Lee-Enfield: MKIII or No. 4?

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Phaethon

Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
284
Location
Miami, FL
I'm interested in picking up a British manufactured SMLE in the near future, and there seem to be some reasonably well priced ones floating around. It seems to me like they're broken down into either Mark III's or No. 4's. What are the fundamental differences between the two rifles other than their age/history? Is one better, more reliable, or more accurate than the other? Which would you choose?

The look of the MKIII calls to me, with it's stock coming up to the muzzle, but I imagine that they would fetch a higher price premium. However, Allan's Armory has a huge batch of No. 4's that look pretty good for 200$ apiece, and you can't get much better than that. I'm quite torn!
 
There about the same rifle with only very minor differences. You wouldn't go wrong with either one. I personally like the savage made #4 mkI*'s. As far as accuracy or reliability goes that will all depend on the rifle and ammo not model. Keep looking around there's a lot of them out there.
 
There are significant differences in the action area as well as the sights. If I were you though I would just make sure to get one with a good bore and tighten all the screws. **have a gunsmith check them over**
 
I have a FTR Faz dated 1948. i would say it be my next hog gun. Light recoil and accurate. The gun shoots really good with the micropeep rear sight. I use Prvi Partizan .303 brit 180 gr SP.
The Ishapore 2A1 i have in 7.62 NATO is also no slouch. You d be amaze how they shoot.
 
Last edited:
The Ishapore 2A1 i have in 7.62 NATO is also no slouch. You d be amaze how they shoot.
Click to expand...

+1 on this. I sold mine to a friend a few years ago, who will not sell it back to me. Big regret.
 
Both are great, with the slight advantage going to the No 4 because of easier adjustment of headspace ( no 4 boltheads are numbered by size where No1 bolt heads are not) this can be a problem if trying to correct loose headspace.

Have fun!
 
forget looks on this one -- go with the No.4. They have MUCH better sights. Though the rifles are about equally accurate from a mechanical perspective, you will get much better accuracy and much quicker target acquisition with the long sight radius aperture sights on the No.4 than you will with the tangent sights on the No.1. Mk. III.
 
I have a 1941 Lithgow (Australian) No 1 MkIII* and absolutely love it. Field accurate, fast action and just a beautiful rifle. That being said you really can't go wrong with either rifle. As far as the sights on the No4 go, yes they are better. Some rifles have a simple dual aperture flip peep sight and some have a rather nice elevation adjustable rear sight. I still like the No1 better...

attachment.php
 
I've had my eyes out (lazily) for a Savage made rifle. No 'good' reason, just the idea that Savage made them for lend/lease but they are an obvious 'commonwealth' caliber .303 in a US made gun is kind of a 'neat' factor for me. The MkIII may have indeed seen action while the Savage made rifles probably never saw action outside a parade field.
 
Last edited:
Yep, go with the No4. I've shot both, and own a 4. The sights are much better, and that makes it a lot more fun to shoot.
 
The Ishapore 2A1 i have in 7.62 NATO is also no slouch. You d be amaze how they shoot.
Click to expand...

Another big +1 on this as well. My Ishy loaded with DAG surplus ammo is a shooter. I added an S&K scope mount to mine last fall and 3-9x32 scope. I can't wait until some snow melts so I can get out to my clubs 300 yard range.
 
The No4 MkII is the latest of the No4's.
It's trigger is attached to the receiver instead of the trigger guard and will give a more consistent trigger pull.
This change was done from the No4 MkI to the No4 MkII because it was said expansion and contraction of the wood of the stock would cause a varying trigger pull over time.

But REALLY, you can't go wrong with any of them, the SMLE or the No4's.
 
Savage #4mk1*'s

IMAG0007.jpg

Savage made more of the #4mk1 series than any other factory (Long Branch in Canada, Maltby, BSA, Fazakerley in England). The sights on the #4's are superior to the #1mkIII (or Sht LE MkIII). Both can be great shooters. But, be sure your gunplumber knows the Enfields to work or evaluate them.

Now, wait till madcratebuilder and MJ shows up with their georgous Enfields!
 
DW, those are looking great. I just added a 41 LB to my heard. Appears to be all original except the butt has been replaced. Never seen so many LB marked parts on one rifle before.

To the OP I would recommend a No4 rifle because of the improved backsight at the rear of the receiver instead of in front of the receiver as the No1 rifle is. If you want to shoot this rifle more than occasionally I would look for a No4 MkII, these can be found still in the original wrap to issued condition, and priced accordingly. It is preferable to have the bolt match the receiver and a good idea the check the headspace.
 
If you reload I have found No'4's will shoot boat tail bullets fine where none of my No.III would. Something to keep in mind.

No.4 are great shooters and heat will not move your zero like with a NO.III . No.III are good but not as good if your really into shooting handoads.
 
+1 what 8mmman said. The No. 4s have somewhat heavier barrels as well as rear-mounted sights. But try holding a couple of each. You may develop a preference just by doing that. And don't forget, there's also a No. 5 -- the "Jungle Carbine" with a short barrel and flash hider.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top