Which is a more accuraate rifle? The No1 MK 3 or the No 4 MK1

[smellie]

@enfield303t: Lordy, what memories your post brings back!

Bill Brown and Bob Pitcairn were friends for many years. Bob came out here to Virden and shot on our range several times. They shot together and they shot against each other, year after year, right to the top in Canada.... and then they went zipping off to represent the country at Bisley. I do know that Bill talked about Bob Pitcairn many times and looked forward to his visits, but I never had the privilege of meeting with Mr. Pitcairn myself.

As in my own case, you have touched a bit of History and been a part of it.

In my own case, one of the greatest influences in my life has been Dr. Charles Wayland Lightbody (1907 - 1970) who was the Head of the History Department at Brandon University. He was a Rhodes scholar in 1928, a profound Mediaevalist and a polymath of the most brilliant type. I remember a student once asking if the General Theory of Relativity actually meant anything, and Doc replied, "My friend Dr. Einstein explained it to me as....." and kept going from there. In a HISTORY class! Doc worked himself to death at age 63.

He once said, "History is the sum total of human experience, to date." That statement put into a handful of words what I had always thought. It has been my guide through the last 40 years.

.............................. ................................... .....................................

In the case of the Rifles Numbers 1 and 4, there are a lot of factors to take into consideration. For one thing, the old Long Lee rifles were popular in long-range target shooting in the 1890s and so, when the Army adopted the Short rifle with the light barrel in 1901, it met with instant dismay and disdain.

The stocking-up was completely wrong. Everyone knew that.

That light barrel would NEVER shoot. Everyone knew that.

But they were stuck with the thing, and huge efforts were made to improve it over the following decade..... in relative peacetime. In 1910 the Mark VII round was adopted and this afforded improved range. By the time the Great War interrupted the quiet afternoons of target-shooting, the SMLE had become a fixture (even if not really liked)... and it had become accurate and reliable, it had become tolerated and even was gaining fans. During the Great War, all the factories had to do was increase production of this KNOWN rifle and place it in the hands of the newly-raised New Armies. And the Trade had learned how to tune that complicated bedding and how to REGULATE the thing to get the best long-range performance from it. And then, in the trenches and the truly God-awful conditions of the Great War, it PROVED that, even though it MIGHT not be the finest MATCH rifle in the world, it certainly was the TOUGHEST.

The poor Number 4 never really had that chance. Designed as a great improvement on the SMLE, the Number 4 was developed entirely at Enfield through the 1920s and 1930s.The first rifles marked as Number 4s were built for Trials in 1931. The rifle then was adopted and work began, very slowly, to retool the single factory that knew anything about it at all. This work still was not completed by the outbreak of the War in 1939. The spectacular German advances of 1939 and 1940 left Britain standing alone and, thanks to Government parsimony, with only a single partly-equipped plant to manufacture an amazing variety of new weapons. The Trade, having been kept well outside the Number 4 program, could be of no help, most of the Trade never having even seen a Number 4, much less a Bren, an Enfield revolver, an Oerlikon or a Hispano cannon or anything else. And it ALL was to be made at Enfield, with its toolroom and its single Long Room with the tooling only half converted-over.

Finally, things got into some kind of order and 5 factories on two continents began vomiting forth huge quantities of Number 4 Rifles of varying fit, finish and quality of workmanship and even types of materials. Of these factories, only ONE even was staffed by people accustomed to building firearms; the other four were staffed with whoever showed up and wanted a job. BSA and Enfield were able to provide some knowledgeable management for the 3 British factories, but only a minority of these were familiar with the Number 4 to any real degree. And so the rifles were churned out, fought a war, were called in at the end of that war and found obsolete. All efforts immediately went into finding a replacement for the Number 4 and the completed rifles began being dumped onto the worldwide surplus market, beginning with the really terrible ones which only could be classed as "war-wearies".

NOT the most auspicious beginning in civilian life for the rifle which was designed to be the Perfection of the Lee System.

Actually, considering the general conditions in wartime and the absolute cluster-f*ck which characterised early Number 4 production, it is a small miracle that the rifles worked at all, not even to think of working as the absolutely splendid instruments which so many have turned out to be.

The old SMLE set a lot of records but, to be a little bit honest, it was in many ways a specialist's rifle on the rifle-range, albeit one which certain members of the Trade understood. It now is long enough in the past that the Number 4 is becoming as well understood as was its dam. Number 4 parts are much easier to find and threads are BA, so it stands to reason that the Number 4 will continue on the rifle ranges after the final SMLE has been hung on a wall, "too valuable to shoot".

It is entirely possible that this debate will not be concluded until past OUR time..... and that the Number 4 will come out on top.

But there will NEVER be anything else as butt-ugly BRUTAL in appearance, as the old SMLE with its Pattern 1907 sticking out 17-1/2 inches in front: the ULTIMATE crowd-control device, the ne plus ultra of Milsurps.

Hope these thoughts help.
.