Shooting the Lee-Enfield

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Phaethon

Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
284
Location
Miami, FL
So I bought a Lee-Enfield No. 4 MK 1 a few weeks ago and have yet to shoot it. I've dry fired it a lot though, and have a concern.

The damn thing has to be the most uncomfortable gun I've ever shouldered! And considering how often I shoot Mosins, that's saying a lot. Whenever I shoulder the rifle and look down the sights it's impossible to get a cheek weld. In fact, I can barely get a stable chin-weld (which is awful in itself).

I theorize that maybe it's the specific shaping of my stock, or maybe it's because I'm using the L-type rear sight that's set to 300 meters, which necessitates me to raise my head higher than if it were 100, but I don't know. Can you Lee-Enfield experts help me out here? Is this just one of the quirks of the SMLE rifle? Am I going to have to attach a cheekpad/stock pouch just to enjoy shooting this thing? Maybe gain some weight?

Does the SMLE No. 1 MK 3 have the same kind of issue, given that it uses a standard tangent sight?

Also, on an unrelated note, I noticed that my No. 4 has what seems to be pitting towards the forward half of the barrel, but none at all on the half nearer to the chamber. Is this evidence of muzzle erosion because of cordite ammo, or just some oddity?
 
Last edited:
Englishmen in the early mid 20th century had short necks.:rolleyes:

You're not alone on the cheek weld issue with irons. I'm not terribly uncomfortable with a standard No4 butt stock, but I did add a (T) cheek raiser to my go to No4 shooter. You can see it raises the butt contact area about 1.5+ inches.

enfield201.jpg


You can also get a custom leather cheek raiser from Czechmauseritis Leather Specialties. These are super nice and affordable.

K25faz1.jpg

Using the ladder sight at long range you have your eye at the level of the (T) optic.

finished02.jpg

Enfieldsighttypes.jpg
 
The Lee Enfield buttstock was designed as a bayonet handle, not for shooting.

I have no idea how you get a stock weld on one of those things. I have tried wrapping my thumb but your face is still hovering to look through the sights.

Case life will be short. The basic design comes from the 1888's, I believe the original 303 cartridges were black powder. Being a rear locking action, and made from plain carbon steels, Lee Enfields are extremely stretchy.

Every Lee Enfield I owned benefited from bedding.

There are those who claim 1 MOA from their Lee Enfields, I have not seen it. If you get 3 MOA be happy.
 
I owned a No1 MkIII back in the late 80's and I used to love shooting it from a standing position at 100 yards. I could shoot it faster than most guys could an auto loader.

Only problem I encountered was punching myself in the nose with my thumb on recoil once in awhile. :D

I have my eye on one right now that has had the stock tastefully refinished and has nice metal. Just not too many places to shoot large caliber rifles here in northern Illinois, so I am hesitant to pull the trigger. That and .303 aint cheap anymore.
 
Madcratebuilder - that's some beautiful leatherwork you linked me to! Is that cheek riser you have on there a customized 1911 riser, or the one for the Enfield?

Do you guys think that possibly replacing the Enfield's "L" sight with one of those fancy micrometer sights in madcratebuilder's picture above might improve my comfort in shooting? I've been wanting to get one anyway just because they seem like a decided improvement. That combined with one of those fancy leather cheek risers, or my fairly run of the mill Tac-Ops stock pouch that I keep on my Mauser might make it actually enjoyable.
 
Same problem here. I can darn near rest my chin on TOP of the stock before getting a decent sight picture... and that's with both No1 with open sights and No4's with peeps - both battle flip and micrometer style.

Going to try a slip-on riser but haven't put down the $$ for one yet.
 
Buttstocks for the Lee Enfield come in four sizes: Long, Normal, Short and Bantam---each length being about 1/2" shorter counting down from Long.
I have a Canadian Long Branch with an "L" marked Long buttstock that fits me perfectly, since I have a loi of Gorilla in my genetic code.
So I tucked about 1" of padding between the butt and my shoulder and the comb was way down at the level of my bottom teeth, making a cheek weld unlikely and uncomfortable.
So maybe you guys need Normal, Short or Bantam butts?

Just pop on down to the Armourer and get one of the hundreds of spares...
-----krinko
 
I just purchased a "new from arsenal" long branch 4mk1*.
L type 300/500 meter sights.
Inspection tickets still attahced, and the wood grips still "cut".
Cleaned it this week, took it to the range today, shot 50 at 100 yards. Average MOA 2. Best MOA 1.4. I did have a few flyers trying to figure out aim point at 100 meters. Just at the tip of the circle. I cannot shoot this way with my Mosin, but I think it is the sights that make the difference.
Great Rifle.

To the point.... No problem with cheek weld. Where my cheek bone rests on the shelf, my eye is centered to the peep hole. Do all Canadian Enfields have the long butt?
 
Never had a problem with getting a cheeck weld, but there's some caveats to that.

I am not a particularly skilled rifle shooter. (At least as far as I know.)

I tend to shoot it at medium distances only, with some speed in mind, so I'm not going for precision shooting with a WW2 bolt action rifle. (This may change if I ever get a scope for it, but right now I shoot it at "firefight distances" not "sniper distances.")

