MPI of Lee enfield No.4 MkII UF55 series

As a long time admirer of the No.4 Lee Enfield, I managed to pick up a No.4 MkII from the UF 55 A batch.
It was sold from an old stock and put on the market in 1995.
They say it is from a batch made for the RAF, but I’ve never found anything to substantiate that.

Anyway, it turns out my cousin has a similar rifle, with a serial number only a few hundred from mine.
The thing with these two is that the MPI is more than 9” too low!
When shooting at 100 yards, sight set at 200 yards, the MPI should be about 3” above point of aim.
In reality, the MPI is about 6” BELOW POA...
Not just for mine, for my cousin’s Lee as well.
To shoot anywhere near the target we have to set the MkI sight to 450 yards!

Are we the only ones experiencing this, or is this somehow a common feature with these rifles?

What recipe of ammunition are you using? Anything other than the issue of the day will show deviation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

What recipe of ammunition are you using? Anything other than the issue of the day will show deviation.

---

I’m using Privi 174gr FMJ ammo. According to tests I’ve read, these fly quite true to the MkVII, which also is 174gr FMJ.

But would different ammo produce a 9” deviation from the standard at 100 yards?

Prvi is not exactly the same as MkVII so POI will difer.

Simply replace the front sight blade with a smaller one. as per the table :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

Prvi is not exactly the same as MkVII so POI will difer.

Simply replace the front sight blade with a smaller one. as per the table :

---

Thanks for that!
Yes, it will not be exactly the same, but a 9” difference at 100 yards seems excessive?

According to the calculations, I would need a -0.060 sight blade!
I don’t think these are available, are they?

Interesting. Does using the battle sight result in the same MPI?

Options: Try another ammunition brand. Fit a lower front sight. Check back sight for correct fitting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToineS

Thanks for that!
Yes, it will not be exactly the same, but a 9” difference at 100 yards seems excessive?

According to the calculations, I would need a -0.060 sight blade!
I don’t think these are available, are they?

---

No a -0.060 were not available.

The poor quality manufacture of Fazakerley rifles meant that in some batches the sighting in / zeroing was almost impossible and they applied for a derogation to allow Sten sights to be used (in that case the POI was 'high'), a short extract from a very long 'training lecture' on No4 Front sights, given by Peter Laidler (some years ago)

But back to No4 rifles and the BLOCK band, foresight. Are you in for the long haul? Soon after the large late 40’s FTR programmes, it was established at Fazakerley that a large percentage of fully refurbished rifles were impossible to zero due to them shooting too high. Fazakerley sought to obtain a relaxation in order to use the +.090” and +.105” STEN gun foresight blades but already there were problems relating to the final inspection standards that I won’t go into. But the same problems were apparent outside the factories and Base Workshops, in service too so while the factories, FTR programme contractors and the large REME Base workshops were NOT permitted to use the higher Sten foresight blades, a relaxation was sought that they could be used at unit level (both high sizes) and Field workshop level (just the .090 size). But this was palliative and not a cure by any means. The answer was that where a rifle was perfect in every other way, then a Mk2 BLOCK Band foresight was available.

Have a look at your 'Block Band Foresight' and see if it is a Mk2. (A Mk2 will be marked 1H or 2H) If it is that gives an increase in POI of two (2) front sight blades, if it is a Mk2 and you replace it with a Mk1 that effectively reduces your POI by two (2) sight blades so you can easily achieve the required 9" drop using the available sight blades.

Well you may want to look at these then!

Set Of 8 Lee Enfield No4 No5 No8 Sight Blades -0.030 to +0.075 Split Dovetail | eBay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

Well you may want to look at these then!

Set Of 8 Lee Enfield No4 No5 No8 Sight Blades -0.030 to +0.075 Split Dovetail | eBay

---

Thanks! I need a -0.060 blade though…!

---------- Post added at 02:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:45 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daan Kemp

Interesting. Does using the battle sight result in the same MPI?

Options: Try another ammunition brand. Fit a lower front sight. Check back sight for correct fitting.

---

Yes, I will try a different ammo brand. Maybe that’s what’s causing it…
Thanks for the suggestion!

---------- Post added at 02:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:46 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

No a -0.060 were not available.

The poor quality manufacture of Fazakerley rifles meant that in some batches the sighting in / zeroing was almost impossible and they applied for a derogation to allow Sten sights to be used (in that case the POI was 'high'), a short extract from a very long 'training lecture' on No4 Front sights, given by Peter Laidler (some years ago)

But back to No4 rifles and the BLOCK band, foresight. Are you in for the long haul? Soon after the large late 40’s FTR programmes, it was established at Fazakerley that a large percentage of fully refurbished rifles were impossible to zero due to them shooting too high. Fazakerley sought to obtain a relaxation in order to use the +.090” and +.105” STEN gun foresight blades but already there were problems relating to the final inspection standards that I won’t go into. But the same problems were apparent outside the factories and Base Workshops, in service too so while the factories, FTR programme contractors and the large REME Base workshops were NOT permitted to use the higher Sten foresight blades, a relaxation was sought that they could be used at unit level (both high sizes) and Field workshop level (just the .090 size). But this was palliative and not a cure by any means. The answer was that where a rifle was perfect in every other way, then a Mk2 BLOCK Band foresight was available.

