lee enfields

[dvdcrr]

What do you think of the Aussie Lithg. rifles compared to the brit #4 mk 1? (Same vintage ww2). I know little about these. Info or advice appreciated! Other desireable lee enfields to look at? Any advice for a new enfield owner?

 

[LAGS]

I prefer the #4 Mk1 and the Mk1/2 as well as the Mk2 of all the LE's
The Aussie is nice but older design IMO, but an excellent rifle.
They all will out last you if in good condition ad you take care of them.
Dont forget aabout the Canadian rifles too.
I have mixed opinions on the ones made in India or Pakistan, but stay away from the Khyber Rifles made in northern Pakistan or Afganistan.
The Might shoot, but they are made by hand out of scrap steel like old Railroad tracks.

 

[Robert]

There are few outlines better than the No1 MkIII. I love my Lithgow but I'd love a nice No4 MkI or II to add to the collection. And I'd REALLY love a No1 MkI pre charger conversion...

 

[LAGS]

The thing I like best about the #4 over the #1 is the sights.
I prefer the rear sight to be closer to the rear for my eyes.
But friends shoot their #1's or Lithgows as good as mine with their sight configuration.
The #4 is a stronger action, but they are both still only .303's and the #1 will hold up well in that caliber.
I have a #4 Mk2 still unfired, and they say the trigger is much nicer than all the other standard #4's, but I have never fired it to find out.

 

[TIMC]

I've never heard anything bad about the Lithgow rifles. Should be as good and any Enfield. The Canadian Long Branch is supposed to be very nice I wouldn't mind having one.

 

[LAGS]

@ TIMC
I have a Long Branch 1943 rifle.
They are the same as the other No4's except for the bolt retainer is a notch in the bolt guide instead of the push lever.
I just refinished my stock but left the metal original.
I also was carefull to not take out any of the stampings in the wood.
It was in great condition and all matching numbers, it just needed cleaning and re-oiling after a light sanding.

 

[TIMC]

They are said to have better barrels too with superb accuracy.
I have an MK4 No. 2 the a repro scope that I made into a
T-version, very nice shooting rifle.

 

[scottbird]

I just bought a no1 mk3 and a no5 mk1 for $250. the no5 has the flash guard and the bayonet lug missing, the no1 has a synthetic stock and both are otherwise in great condition.

these are not my first 303's I love this caliber and have deer hunted with them for years. I am now going to start hand loading and see what I can do with that.

 

[Slamfire]

What do you think of the Aussie Lithg. rifles compared to the brit #4 mk 1? (Same vintage ww2)

Lithgow rifles are well built military rifles. WW1 era Lithgows have a fit and finish equal to commercial rifles. For military rifles, the WW2 Lithgows are well crafted. The only complaint I have about Lithgow’s is the wood on mine is fairly soft and so it was easy to crush the wood with the action screws. I bedded a 1916 Lithgow and that got the thing to shoot smaller groups, but these are not target rifles.

I am of the opinion that the better sights of #4 make it a better rifle, supposedly the #4 is a stiffer action, it was supposed to be easier to make, but neither action is all that stiff, and just looking at the receivers, both require a lot of machining. You could not build that action today and be cost competitive.

World War 2 barrels are basically a tube with rifling. There was no expectation of target grade accuracy. However my two groove Savage shoots cast bullets better than my five groove #4 Mk 2. Neither are target grade weapons but the Mk2 is slightly more accurate, both are serviceable as military weapons. The best built #4’s are the #4 Mk 2 made after WW2, less tooling marks, nice looking barrels.

I think SMLE’s are more fun to play with, that square snout on the front, with a M1907 bayonet attached, that is a real trench war fare weapon. The WW2 spike bayonet just does not hold a candle to the M1907.