Oh boy, SMLE vs SMLE.

[Hammerhead6814]

Went to Rkshows KC Expo today and found two deals:

British made SMLE No. 1 Mk. III for $150. These guys have no idea what they have do they?

British Made SMLE No. 4 Mk. I for $225, negotiated to a possible $200. Does no one appreciate these things?!

So since I had to go to work, I got both sellers numbers and promised them each a call after work to see if they still had them (they do) and one today (Monday). Both rifles are in near-excellent condition. Only concern on the No. 1 is that it has had a new front sight (the whole sight) welded to where bubba decided to grind it off. Otherwise it looks about as good as a 85 year old rifle can be!

But which one? At $200, I'm not to terribly worried about price. I'm more concerned with history and performance. I'm a firm follower of that old saying: "Only accurate rifles are interesting". Reading Wikipedia isn't really helping address that issue, and googling for "SMLE No. 1 Mk. iii vs SMLE No. 4 Mk i" produces gibberish.

 

[Ignition Override]

Hammerhead: You might already read these, but just in case-

1) "Gunboards" will give you access to some broad, in-depth advice from not just American, but many British, Aussie and/or Canadian guys. Even guys in New Zealand or South Africa etc. The sun never set on the British Empire for many years. On the first page, you might try the uppermost Lee-Enfield topic, near the bottom of the main page.
The British manufactured these at BSA, (ROF) Fazakerley etc. Those guys at Gunboards also know all about the other types, such as Longbranch, Lithgow, Ishapore partly because they were produced in their countries.

2) "Surplusrifle" also has knowledgeable regulars.

3) "Gunandgame" seems to have many experienced fans on their LE forum.
I'm still a novice and only have a Jungle Carbine (#5).
All else being equal, my preference among your choices is the #4. This should be newer, but is the bore the best?

On YouTube, an enthusiastic Aussie guy known as "Jollygreenslugg" demonstrates a few of them, even side by side. He reads "Gunboards". My next will be a #4. I have no idea how to link websites etc or would connect you.

 

[Proinsias]

I thought that only the Mk. III and previous was considered a SMLE? I don't know what makes them exactly different, besides the barrel protrusion, but I guess the magazine was no longer short?

 

[Coronach]

It's not clear which of the two designs is more inherently accurate, so condition would rule in that department. Certainly there are examples of each that are tackdrivers, and examples of each that are Godawful in the accuracy department. The No4mk1 has better sights, and that does affect practical accuracy.

And the "short" does not refer to the magazine. It is properly stated Short, Magazine, Lee-Enfield. Basically "short" and "magazine" are both modifying "Lee-Enfield". The S,M differentiates the rifle from its predecessor, which was a longer pattern rifle, MLE (or "Emily"). And yes, AFAIK, the No4 rifles were not called SMLEs.

Mike

 

[Fosbery]

The Mk III will most likely be of British manufacture. The Mk I will also be British unless it is a MK I* which would make it American.

The Mk III is lighter, but has inferior sights. The Mk III (unlike the Mk III*) has a magazine cut-off and the sights are adjustable for windage.

The Mk III is a SMLE (which, as Coronach says, refers to the length of the gun in relation to other rifles at the time which were longer, the fact that it is magazine fed, and the origination of the action and barrel designs).

The No.4 is not a SMLE. The SMLE name was dropped in the 1920s in favour of the 'Rifle No.1 Mk III' moniker. The No.4 was not introduced until some time later, so it was never known as SMLE.

 

[Beetle Bailey]

Uh, you can't buy both? I like the No.4 MK1 better, mainly because of the peep sights. But the SMLE has a more distinctive look, and served in both world wars. So either way, you win!

 

[Maverick223]

The sun never set on the British Empire for many years.

That's only because God didn't trust them in the dark.

FWIW I would take the No. 4 because it hasn't been bubba'd, with the caveat of a good bore.

 

[DougW]

Research, investigate, and study, then descide what your priority is. I prefer the #4mk1 sighting system as opposed to the #1mkIII personally, but I have a selection of both. If you want an authentic rifle, stay away from anything that has been welded up, unless it was done by a factory during FTR (Factory Thorough Repair). My #4's ar probably the most accurate for me, but the #3mk1* (Pattern 14) is probably the more accurate, but I haven't fired it enough. It looks promising though.

 

[Hammerhead6814]

I'm partial to the No. 4. The No. 1's new front sight doesn't bother me as it looks every bit as good as an original (at least from what I can tell). But the No. 4 does have that peep sight and the longer sight radius.

I think I'm going to go for the No. 4. I'm just feeling a pull after doing some reading on a few of the suggested sites.

.303 is still around right? Cheap enough?

 

[Maverick223]

.303 is still around right? Cheap enough?

Yep, and not too bad. Good choice IMO. Enjoy.

 

[DougW]

There are some commercial ammo makers like Sellier & Beloit, Hot Shot, and Wolf that make relativly inexpensive ammo for the .303. Good milsurp is hard to find. Stay away from POF.

 

[Limeyfellow]

I prefer the No4 for the peep sights and the heavy barrel, but there something about a No1 SMLE with a big arse bayonet on the end that makes me happy. Still looking for an L42 that my wife will let me buy mind you.