Have a look at your 'Block Band Foresight' and see if it is a Mk2. (A Mk2 will be marked 1H or 2H) If it is that gives an increase in POI of two (2) front sight blades, if it is a Mk2 and you replace it with a Mk1 that effectively reduces your POI by two (2) sight blades so you can easily achieve the required 9" drop using the available sight blades.

---

Thanks for that insight. Interesting stuff!
You’d think a FTR would be ‘thorough’ right!?

But my Lee is a new 1955 No.4 MkII which, by all accounts, should be of superior quality. Some of the best ever made, even…
I’ll see what happens when I use different ammo, like Daan suggested.

But if all else fails, there is a -0.060 No.1 MkIII sight blade.
Will that fit a No.4? Opinions seem to differ, so if anyone has experience with those…? 😇

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToineS

But my Lee is a new 1955 No.4 MkII which, by all accounts, should be of superior quality. Some of the best ever made, even…

---

You have been reading things on the internet ..........................

The quality produced, not only wartime, but post war was probably the worst of all manufacturers, the working relationship was appalling with unionisation and refusal to meet 'conditions' causing huge problems, and because of this they did not get future work and were closed down.

Another small extract from one of Peter Laidlers training lessons :

After the end of the upgrading programme, the ‘new-build’ PF- and UF55A- No4 Mk2 rifles were produced. But by this time, industrial relations at Fazakerley were best described as ‘tense’ and the factory began its slow inevitable decline. Even the offer of the secretive L2A3 Sterling and L1A1 rifle contract couldn’t sweeten or un-blinker the suicidal workforce. So while Sterling got on with making and selling its guns to the rest of the world and BSA stepped in at the last moment to rescue the L1A1 SLR, the remaining SLR machinery went from Fazakerley to Lithgow …………….. but that’s another story.


Why do you think almost all of the No4T's were made using BSA manufactured rifles ?
(The quality was better and more consistent)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

You have been reading things on the internet ..........................

The quality produced, not only wartime, but post war was probably the worst of all manufacturers, the working relationship was appalling with unionisation and refusal to meet 'conditions' causing huge problems, and because of this they did not get future work and were closed down.

Another small extract from one of Peter Laidlers training lessons :

After the end of the upgrading programme, the ‘new-build’ PF- and UF55A- No4 Mk2 rifles were produced. But by this time, industrial relations at Fazakerley were best described as ‘tense’ and the factory began its slow inevitable decline. Even the offer of the secretive L2A3 Sterling and L1A1 rifle contract couldn’t sweeten or un-blinker the suicidal workforce. So while Sterling got on with making and selling its guns to the rest of the world and BSA stepped in at the last moment to rescue the L1A1 SLR, the remaining SLR machinery went from Fazakerley to Lithgow …………….. but that’s another story.


Why do you think almost all of the No4T's were made using BSA manufactured rifles ?
(The quality was better and more consistent)

---

Wow. Live an learn.
Yes, I did read that on the internet.
As I’m reading this on the internet! 😇
But a source like Peter can’t be ignored, of course…

I’ll try other ammo and if the results are the same, I’ll try a No.1 sight blade. If all else fails, I’ll convert a No.4 sight blade to -0.060 specs…
I can also just set the MkI rear sight to 450 yards, but that just doesn’t feel right…
Shame, as it’s a lovely (and to my layman’s eyes, well made) rifle!
Thanks for the info, Alan. Much appreciated!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToineS

I’ll convert a No.4 sight blade to -0.060 specs…

---

A fairly easy modification to do, but, as I'm sure you know all of the actual blades are the same height (about 0.14") - it is simply the thickness of the stool (base) that changes. You cannot modify the base by taking 0.03" off it so you must take it off the blade and re-profile it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

A fairly easy modification to do, but, as I'm sure you know all of the actual blades are the same height (about 0.14") - it is simply the thickness of the stool (base) that changes. You cannot modify the base by taking 0.03" off it so you must take it off the blade and re-profile it.

---

Thanks! Yes, I was aware of that: you have to take an equal amount of the base and the blade and re-profile the blade.
Shouldn’t be to big a job with a lathe.

Do you know if the No.1 foresight specs were identical to No.4 foresight specs, dovetail-foot wise?
In other words, will a No.1 foresight fit a No.4 foresight without the need to change anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToineS

you have to take an equal amount of the base and the blade

---

If you take anything off the base, then the dovetail will not fit into the slot. You will need to take all 0.030 from the top of the blade.

Re the No1 blades - I think the answer is NO.
They have different part numbers so I thnk they are different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

If you take anything off the base, then the dovetail will not fit into the slot. You will need to take all 0.030 from the top of the blade.

Re the No1 blades - I think the answer is NO.
They have different part numbers so I thnk they are different.

