I, too, have seen pics of Brits that were carrying extra mags, I figure there was a reason for that. It was easier to change mags than reload with stripper clips.
I have hardly ever seen pictures British troops carrying spare Enfield magazines.
The Early Enfields had magazine cutoffs that worked exactly the opposite of the way they should have. One bump at the wrong time and your magazine was inoperable and you may not even realize that it happened. Wonder how many men were killed because of that stupid feature? The Enfield was a fine weapon, but complicated and labor intensive to manufacture. I think too many people are swayed in their thoughts by the Enfield's ten round capacity. That's nice, but when your mag is empty, it takes you twice as long to reload......
Hardly any, if any at all, No 4's were produced with the magazine cut-off. Production SMLEs (No 1s) stopped having the cut-off in 1916, with the Mk III*.
If you put one charger in an Enfield, you get 5 rounds. It takes the same amount of time to load and you get just as many rounds and any other charger loading magazined rifle. If you put in two chargers, it takes the same amount of time to load two chargers for either rifle. There is no difference -
load one charger, shoot 5 rounds, reload shoot 5 rounds: ten rounds fired, two chargers loaded.
-or-
load one charger, load another charger, shoot ten rounds: ten rounds fired, two chargers loaded
Just because to can load an Enfield with 10 rounds, does not mean you have to load 10 rounds before you can shoot it.... With the Enfield, you have a choice, load one or two chargers, as the situation demands.
I still don't see any other rifle overcoming the Arisaka,s Ace in the hole, that chrome lined bore. Mine is pre-war and the bore is still bright and clean as the day it was made. After going through a war and countless corrosive rounds of ammo. Having a bore that is almost ( I DID say ALMOST! ) impervious to rust is a huge advantage.
The only problem with the chrome plated Ariska barrel is that it was used because they did not have the proper alloying metals (manganese and molybdenum) to make decent high alloy barrels others did. Heavy use destroyed Japanese chrome plated barrels just as fast and Western (good alloy) barrels, i.e., they don't last any longer by rounds count.
It does provide better corrosion protection, that is a plus. But, given the accuracy requirements of a standard service rifle, you'd be surprised how ugly a bore you can have before it fails for accuracy. You should see some of the bores in old Nagants that still hold under 5 inches groups at 100 yards.
(Incidentally, with a little practice with a No 4, it is possible to fire a 40 on the current US Army qualification course. You just have to be able to count to five.)