The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The North Corral > Curios and Relics

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 28, 2012, 03:31 PM   #1
wogpotter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 27, 2004
Posts: 2,912
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.”
wogpotter is offline  
Old April 28, 2012, 09:26 PM   #2
jhenry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 1,813
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
jhenry is offline  
Old April 28, 2012, 10:00 PM   #3
hagar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 2000
Location: Colombia, SC
Posts: 516
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
hagar is offline  
Old April 28, 2012, 10:58 PM   #4
James K
Staff
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 19,087
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
__________________
Jim K
James K is offline  
Old April 28, 2012, 11:05 PM   #5
tahunua001
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 5,687
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 crap people said I did-Albert Einstein
You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin
Bean counters told me I couldn't fire a man for being in a wheelchair, did it anyway. Ramps are expensive.-Cave Johnson.
tahunua001 is offline  
Old April 29, 2012, 07:09 AM   #6
madcratebuilder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2007
Location: Northern Orygun
Posts: 4,868
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.
madcratebuilder is offline  
Old April 29, 2012, 07:32 AM   #7
wogpotter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 27, 2004
Posts: 2,912
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.”
wogpotter is offline  
Old April 29, 2012, 08:14 AM   #8
rightside
Member
 
Join Date: February 4, 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 75
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
rightside is offline  
Old April 29, 2012, 11:51 AM   #9
jhenry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 1,813
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
jhenry is offline  
Old April 29, 2012, 12:54 PM   #10
chiefr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: AR
Posts: 1,159
I too prefer the #4 due to the sights.
chiefr is offline  
Old April 29, 2012, 10:14 PM   #11
tahunua001
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 5,687
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 crap people said I did-Albert Einstein
You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin
Bean counters told me I couldn't fire a man for being in a wheelchair, did it anyway. Ramps are expensive.-Cave Johnson.
tahunua001 is offline  
Old April 30, 2012, 01:16 AM   #12
gyvel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 4,642
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.
gyvel is offline  
Old April 30, 2012, 08:07 AM   #13
madcratebuilder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2007
Location: Northern Orygun
Posts: 4,868
Quote:
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.
Both No4's and No1's have been manufactured in 7.62 for military and police issue.
madcratebuilder is offline  
Old April 30, 2012, 11:18 AM   #14
Tikirocker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 11, 2007
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 915
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
Tikirocker is offline  
Old May 2, 2012, 07:48 AM   #15
gyvel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 4,642
Quote:
Both No4's and No1's have been manufactured in 7.62 for military and police issue.
I'm not including the Ishapore 2A and 2A1s in that group. The Indian guns had newly manufactured receivers that used a very high grade steel which were capable of withstanding the pressure of the 7.62 NATO.

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.
gyvel is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08799 seconds with 7 queries