Tell me about the SMLE I just bought, pics

[BoogieMan]

I traded a set of bull horns and $100 for this No4 Mk I serial numbers matching 25C794x, marked 1942. Has S cartouche on stock, mag, rear band. Receiver is marked US Property. Beautiful bore, fair finish overall, even the stock is not bad. The safety is missing, the spring for extractor is gone. And my only real concern is the bolt faced looks like it could have been faced (on a lathe). The story I got with it was of little help. What can you tell me about my purchase?

[reloder56]

I'm by no means an expert on WWII British small arms, but I do remember an article in "Guns & Ammo" magazine in which contributing columnist Garry James mentioned that Savage Arms Co. manufactured SMLE Mark IV's for the Lend Lease Act. These weapons were marked with a large font "S" and "US Property".
I'm sure others more knowledgeable than myself will expand upon what i have relayed to you. Parts needed to return your specimen to shooting condition are readily available from Sarco, Numerich, Bob First, etc. Regards, Gary

[kilimanjaro]

The bolt face looks alright from the photo, can't see any difference between it and the No. 4 bolt on the one I've got out of the safe for the weekend.

You got a good deal for $100 and some stuff.

Given all it's parts, these are running $400. The Savage is the best made No. 4 rifle, that and the Canadian from Long Branch.

As mentioned above, parts are available from the surplus houses. Get some spares.

[BoogieMan]

Seller said it was 30-06. I pulled bolt and dropped a cartridge and no surprise its not even close. I am going to assume it's 303. Anything in particular about the US. Versions I should be aware of?

[wogpotter]

It's a No4 Mk1*, a simplified version of the Mo4 Mk1 (no star) Dated from 1942 its a very early one as they started making the non simplified ones about that time. It was originally chambered in .303 British, but many were re-chambered so have a smith check. 30-06 is impossible as the case is longer than the action. Some "American Enfields" ( a totally different design) were chambered in 30-06 so that may be what the seller was thinking.

"U.S. PROPERTY" mark indicates it was slated for the U.K. under lease/lend.

Does the bolt serial number (on the rear face of the bolt handle) match the serial number from the wrist? This is important as they were individually fitted.

Bolt head looks normal for a .303, possibly polished to remove the "ring" that many develop from primer leaks, but you should have the headspace checked if you're in doubt.
Correct head spacing is 0.074" or less, don't get carried away by the hype & rumors, which will come into any Enfield headspace discussion.

Safety can easily be installed, but there is only 1 correct start position when assembling. Its a multi-start thread so there are 6 "wrong" ones, but it feels like 600 when you're putting it together.

Is there an import mark?
"ENGLAND', or a longer one with an importer's name & town?

Incidentally (& pedantically) its not a SMLE. That was the earlier nomenclature for the No1 rifles, this is the later version so to be "correct" you'd call it a "numbah four"

[BoogieMan]

Does the bolt serial number (on the rear face of the bolt handle) match the serial number from the wrist? This is important as they were individually fitted.

By "wrist" are you referring to the back of receiver were it attaches to the stock? If so then yes it does.
There are some numbers on the end of the barrel that I am trying to read but do not appear to match any other part of the rifle. 1st kine:"crown" 303" 2.22 2nd line: NP 5.5 TONS
I havent found "England" stamped anyplace on the rifle. Does have a crown stamped on top of receiver and at the muzzle (near unreadable numbers)
I dont think this rifle ever saw service or it had very light service. No apparent wear on any of the internals, the barrel looks like it was just cut with the exception of the chamber. It is a little rough, but im soaking it now and hope it cleans up.
303 cartridge drops right in.

[wogpotter]

By "wrist" are you referring to the back of receiver were it attaches to the stock?

yes exactly.

"crown" 303" 2.22 2nd line: NP 5.5 TONS

That is a British proof mark, from the London proof house & the 2.22" indicates the length of a loaded .303 round.

Are you certain of the "5.5 tons"? That should read "18.4 Tons per (square symbol) " "

The only thing I can think of that would proof as low as 5.5 would be the .410" musket (smooth-bore shotgun) conversion! What is the barrel diameter?

I think a .303 case will fall into a .410 shot-shell chamber, but there's no way its safe to fire because of the HUGE difference in pressures.

[Mike Irwin]

A .410 conversion will be very evident by looking at the muzzle. A bullet wont come close to fitting in the bore and there will be no rifling.

Inspecting the chamber also makes it evident.

I've never heard of an US made guns being altered.

[BoogieMan]

I am not sure of the 5.5 tons. Barely legible due to the stamping on barrel contour. I didn't mic the I'd but I would be certain that it's not .410" bore. .303 case fits as I would expect it to and doesn't rattle. I will look at the stamp again. Knowing what it should say may be easier to decipher the stamp. Pretty sure on the second .5 but first number cold be 8. I will try chalking it and snapping pic.
On the up side I was able to find the extractor spring and safety today. Are they the same as those found on the No.5 jungle carbine? I have a JC I may rob so that I can send the No 4 back to NC with my son. He is a big fan of the Enfields.

[wogpotter]

It's probably just a poorly struck stamp, but with the huge difference its a good thing to check.

Extractor is the exact same.
The safety functions the exact same, but has a different shape to the end of the safety lever.

