No1 MkIII Vs #4 Mk1 (Lee-Enfield)

wogpotter · April 28, 2012, 03:31 PM

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.

jhenry · April 28, 2012, 09:26 PM

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.

hagar · April 28, 2012, 10:00 PM

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.

James K · April 28, 2012, 10:58 PM

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

tahunua001 · April 28, 2012, 11:05 PM

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.

madcratebuilder · April 29, 2012, 07:09 AM

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.

wogpotter · April 29, 2012, 07:32 AM

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:

rightside · April 29, 2012, 08:14 AM

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

jhenry · April 29, 2012, 11:51 AM

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.

chiefr · April 29, 2012, 12:54 PM

I too prefer the #4 due to the sights.

tahunua001 · April 29, 2012, 10:14 PM

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.

gyvel · April 30, 2012, 01:16 AM

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.

madcratebuilder · April 30, 2012, 08:07 AM

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.

Tikirocker · April 30, 2012, 11:18 AM

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.

gyvel · May 2, 2012, 07:48 AM

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.

April 28, 2012, 09:26 PM	#2
jhenry 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
hagar 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, 11:05 PM	#5
tahunua001 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, 07:32 AM	#7
wogpotter 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, 11:51 AM	#9
jhenry 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 28, 2012, 03:31 PM	#1
wogpotter 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, 10:58 PM	#4
James K 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 29, 2012, 07:09 AM	#6
madcratebuilder 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, 08:14 AM	#8
rightside 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, 12:54 PM	#10
chiefr 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
tahunua001 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
gyvel 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, 11:18 AM	#14
Tikirocker 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