternity were not impressed at first
The military taking target shooters views into consideration for barrel length in my mind is doubtful. The long rifle was sighted to 1800 yards and the shorter carbine to 2000. The rifles were factory tested for grouping and not tested to be able to hit a bulls eye.
The No.4 rifle barrel is same length as that of the Sht.LE and same diameter and taper as that of the MLE.
I find the evolution of the LE to be fascinating. Everything seems to have been done for a reason by some very clever designers.
IMHO, it's not worth restoring. By the time you buy all the parts necessary to restore it and pay a smith to replace the barrel, you would have spend a lot more than buying a complete full stocked No4 Mk1. And after all that, a restored copy is still not worth as much as an original. Just shoot it as is and enjoy it.