---

Of course: off the top of the base! The parts left and right of the blade, gotcha!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToineS

Of course: off the top of the base! The parts left and right of the blade, gotcha!

---

Remove 0.030 from the top (the area marked colour yellow) of a -0.030 sight blade.
or
Remove 0.060 from the top (the area marked colour yellow) of a 0.000 sight blade.

Both will give you an effective -0.060 sight blade.

Ensure that you buy the correct type of foresight blade (solid, split, type 1 or type 2 etc etc) for your modification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToineS

Yes, I will try a different ammo brand. Maybe that’s what’s causing it…
Thanks for the suggestion!

---

And...that was what post two said.

So now to throw a crushed crab into the mix, before all else buy different brands of ammo and maybe even tailor some reloads and find what best groups in the rifle me I'd go with option 2 and reloads but it depends on how often you are going to shoot the rifle.
Get the best grouping one and keep that then do the sight -.060 as no use going with changing the sight and finding the dispersion is up sh*t creek at 600yds.
Now here is what I think is the kicker with all this palava trying to get the correlation on the sight ladder to bullet strike with modern pills they just fly flatter so you may get the impact on at 100 but still find your correlation does not match up at say 600 yds. I am interested to see if it all works.

I have loaded some 303 174 SMK's up some time ago to do a test on velocity V's known trajectory with them, I matched it to within an inch or so on a MKVII ball round mid range for 600yds I thought that would be a better way to go rather than sight blades.
I then reasoned that the said load may be okay for 600 but at say 300 I may find the arc higher than what it should be as these pills will be travelling allot slower than the 2440Fps of the MkVII ball load it may be mere conjecture but until I get off my sorry date and do it its pure speculation.
I did however spend allot of time looking over the charts and doing the trajectory figures & comparisons and arrived at the set velocity for that range, be interesting perhaps, however you may find you have to do the yardage and with the round you chose and keep the DOPE.
As far as my testing goes being the absolute slack ar*e I brought motor bikes instead so most week ends are spent belting around on them instead of shooting.
And with fine weather here why wouldn't you be out on this instead of being a lizard lying in the hot sun!:p

Lizarding doesn't sound so bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

wouldn't you be out on this

---

You make it look pretty small Cinders...good to see you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

So now to throw a crushed crab into the mix, before all else buy different brands of ammo and maybe even tailor some reloads and find what best groups in the rifle me I'd go with option 2 and reloads but it depends on how often you are going to shoot the rifle.
Get the best grouping one and keep that then do the sight -.060 as no use going with changing the sight and finding the dispersion is up sh*t creek at 600yds.
Now here is what I think is the kicker with all this palava trying to get the correlation on the sight ladder to bullet strike with modern pills they just fly flatter so you may get the impact on at 100 but still find your correlation does not match up at say 600 yds. I am interested to see if it all :p

---

I see your point and all things being equal, I’d wholeheartedly agree.
The thing is, the maximum range I’ll be shooting at is 100 yards. Once in a blue moon and at a stretch I might even be able to shoot at 300 yards. Anything more is just not available here.
So I would like to shoot the required three inches too high at 100 yards (sight at 200) as that will put the impact on target with a six o’clock hold. For the 300 yard range I might be off, but not by too much, I guess.
That setup would be fine by me.
I’ll use some other brands of ammo, but I doubt they’ll raise the aim by several inches at 100 yards.
Besides, next to self loading (which I don’t do), there is only one other brand available here, so not much choice…
Btw: the groupings are fine. No problem there.

But my main question was if anyone with a UF55 serial Lee Enfield No.4 MkII experienced that same problem?
I guess these aren’t too common here?

All my 303's that I use on the range which is 4 of, all have their original as issued front blades as I use one load for all of them including the T I have the DOPE from 100 - 600m and none of the elevation for distance match up as the 174SMK's fly allot flatter and I am driving them at 2440fps.
It was time consuming in the beginning but now that I have it on paper and XLS its easy without having to swap blades so as Jim has suggested try different ammo or reload get one that groups and go from there doing up a dope chart.

As what can happen when one starts faffing about (PL's words sorry Peter) it may or could possibly create other issues like possible damage to the front sight block, its just a bit easier option to do the range time plus you get to shoot allot which is never a bad thing.
I'm all for leaving things as original as can be done, as it is part of the rifles journey once you start pulling bits off and swapping out stuff it loses its patina and identity.
But its your rifle its just the way I treat my gear as I have seen so many No.4's and MkIII's just ruined be add on's that were never part of the deal or stuff swapped out like say a windage rear sight on a 1940's dated MkIII.
Cheers to all the smelly owners out there......:cheers:.

UPDATE:
First off, thanks for all your advice. It all really helps!
I’ve managed to find a front sight blade that I need, according to the calculations provided in the Lee Enfield knowledge articles.
I knew it was a No.1 MkIII sight, but took a chance anyway.
Happy to report it fits like a glove, out of the box!
Hopefully now I don’t need to set the rear sight at 450 yards to hit something at 100 yards.