Mystery Enfield?

[Capybara]

Hi all:

So I finally took the plunge and bought my first Enfield, even though I only know the most basic points about them. I bought this gun from a fellow Calgunner who has shot it and it seems to be a nice rifle. To be clear, this rifle seems to me to possibly be a mix master, the wood looks as if it has been sanded and that's okay as I got a good deal and I want this mainly as a shooter more than a collector. That said, some of the parts look as if they could have been scrubbed, for some reason, most of the markings look soft and garbled, take a look, you'll see what I mean.

A few questions:

1. The receiver is stamped "England" and has a small crown proof mark so I know that this is not a Canadian, American or Australian. But the markings on the opposite side receiver band are a mish mosh, even the serial number looks funky. The date 1943 is pretty clear and several of the parts of stamped with an upper case B.

2. Is that seam along the bottom of the magazine normal?

3. The bolt is tight and smooth and the trigger feels very good for a military rifle. The bore looks to have lots of life left in it, it has some mirror shine to it, can't tell if the particulate in the bore is corrosion, carbon or just grease/cosmo residue? I will have to give this gun a good cleaning to get the whole story on the bore, but strong lands and grooves.

4. Crown and front sight look good.

5. Seller listed it as an Enfield #4 MKI, but in looking at the faint receiver markings, they look like No 4 MKII to me? How can one tell the difference between a No 4 MKI and MKII?

This is my first so are there any problem or trouble areas to look for? I will buy a few hundred rounds of Prvi to put through it and will then begin reloading with that brass.

Let me know what you think about this rifle and what your opinions are as to the possible origin of it. Also came with the pig sticker and cover, both of which are in great shape. Very happy I took the plunge, even though I have only shot one Enfield, I like them and will likely enjoy shooting with this one a lot.

 

[Capybara]

 

[sayak]

The muzzle, wrist and receiver tell me that you have a variant of a Mk4. The safety is a dead giveaway for Mk 4.
I own both a No. 1 and a Mk 4, so have some knowledge, but for positive ID go here: http://www.enfield-rifles.com/
This is also informative:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee-Enfield and scroll down to "Rifle No. 4" and you will see your rifle.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

I own several #4 Mark I Enfields and a #5 and the magazines all have the seam. I am sure they stamped them in two pieces and then welded them together. I am not sure what differentiates the Mark I and Mark II's but I think it involves the type of sight.

I think you did well!

 

[Capybara]

Thanks guys. I have posted this on several forums in the hopes of someone helping me to figure out what is the story with this rifle. 1943 made in England receiver but the serial number looks almost EP'd. Someone on another board has suggested it may have been sent by England to Pakistan after the war possibly. The markings look to have been partially scrubbed?

 

[Dave Markowitz]

That's a No.4 Mk.1. The Mk.II didn't come out until after WWII. The difference is in how the trigger is attached. On the Mk.I it's attached to the trigger guard. On the Mk.II it's attached to the receiver.

The seam on the bottom of the mag is normal. Not all have them but many do.

 

[Slamfire]

The letter "B" on the safety and trigger guard is probably for "Long Branch".

These rifles went through multiple rebuilds, yours does not have all the rebuild marks I have seen, I saw a lot of No 4 Lee Enfields and they typically have markings on the side of the receiver indicating FTR and some MK. But, these rifles were rebuilt to go bang, not for collectors.

The "England" next to proof marks indicates the receiver was proofed for export.

Can you provide a better picture of the strange marks under the safety? I wonder if one of them is Iraqi script.

I was told that the marks on this Mauser are Iraqi.



The wood looks too good, I think someone finished the wood. All the Lee Enfields I saw were dipped in grease and the grease, or wood stain, darkened the wood.

 

[BCRider]

Wartime LE's were finished with a slathered on repeated coats of raw linseed oil from what I've read. This wood clearly looks varnished. So it's likely been either bubba'd a little or it is from some post war arsenal rebuild. The markings on the wood should be able to date the source of the wood and if it's contemporary to the metal.

 

[Capybara]

I think the wood is retrofit from 1985, or at least the stock is, if not the hand guards.

 

[sayak]

That's a No.4 Mk.1. The Mk.II didn't come out until after WWII. The difference is in how the trigger is attached. On the Mk.I it's attached to the trigger guard. On the Mk.II it's attached to the receiver.

The seam on the bottom of the mag is normal. Not all have them but many do.

Actually the No.4s came out during WWII. It was needed because it was simpler to produce. Savage even made some in the US as did Longbranch in Canada.
I have seen some No4s painted instead of blued.

 

[AlexanderA]

The markings on the wrist indicate the buttstock wood was made by Wilkinson's Ltd. in Bradford (UK). The "85" is the wartime code for that firm, not a date. There should be similar markings on the other wooden pieces. Obviously the wood has been refinished.

The mark on the safety is the monogram for Long Branch (Canada).

The rifle may have spent time in Iraq or another Arab country. It seems you have an interesting bit of history there once you decipher all the markings. (BTW it's a No. 4 Mk. I, not a Mk. I* or Mk. II.)

 

[sayak]

I think the wood is retrofit from 1985, or at least the stock is, if not the hand guards.

I think the wood may be a retrofit. It looks "proud", especially around the wrist.

 

[AlexanderA]

I think the wood may be a retrofit. It looks "proud", especially around the wrist.

That's the way Enfield No. 4 wood is supposed to be fitted.

http://photos.imageevent.com/badger...stsleeenfieldforums/Butt and Wood Fitting.pdf

http://photos.imageevent.com/badger...nfieldforums/Fitting a fore end correctly.pdf

If the wood is flush, that's actually a sign that the gun has been Bubba'ed.

 

[DougW]

It appears to be a #4mk1 with a newer stock set. Brand bew wood would be "proud", but a FTR'ed rifle would have been sanded and doesn't mean it was bubba'ed. The stock bands are later war type, and the rifle looks typical. The MkI rifle has the trigger attached to the trigger guard, the MkII has the trigger attached to the lower part of the reciever. The #4mk1/2 and 1/3 were FTR'ed MkI rifles to the MkII standard, specifically the trigger was removed from the guard and attached the reciever.

What markings are on the left side stock know or the left side of the reciever? That will tell who built the rifle and which of the 5 factories it came from (BSA, Fazakerley, Maltby in England, Savage in the US, Long Branch in Canada).

It also has the 300/600 flip rear sight so shoot target low at 100 yards. Definately use a 6:00 hold with the 300 appiture as it will shoot high. Enjoy!

 

[Dave Markowitz]

Actually the No.4s came out during WWII. It was needed because it was simpler to produce. Savage even made some in the US as did Longbranch in Canada.
I have seen some No4s painted instead of blued.

You misread what I wrote. The No.4 Mark I came out during WW2. The No.4 Mark II was postwar.