Pics of my *other* Enfield Mk.4 #1

[Trebor]

Here's some pics to go with the pics of my NIW Enfield Mk 4. No. 2 I posted earlier. This is my only other Enfield rifle (well, other then the Enfield made Martini-Henry I posted earlier). It's a Long Branch (Canadian) Mk. 4 No. 1. I bought it from a seller on rec.guns about 8 or 10 years ago. I think I paid between $125 and $200.

I posted these pics over on the Enfield forum at Gunboards.com. The rifle is so nice that I was worried that it was a Century rebuild. It does have Century import marks. The consensus is that it's either a Canadian FTR (Factory Thorough Rebuild) or was refinished by the previous owner. All the numbers do match and the mag was stamped with the serial number. The mags weren't stamped at manufacture, but often were stamped at rebuild.

This pic shows the two types of finish very well: It's a mix of Parkerizing and the black stoving.



Here you can see a spot of wear on the safety. Most of the rifle is 99% Notice the round cocking piece used on the early Long Branch rifles.



Here's a detail of the rear sight. The sight was added later in the rifle's life. The original sight would have been the crude two position "L" flip sight, similiar to the WWII M-1 Carbine sight. It was common to retrofit these sights on rebuild.



Here's the receiver markings:



Here's a shot of the action open. Notice that there is more wear on the follower then on the outside.



It's interesting to compare this rifle with the NIW Mk. 4 No. 2

 

[DMK]

Nice Enfield! I always liked the Longbranch Mk1*

The cool thing about the FTRs is they could have put any combination together. We can never know. So there's no point in obsessing about what's original on an Enfield. If it looks good and shoots good, consider yourself lucky to own such a fine rifle. Like yours are.

Now you need a Mk1 so you can compare all three variations.

 

[Sewerman]

That is an excelent example, i have a longbranch too, my wife bought it for me for my birthday, its my favorite rifle and probably the one i shoot the most.

 

[trickyasafox]

i know nothing about enfields, i assume they are chambered in 303 brit? also are they as readily available as say an sks, or a wasr-10 ak-47 style rifle?

 

[BruceB]

Please, let's get the terminology correct.

With the vast number of variations in British service rifles, and the resultant complexity of terminologies, mis-naming them often results in confusion.

The Long Branch rifle is a NUMBER FOUR, MARK ONE, Star (for the asterisk), usually written as Rifle, #4 Mk1*. IT IS NOT A "MARK FOUR". It's stamped that way, #4 Mk1*, right on the rifle, for Heaven's sake!

The Fazakerly rifle is Rifle, #4 Mk2, so named to distinguish it from the Mark One which had the trigger attached to the guard instead of to the action body.

To call these rifles "Number Fours" is correct, but calling them "Mark Fours" is decidedly wrong.

Whatever you call them, of course, they're still great rifles....

 

[mustanger98]

Right.

No.4 Mk1
No.4 Mk2

Also, No.1 Mk3 (or Mklll, and with or without the asterisk) made at Enfield, BSA, Ishapore, and several other factories. And this one not to be confused with the Ishapore 2A in .308 which has the squared 12rd magazine.

There were several other models, but for whatever reason, usually availability, we don't usually deal with them.

 

[DMK]

i know nothing about enfields, i assume they are chambered in 303 brit? also are they as readily available as say an sks, or a wasr-10 ak-47 style rifle?

Yes, .303 british caliber. Kinda hard to find these days and pricey. Not often available locally, and online it's about $8 and up per 20 round box. A large percentage of Enfield owners reload.

Recently there have been a few good caches of Enfields being imported. Mostly from India and Greece I believe. They aren't lookers, being pretty cruddy with hardly any finish, but the bores on most are very good. Since last spring to now, I bought three No.4 Mk1s and one No1.MkIII and all have pristine bores. You should see a few at gunshows and in gunshops if they carry surplus arms at all.

They are very cool rifles, but you really need to do some research and learn about their history to get a real appreciation for them. They were well ahead of their time. Realize the No.1 fought in world war one with a ten round detachable magazine! All other rifles of its day still had five round internal mags. The No.4 was a great improvement with an arperture battle sight, a flip up elevation adjustable arperture and a much longer sight radius. There are many unique features on the Enfield that give it rights to being called the best bolt action battle rifle of WWI or WWII.

Search this forum and Google for Enfield. There is tons of info about them on the web.

 

[mustanger98]

I've heard it said that Mauser was the hunting rifle, Springfield was the match rifle, and Lee Enfield was the battle rifle.

Thing about that detachable magazine- it wasn't meant to be reloaded by swapping mags, but rather recharged by two 5rd stripper clips. Many times, the magazine will be serial numbered to match the rifle because the mag is considered a part of the weapon rather than an accessory.

It seems there is a parallel between the US '03/'03A3 and No.1 Mklll/No.4 Mk1. The parallel being the shift from a v-notch rear sight to an aperture.

