Lee Enfield Question

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by lilwolf, Feb 20, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I am not sure where to put this (what area ) in this forum but here goes.

    Recently I came across a really beautiful British Lee Enfield Mk1 that has been converted from military to target rifle... nothin has been altered as far as i can tell, and when I was at the range I shot it and it really felt good... now I am going to pay $400 dollars US for this rifle unless someone here says it is no good.

    This would be the first enfield in my collection of old weapons that I have.. but I would value your input and advice here.
  2. Which mk 1 is it? Is it a No 4? How has it been converted? .303 to 7.62? Sight changes? You haven't really given much information...more please.

    However does this help at all?

  3. MK 1. Would that be the rifle as it was first introduced in 1904?
  4. My Grandad was at Mons with 4th Btn Royal Fusiliers, August 23rd 1914 and he said it was very effective against gerrman infantry, he swore by it!
    Years later he still won a shooting contest at Hounslow barracks at some sort of ww1 vets reunion. But on the serious side my mate Bob has 2 he lives in upstate NY ( not much going on there right now except snow ) I even got to fire them in the summer, he likes old weaponry too! and says there a fine bit of kit.

    F-ck the British parliament a house of Neville Chamberlins, Dhimis and do gooders doing no good for our military or country.

    GUNS FOR ALL ! :threaten:

    OZ God bless America!
  5. Do you mean a:

    Short, Magazine Lee Enfield Rifle Mk1

    Short, Magazine Lee Enfield Rifle No.4 Mk1

    Over the years there are a number of Lee Enfield varients with Mk1 somewhere in the title but those are the most common.

  6. It is a .303 number 4 as i am told... the sights are still the same as what came with it but it has been drilled and tapped for a scope is all I meant by sighitng altered. I was alo told it is a 1904 version ? does that sound accurate?
    The weapon is in very good shape all in all and been used for hunting as well prior to the so called conversion for target shooting on a range..

    Damn camera battery is dead or I would have a photo of it here right away..
  7. 1904 sounds about right for a short-magazine SMLE.....
  8. ugly

    ugly LE Moderator

    That would be a No1 mk1 if it is 1904. Does it have a peep and/or leaf sight above the rear where the bolt is or does it have an open sight mounted on a ladder that sits between the action and the barrel. How do you know it has been converted for target use. We need pics and also lots of info on whats written on the wrist strap/socket. This should give the date and model number. If it has been repaired this may be stamped elsewhere. If it has been fulton regulated this may be stamped on the nose cap. This in effect just beds and selects the components properly but still in theory makes a service (B) rifle. Does it have a mag cut off, does it have volley sights or the disc for mounting them (on the leftside of the rifle), does it have a weird crane sight where the safety catch is?
    See what we mean about pics!

  9. Let me get this camera fixed and I will get them here.... also I will see if i can find a photo on line of what it looks like... not the actual gun but one like it so maybe this will help...
  10. Lilwolf , I live a few hundred miles to the west of you near the Olympic Mountains and National Park where there are a lot of elk and black bear. Forty years ago I bought a "like new" Mark V, the so called jungle carbine varient I reckon its called, paid $35 for it.
    What little hunting I do now it`s the only weapon I use, have a few other ex military rifles but prefer the smoothness of the Lee-Enfield action to any and all the others.Ammunition probably costs more now than I paid for the rifle,haven`t bought any in years ,my hunting days are pretty much in the past.
  11. ugly

    ugly LE Moderator

    That would have been the No5 with the little cone shaped flash hider . The Mark V was a trials variant of the SMLE the no1 and 20 000 were made for troop trials. A very different rifle!
  12. Thanks ugly for that, you are correct, I just looked at T_T`s link and my rifle and see I had the terminology wrong, but I was glad to see that my weapon is the genuine article instead of a reproduction (which I had no idea was even made).

  13. Great...I love the way it feels when you shoot it...light yet strong. My aunt has one of these and she has dropped deer all her life with it, and i bet she has had it for at least 35+ years.... she told me once she has used .30-06 and .25-06 many times but she prefers the .303.

    I used to live in Bellingham near Mount Baker during my teen years...
    Ammunition is easy to get here and I like the 180 gr. SP that I have been using... getting into reloading for all of my weapons..

    After i figure this gun out and whether or not i decide to get it, I am going to post a few photos of some old family heirlooms. Some of which might surprise a few of the gentlemen here.
  14. ugly

    ugly LE Moderator

    The genuine No5 rifles are nice little variants and there was a series of Australian trials to shorten and lighten the No1 Mk3 in Australian production (they didnt make the No 4 or 5) and fakes have done the rounds of these too. The funny thing is one of the members of a club I am in uses a No 5 that he had rebarreled to 7.62 and a no 32 scope fitted. Its a nice rifle and I know Ma Parker made a few up. As long as they are not sold passed off as something they are not then there is no reason to denigrate these rifles!