|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 28, 2012, 03:31 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 27, 2004
Posts: 4,811
|
No1 MkIII Vs #4 Mk1 (Lee-Enfield)
Sorry this is not a mark/model caliber war, just a thought.
I fired & carried a sweet Lithgow #1 Mk III today, to all those who say the SMELLIE is better than the #4 Mk 1 (or 2) I understand now, its not for me as I can't find the front sight , but I do understand the whole balance thing.
__________________
Allan Quatermain: “Automatic rifles. Who in God's name has automatic rifles”? Elderly Hunter: “That's dashed unsporting. Probably Belgium.” |
April 28, 2012, 09:26 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 1,840
|
I have had a variety of Lee Enfield rifles, to include a nice Lithgow MKIII I should have kept. I agree, the MKIII variant has superior handling qualities by far. The MK IV has some admirable attributes, but it handles like a plank compared to the older rifle.
My sole Lee Enfield right now is a 1917 MK III* manufactured at the Enfield armory. A perfect bore, and it is a keeper.
__________________
"A Liberal is someone who doesn't care what you do, as long as it's mandatory". - Charles Krauthammer |
April 28, 2012, 10:00 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 20, 2000
Location: Colombia, SC
Posts: 745
|
I have numerous No4's, but no Mk3s. Just never liked the look of the SMLE, or Bulldog as we used to call it in South Africa.
__________________
I don't have time for busy people |
April 28, 2012, 10:58 PM | #4 |
Member In Memoriam
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
|
The No. 4 is the better rifle, but I have to admit that when I think "British military rifle" the old Mk III is what comes to mind.
Jim |
April 28, 2012, 11:05 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 7,839
|
I own a NO4 and my brother has a sportered 4. I have played with a few NO1 MKIIIs in the stores but to me they just seem like a bulkier design that is more front heavy. I'm not knocking the design and if I could find a decent one at a decent price I would grab it in a heart beat but I do believe that the NO4 replaced the NO1 with good reason.
__________________
ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar. I never said half the stuff people said I did-Albert Einstein You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin |
April 29, 2012, 07:09 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2007
Location: Northern Orygun
Posts: 4,923
|
I have 2 no5's, 2 No1's and 17 No4's.
The balance and rear mounted aperture sight make the No4's makes it a superior rifle. The No1's have much more history behind them, two world wars and untold conflicts. |
April 29, 2012, 07:32 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 27, 2004
Posts: 4,811
|
Don't misunderstand me I'm not parting with my #4 Mk2, & I don't find the aesthetics of the #1 as pleasing either, but it really does handle better, I don't know why there is so little difference in many ways.
Obligatory & gratuitous #4 pic:
__________________
Allan Quatermain: “Automatic rifles. Who in God's name has automatic rifles”? Elderly Hunter: “That's dashed unsporting. Probably Belgium.” |
April 29, 2012, 08:14 AM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 4, 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 419
|
Obligatory,"Wow, that is a sweet Mk 1V, Wogpotter!" I too own a Lithgow Mk111 and a Savage Mk1V. I much prefer the Savage handling qualities. The Mk111 seems to be muzzle heavy and the sights aren't as good as the Mk1V, IMHO
|
April 29, 2012, 11:51 AM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 1,840
|
I need to get a MK IV to round things out. Sooner or later a nice one will show itself and come home with me.
__________________
"A Liberal is someone who doesn't care what you do, as long as it's mandatory". - Charles Krauthammer |
April 29, 2012, 12:54 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: AR
Posts: 1,401
|
I too prefer the #4 due to the sights.
|
April 29, 2012, 10:14 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 7,839
|
that is a great looking MK4, I kindof wish I had one but for some reason my LGS is extra prowd of theirs and are asking $1400(yes you read that correctly) for it.
__________________
ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar. I never said half the stuff people said I did-Albert Einstein You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin |
April 30, 2012, 01:16 AM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 7,172
|
No. 4 rifles were deemed suitable for conversion to 7.62 NATO due to their increased strength. This was not the case with the No. Mk IIIs.
|
April 30, 2012, 08:07 AM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2007
Location: Northern Orygun
Posts: 4,923
|
Quote:
|
|
April 30, 2012, 11:18 AM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 11, 2007
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 909
|
I don't think the No4 is a better rifle ... served my countrymen through two World Wars, The Malayan Emergency and Korean Wars. The No4 was a simplification in manufacture of the No1 rifle, which was far more complex and difficult to make by comparison. Apart from a heavier profiled barrel on the No4, the stock and rear sights, the two rifles are essentially the same animal beneath the waterline. I prefer the balance of the No1 rifle to the No4 personally.
__________________
The Lee Enfield forums - http://www.surplusrifleforum.com/viewforum.php?f=27 Surplus Rifle Forums - http://www.surplusrifleforum.com/index.php |
May 2, 2012, 07:48 AM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 7,172
|
Quote:
Tests with original British and Australian made No. 1 actions resulted in the development of excess headspace within a very few rounds. The No. 4 rifles were able to withstand a simple conversion to 7.62 NATO as is without the manufacture of new receivers. |
|
|
|