[BoogieMan]

What are the chances this was a match gun or a gun that was never issued? The sear and other parts of trigger group have zero wear marks. The barrel doesnt look like its ever had a round down the tube. The only wear at all to this thing are handling marks and a couple chips on the stock.
Would there have been a savage/enfield match gun in 1942?
If its unfired would it have a high value that would be ruined by firing it?
If I sand the stock lightly and re-oil will it be dark or lighten up and look bad/ruin value?
What is the loop in front of the magazine for?

[wogpotter]

What are the chances this was a match gun or a gun that was never issued?

Slim to impossible. Rifles were desperately in short supply. The magazine floorplate shows signs of wear as well.

If its unfired would it have a high value that would be ruined by firing it?

If it was truly unfired (apart from proof rounds which they all had fired) then firing an unfired gun would drop value slightly. Emphasis on slightly, we're talking $50~$70 here. Again the bolt, receiver & follower all indicate use. Based on those 2 points I wouldn't sweat it.

If I sand the stock lightly and re-oil will it be dark or lighten up and look bad/ruin value?

Any refinishing, including sanding will hurt value to a collector. They want them as-is warts & all.

What is the loop in front of the magazine for?

A tie down strap for a canvas breech cover.

[T. O'Heir]

Please reduce the size of your pictures.
It's a fairly early(the * started in 1942) Savage made(from 1941 until 1944.) No.4 Mk.1*. It is NOT an SMLE. SMLE's are No. 1's.
"...chances this was a match gun or..." Zero. No battle sights on those.
"...If its unfired..." Highly unlikely given the condition of the bolt and its manufacture date.
Any .410 conversion would be a smooth bore.

[Brit]

My training range was 1/4 of a mile from The Canadian factory, it was converted to a Post Office facility. They cut right through the middle of the range!

We were right on Lake Ontario, I believe they shot the rifles and Bren Guns into the Lake, to function test them, I was told that.

Many a lunch pail went home heavy! Browning pistol Stamped Long Branch.

[Ignition Override]

If it has the typical 2-groove bore of most, maybe all Savage/Longbranch Enfields, it sometimes helps to avoid ammo with BT (boattail) bullets.

I traded a Longbranch which had a shiny, 2-groove bore. There could have been an issue with either the throat or muzzle condition.

[BoogieMan]

What is the expected accuracy of this rifle with factory PPU 174 BT? My #5 is about a 4 MOA rifle at best.

[wogpotter]

This is the factory test schedule & expectations.

No 4 RIFLE TESTING
For the No 4 Rifle, the accuracy test was the same at 100ft ten per cent of all rifles were then fired at 200 yds when six of seven shots had to fall in a rectangle 6in x 6in , the point of mean impact having to be within 3 inches of the point of aim in any direction. Ten per cent of rifles fired at 200 yds were again fired at 600 yds when 6 out of seven shots had to be in a rectangle 18 inches x 18 inches the permissible deviation of point of mean impact being 9 inches up or down, or left or right. Two per cent of rifles were fired from the shoulder, ten rounds being fed into the magazine by charger and fired rapid to test “feeding up” and ejection. After these tests the barrel was inspected to ensure that there was no expansion in the bore or chamber and that it shaded correctly from end to end. (Was not bent)

No 5 TESTING
The firing test to which the No 5 rifle was subjected was the same as that for the No 4 at 100ft. It was not tested at 200 yds but 10 per cent were tested at 600 yards when the acceptance was ten out of ten shots contained in a rectangle 36 inches x 36 inches. Two per cent of the No 5 rifles were also submitted to the same functioning test as the No4 rifle.

[CowTowner]

had to fall in a rectangle 6in x 6in

Wait..... WHAT?

We called that a square when I went to school.

[wogpotter]

You should immediately write a stiff letter (on cardboard) & mail it to:

His Majesties Stationery Office
York House
Kingsway,
London, WC2

The publication in error is the
“1937 Small Arms Training, Volume 1, Pamphlet No1 (with inserts for amendments 1 & 2) reprinted in 1939”.

They wrote the thing, I just copied it!

Actually I think a square is a rectangle of a specific type.

[Mike Irwin]

In geometry, a rectangle is a four-sided shape with four right angles, so technically, a square and our common definition of a rectangle (four sides, four right angles, two parallel sides of equal length but longer than the other two parallel sides) are both rectangles.

Or, more precisely, quadrilaterals.

In other words...

The King and his minions don't make mistakes.

[BoogieMan]

Aside from the fact that some of us dont know that a square is always a rectangle but a rectangle doesnt have to be a square even though they are both quadrilaterals which are 4 sided polygons.

I interpreted the test to be that the No.4 should be about a 1.5 MOA rifle when approved by her majesty. My No.5 would likely fail that test miserably. Hop the No.4 will prove to be a better shooter.

[wogpotter]

Sounds about right. But remember that's the absolute worst case that gets out the door. Those are "pass/fail" points only. Many are better.

[Mike Irwin]

Polygon?

You left the damned cage open again!

[CowTowner]

The King and his minions don't make mistakes.

The only thing I remember about "The King" from school, was that we won that war.

[Jim243]

The only thing I remember about "The King" from school, was that we won that war.

You are thinking about a different King!! England or the UK as they like to be called, has had many Kings.

Jim