 

[DMK]

Thing about that detachable magazine- it wasn't meant to be reloaded by swapping mags, but rather recharged by two 5rd stripper clips. Many times, the magazine will be serial numbered to match the rifle because the mag is considered a part of the weapon rather than an accessory.

Yes, that is true, it wasn't a utilized feature. But still the 10 round detachable mag was part of the design. Soldiers were issued a second mag (to be kept in their kit ), but the whole swapping mags thing was just too far forward of the conventional thinking of the day. Heck, American Springfields had magazine cutoff switches for their five round internal mags.

It seems there is a parallel between the US '03/'03A3 and No.1 Mklll/No.4 Mk1. The parallel being the shift from a v-notch rear sight to an aperture.

Yes, that is interesting isn't it? I wonder if one influenced the other?

 

[rbernie]

Soldiers were issued a second mag (to be kept in their kit ), but the whole swapping mags thing was just too far forward of the conventional thinking of the day.

Frankly, the Enfield magazine lips are just not shaped properly to provide reliable round retention when the magazine is removed from the receiver. Try to carry around a loaded Enfield magazine for a while - you'll soon find yourself with an empty magazine and a bunch of loose rounds rattling around.

 

[BruceB]

rbernie is exactly correct.

The Lee Enfield magazine will lose rounds very easily if dropped or bumped when it's out of the rifle. The 'removeable' magazine (sometimes almost needing a pet gorilla to get it out of the rifle) is mostly an aid to good cleaning. The mag itself disassembles in about two seconds for cleaning, once it's removed from the rifle.

I was in the Canadian Army over the time of the change from #4 to FN-FAL (late 1950s), and I was never issued more than one magazine for the #4. Also, the mags were not numbered to the rifles in Canadian service. This was a British affectation which came after WWII, when they even started numbering bayonets to the rifle. The bean counters just LOVE having things to hold over the snuffy's head. Intensive training was carried out with charger-loading the rifle, and it is extremely fast when done by a well-trained man. Combat-packed ammo came in 60-round cloth bandoliers, with two loaded chargers per pocket. It was still a VERY good idea for each soldier to actually examine every single loaded charger, to ensure for his own safety and longevity that they were in fact still loaded correctly, after all the smashing and bumping involved in transport from factory to his fighting hole. A mis-loaded charger could ruin one's entire day (or life, for that matter).

It was standard procedure (I'll try to quote as closely as possible from the training manual here): "Whenever fewer than five rounds remain in the magazine, it shall be immediately replenished with a further five-round charger." That's probably not exact, but it's pretty durned close. It was largely this sustained-firepower ability where the Enfield whips the Mauser/Springfield designs as fighting rifles, in this old soldier's estimation. I'd hate to be out of reach of my own wonderful #4 for any length of time, even at this late date.

Long Branch #85L7408 was the last #4 issued to me, in 1958....I'd sure like to meet up with it again.

 

[david_the_greek]

I found the best Enfield steal to date, period........ wrapped in a box in my basement. While searching through my ballistics room (well technically its my fathers but.....) I noticed what I thought was an old empty rifle box perhaps from a previous purchase or factory send in. nope, it was a nicely wrapped enfield mk4 no2. I need to clean and de gunk it as it is still in its packaging but I think a free, out of no where enfield is something to be happy about. anyone with reviews on their own enfields or shooting tips for them?

 

[david_the_greek]

[I found the best Enfield steal to date, period........ wrapped in a box in my basement. While searching through my ballistics room (well technically its my fathers but.....) I noticed what I thought was an old empty rifle box perhaps from a previous purchase or factory send in. nope, it was a nicely wrapped enfield no4 mk2. I need to clean and de gunk it as it is still in its packaging but I think a free, out of no where enfield is something to be happy about. anyone with reviews on their own enfields or shooting tips for them?

 

[swingset]

I posted these pics over on the Enfield forum at Gunboards.com. The rifle is so nice that I was worried that it was a Century rebuild. It does have Century import marks. The consensus is that it's either a Canadian FTR (Factory Thorough Rebuild) or was refinished by the previous owner. All the numbers do match and the mag was stamped with the serial number. The mags weren't stamped at manufacture, but often were stamped at rebuild.

I'd bet my yearly wages that's a refinished rifle. Everything about it looks wrong....well, not wrong, but not correct to the Longbranch rifles.

The finish, if the photos are accurate, looks like Alumahyde or some other kind of spray-on finish...which is good stuff, but certainly not what the canucks finished their No4's with.

Still a nice gun, and a great shooter I'm sure.

 

[Huntzman]

#4 & #5 Enfield Rifles

I just picked up a book to go along with my #4 Mk 1, it is a treatise on the 4 & 5 rifles by an author named Charles R. Stratton. It breaks down the guns, from markings to accessories.

IMHO It seems to be an extremely well put together book and I would recommend it. Anyone else care to comment.

I needed something to help me put my "sporterized" rifle back to it's original specs. Only problem for me was that when they were civilianizing it, they removed the bayo lugs.