Group Comment -Which No 4 Should I lean towards?

[Bruce_in_Oz]

Bore condition is paramount; you can't just pick a up a spare barrel at the corner disposals store any more. Aftermarket ones are, of course "new", but not exactly cheap.

The BIG problem with the LB and the Savage, long term, is the potential "hazards" associated with the bolt-head "release" cutout in the guide rib along the RHS of the body. If the Savage has a release catch and no cut-out it is a bit of a rare bird. Only the initial few hundred thousand were made that way before the "simplified" system went into production. It will simply be marked "Mk1", (no star).

Too much vertical "play" in the bolt / body fit in a Mk1* will see the bolt-head "floating" up and down and potentially chipping the corners of this cut-out, (if there is not already some damage there).Yes, I know, millions of users have had no issues with this, especially in the first sixty years of service, etc., etc.

The Mk1/2 SHOULD have its trigger "hung" on a bracket fitted to the body, as opposed to swinging off the trigger-guard in traditional Lee Enfield fashion. This functionally duplicated the arrangement on the British manufactured Mk2 and these retrofits started being done as FTRs in 1949. This later "hung-trigger" system is MUCH easier to true and "trim", (and test for safety / sear-return / engagement, release etc.), because all of the "bits" are on the same piece of rifle.

Furthermore, a Mk1/2 should also have the spring-loaded bolt release catch and not the simple “cut-out” on the body, as it should be an "upgrade" from a Mk1 rifle. It may well have a two-groove barrel, which is NOT a problem, unless it is shabby internally, but this caveat also applies to any likely barrel, be it with two, four, five or six grooves, left or right-hand twist.

[22SqnRAE]

So now it is a case chop 1/4" off the chamber end re-reaming with a standard throat and go from there my wife has named it "The Black Hole Rifle" as money disappears very fast with it.

Cinders,

Your situaiton is one of great concern. If I was buying a range rifle (my other past-time, to 'learn how to shoot...) from afar I think it'd be a different kettle of fish.

The small mercy of Service rifles is their tolerances are... tolerant. Having said that, I'm now about to replace bolt heads in No 1 Mk III*s and another No 4... as I know how far out the head space is. I guess the old addage of 'ignorance is bliss' sometimes covers up a multitude of sins?

Will consider your points very carefully when talking with these fellows next.

[mrclark303]

You need to shoot all three if at all possible, check the bores, bedding and make sure the draws aren't damaged.

If we are going purely by makers choice, then I would go for the Savage.

No particular reason, I just think they are an interesting part of the Lee story and the larger WW2 story with their Lend Lease connection.

[Steve H. in N.Y.]

Group Comment -Which No 4 Should I lean towards?

I see by your signature line that you already have a No4 Mk1, Mk1* and Mk2. You absolutely must get the No4 Mk1/2 and then start looking for a 1/3.

[Ovidio]

I just love my Long Branch.......

[Peter Laidler]

Range test all three for accuracy AS THEY ARE and then take the most accurate one. You can correct everything else easily. And remember this when viewing barrels. It's a point that the experts don't tell you. Some absolutely superb looking barrels shoot like crap whereas some sewer pipes shoot like a dream. And some of those super doooper shining barrels are only like this because they've been scrubbed/polished to death.

ALWAYS accuracy test first. Just my opinion of course

[30Three]

I would say the Faz 1/2.
There are a few reasons!
1: I have one and it shoots really well.
2: You have the benefit of a rifle that has the Mk2 type trigger assy and FTR in 56 means it's not seen any real action since, so probably less wear than the other two. (needs inspection of course)
3: The original build date is WWII era so still interesting.
4: I believe they made around 350.000 No4Mk1/2's so not rare, but still rarer than the Mk1

[Ridolpho]

I see by your signature line that you already have a No4 Mk1, Mk1* and Mk2. You absolutely must get the No4 Mk1/2 and then start looking for a 1/3.

+1. Perhaps it's because there's so many of them kicking around here but I find the Savage and LB Mk I*'s to be nothing special and you already have one! What your collection is lacking is a "Long Lee". They are something special with lots of interesting history and fit and finish above and beyond a typical SMLE or No. 4. Also perfectly usable. Final selling point- over here, due to the big interest in WW1/2, you can get an excellent MLE I or I* for the same price as a good, collectable SMLE or No. 4.

Ridolpho

[browningautorifle]

I agree with post #4 with the extra proviso, outside condition as well as bore.

[22SqnRAE]

If we are going purely by makers choice, then I would go for the Savage.

No particular reason, I just think they are an interesting part of the Lee story and the larger WW2 story with their Lend Lease connection.

Excellent, mrclark33, that's what I was hoping to hear at some stage. Pure preference! I think this is shows the essential passion that drives collectors to greater awareness.

---------- Post added at 10:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 AM ----------

+1. Perhaps it's because there's so many of them kicking around here but I find the Savage and LB Mk I*'s to be nothing special and you already have one! What your collection is lacking is a "Long Lee". They are something special with lots of interesting history and fit and finish above and beyond a typical SMLE or No. 4. Also perfectly usable. Final selling point- over here, due to the big interest in WW1/2, you can get an excellent MLE I or I* for the same price as a good, collectable SMLE or No. 4.

Ridolpho

Ridolpho,

Thank you for noticing! I do have a Long Tom, just have (embarrassingly overlooked in the listing. I'll sort that out. Well done, that man.

---------- Post added at 10:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:46 AM ----------

I see by your signature line that you already have a No4 Mk1, Mk1* and Mk2. You absolutely must get the No4 Mk1/2 and then start looking for a 1/3.

Thanks Steve, a good point.

"...None shall pass..." And then it gets quite messy from there...

---------- Post added at 10:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 AM ----------

Peter, some very good points. I have a couple of No 1 MK III* barrels that look like the proverbial sewer trunk main, but they are consistent and reliable shooters. Buggers to clean, though.

I get tired of the superficial comments from those with a very little knowledge, whom are only too keen to share it with you. "...Mate, its got a great shiny barrel..." Yes, very helpful, but what about the dark parts called grooves where the real information is that were looking for on wear? Still, it's a challenge to continue to educate others, for their benefit at least, through patient explanation of the important considerations as opposed to the obvious ones.

The ability to get these rifles to a range and snug in to my shoulder may be a bit of a challenge, as they're well scattered, and in our market not too many are keen to hand over a rifle until the deal is completed. Our laws have created some very nervous and suspicious behaviour where once decency and integrity used to allow sound judgement to be made. I'll take the advice and see how it can be best used, it is good, thank you.

---------- Post added at 11:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:59 AM ----------

I would say the Faz 1/2.
There are a few reasons!
1: I have one and it shoots really well.
2: You have the benefit of a rifle that has the Mk2 type trigger assy and FTR in 56 means it's not seen any real action since, so probably less wear than the other two. (needs inspection of course)
3: The original build date is WWII era so still interesting.
4: I believe they made around 350.000 No4Mk1/2's so not rare, but still rarer than the Mk1

3Three, an excellent viewpoint, thanks for that. You have a good argument.