Numbers matching?

[Mike B]

Just purchased my first Lee Enfield and had a couple of questions about it. It is a 1943 No4 Mk1* Long Branch. I purchased it as a numbers matching rifle but after having taken it apart and cleaned it I highly doubt it. Nothing against the seller as when I received it there was green paint, black paint and lots of old hard grease on it from the years and the numbers did appear to match. I was told that the rifle had seen service in India. Now that it is clean I have found a second set of numbers on fore-end and magazine. Also the last two numbers on the bolt appear to be newer. They are brighter in the picture because a had to scrape them more to get the green paint out of the grooves. Also, on it there is a stamp "RB 2/47". Would this be for a rebuild in February, 1947? Could the numbers have been added / changed in '47 when it was rebuilt? Also, with the bolt it looks like the numbers may have just been re-stamped. Would they have done that during a rebuild if the numbers were not stamped well or very visible?

Attachment 33468Attachment 33467Attachment 33471Attachment 33466Attachment 33469Attachment 33470

Thanks,
Mike

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Brian Dick]

That's typical of many rifles that went through FTR post WWII whether in India or elsewhere. The important part that should match is the bolt but even a mismatch bolt can be OK as long as it's fitted and headspaced properly. This also holds true for the forend which definitely needs to fit properly for good accuracy.

[smellie]

Hi!

Note this is your first post; welcome aboard!

Now, as to your problem child. I would call it exactly what it is: a 1943 Long Branch rifle which was rebuilt in 1947 BY EXPERIENCED FACTORY WORKERS WHO KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING. This one is a very long way from being a Bubba rifle rebuilt out of a parts bin in Uncle Joe's garage. THIS one is CORRECT, all the way.

Yes, the forewood has another number but it has been renumbered to this rifle. Therefore, it FITS this rifle perfectly: perfectly enough that it now BELONGS on this rifle. The new serial number is the PROOF that it fits and belongs on this rifle. Some collectors, I think in an effort to degrade the other guys' rifles, call this "force-matching" and sneer at it. The military accepted the changed number as proof that this part had been FITTED TO the rifle it now is a part of. The accurate fitting of the forewood of a Number 4 is essential if you want any accuracy from the critter; you can't just slap on anything from the bin. Your rifle has had a damaged forestock for some reason (likely combat damage) and has been rebuilt with one which has been FITTED to it, NUMBERED to it and now is an essential part of YOUR rifle. Granted, it isn't NEW...... but it is CORRECT, NOW, and the Numbers are the proof.

I note that you have the Mark 1 rear sight. This sight was the big bottleneck in production of the Number 4 Rifle. Most rifles built in 1943 would have had the silly little Mark 2 sight: just a flip-over 300 - 600 aperture type with intermediate ranges a hidden joke between you and God, depending upon whether the bayonet was fixed or otherwise. The Mark 2 sight was replaced in Factory Repairs as they became available, once the real rush in production was over.

A completely-rebuilt rifle such as this, equipped with the Mark 1 sight, would have been accepted gladly in Service Rifle competitions in the 1950s and 1960s and could be depended upon to hit that 18-inch Bull out at 600. The military would have regarded it as a new rifle.

It all depends upon the standard which you wish to apply.

I would call this rifle "factory rebuilt, numbers matching".

Hope this helps a bit.

Again, welcome aboard!
.

[gravityfan]

Very well put, smellie. +1 from me on all of it.

[Mike B]

Thanks for your replies and welcome here.

What you said is what I was hoping for. I really don't care if the numbers match. I purchased the rifle to be a shooter and was only concerned that it had been slapped together and that would affect accuracy. I could have purchased several rifles with nicer looking wood but this one had a nice clean bore. Can't wait to get out and see what it can do.

Mike

[smellie]

If you handload, try some Sierra 180 Pro-Hunters at about 2250 ft/sec. I get this from my SMLEs with 38 grains of 4895. Seat to the OAL of a military Ball round.

Yes, this is a bit slow and the bullet ogive "crowds" the leade, but the rifles sure like it. This is my test load for LEs.

Don't waste your money on boat-tailed bullets. Nearly ALL Lee-Enfields will shoot their best with a flatbase bullet. Enfield rifling is like that. It ALSO lasts about 5/8 of forever if you look after it.

My collection is worth about HALF of what another wold bring, simply because I have very few pretty ones..... but they ALL have good bores. The finish on the woodwork doesn't direct the bullet: the inside of the barrel does that job. You can spiff the woodwork up afterwards if you want to, but replacing a barrel is another matter entirely. You did exactly right for a shooting rifle.

Be sure you download a copy of "Shoot To Live!", available on this site. It is the BEST book on shooting with the Number 4 Rifle EVER.

And do keep us all posted on how she performs.

Apart from that, be sure to have fun!
.

[Roadkingtrax]

Hi Mike,....I am going to receive my first Enfield soon too. Very similar to yours...I sure do appreciate Smellie's comments. I'm more educated on the M1 Garands, where the emphasis is on how nice they look vs. how well they shoot. Far too many owners keep the horses in the stable.

I'm really liking the diverse participants from around the world on Milsurps!!!