Perfect cheek weld tends to hurt my face. I know it's supposed to just sting a little, but I guess I have a sensitive face. (My wife dragged me out of a mosh pit four times at the last concert, this may be to blame.)
 
Personally, I don't seem to have a problem obtaining a cheek weld on any rifle I pick up and shoot. I do own quite a few milsurps, Swiss, Brit, French, American, Yugo, Chicom. Just apply the fundamentals I grew up with and those learned in the Army, I adapt to the rifle and don't make the rifle adapt to me.
I do think that people over complicate the simple act of shooting, like trying to reinvent the wheel. That seems to be the reason for the wide array of gadgets, systems, and programs to "make" people shoot better, really just comes down to the fundamentals and practice, and more practice.
I don't claim to be an expert shooter , but shoot very well above average when I go to the range with my toys. Just my .2 cents worth.

Cheek weld is not supposed to "hurt" or "sting", sounds like your over-working it. If your truly concentrating on your sight picture, you should not be noticing anything else. With practice you develop a natural form you go into without thinking about it. What is a firefight distance compared to sniper distance, not being rude but want to know.
 
Last edited:
What is a firefight distance compared to sniper distance, not being rude but want to know.
Click to expand...

I'd say anything past three hundred (in my case more like 250) yards isn't exactly firefight distance in regards to speed. For me, the moment I have to go prone to get a realistic shot, I tend to slow down a lot and would much prefer a scope and very deliberate fire.
Even with a nice bolt action.
 
DSCN0127.gif

I make these "Ivans" for when I go to the range with my milsurps, waferboard on a garden stake, the circle is to replicate center mass and an aiming point for reference. The torso is life-size, which makes them a great training aid. Make these up and shoot slow fire at them at various distance.
My range only goes out to 200 meters so I scatter them from 50-200m, my daughter shot this one at 100m from the bench-slow fire. Told her 6 at center mass and 4 in the head, using my MAS 49/56.
The other thing I do is put a swinging steel plate 15" square out at 200m to replicate the center mass area of a person, I shoot kneeling and standing offhand with an 03A3, slowfire.
What I'm saying is your open sights are more then adequate for the job and to encourage you to take your time and practice often. Speed shooting will come in time.
For the record, firefight distance can be mere yards out to whatever distance the enemy is willing to engage you, depending on chance encounter or from a static position.
 
Nitpick: The No4 is not an SMLE. The SMLE was redesignated as the No1 rifle, and the SMLE designation never applied to the later No4. :)

That said, I have never been uncomfortable shooting my No1MkIII, except the one time I failed to shoulder it firmly enough. I had a light bruise for a while.
 
spiroxlii said:
Nitpick: The No4 is not an SMLE. The SMLE was redesignated as the No1 rifle, and the SMLE designation never applied to the later No4. :)

That said, I have never been uncomfortable shooting my No1MkIII, except the one time I failed to shoulder it firmly enough. I had a light bruise for a while.
Click to expand...
Yes the No4 is a SMLE, the No5 is even more of a SMLE...............
 
I like my No 4 Fazakerley dated 1949. I sold my Ishapore 2A 1 its just kind of heavy to my taste.
 
Code: 
Englishmen in the early mid 20th century had short necks.

Yes, and a lot of them still do... also, friendly, thick-ankled daughters named 'Gemma'. And Madcratebuilder, those are beautiful enfields... if i could find one like that, it might be my first bolt gun.

To the OP, though... the only ladder-type sights i've used are tang-mounted on lever guns; looks like on a bolt gun, they would have to mount higher and farther from the face. this, to me, looks like the same problem i have noticed (being a tall guy with a long neck) using a high 'see-through' scope mount on an old angle-eject winchester (one of the reasons i wouldn't scope a winchester). You might need to add a cheek-piece, but if it's a nice enfield like madcrate's pictured, even i'm not bubba enough to mar the wood in a permanent way. try getting something leather, slip-over, and laced-up.
 
303tom said:
Yes the No4 is a SMLE, the No5 is even more of a SMLE...............
Click to expand...
SMLE stands for "Short, Magazine, Lee-Enfield." It was first used in 1904 to apply to a newly developed rifle that was shorter than the 1895 Magazine, Lee-Enfield (MLE) and longer than the 1896 Lee-Enfield Carbine (LEC). In that sense, the No4 fits the profile of the SMLE, but the No5 would probably have been considered a LEC according to the old naming standards.

If the British military had kept using the term SMLE, they would almost certainly have applied it to the No4 (probably not the No5), but they stopped officially using the term SMLE in 1926. The newest version of the SMLE-designated rifle in service in 1926 was renamed as the No1 rifle. By the time the No4 (1930s) and No5 (1940s) rifles were developed and adopted by British and some Commonwealth forces, the terms SMLE and LEC were no longer in official use, so those rifles were never officially called SMLEs or LECs even though that's basically what they were.
 
spiroxlii said:
SMLE stands for "Short, Magazine, Lee-Enfield." It was first used in 1904 to apply to a newly developed rifle that was shorter than the 1895 Magazine, Lee-Enfield (MLE) and longer than the 1896 Lee-Enfield Carbine (LEC). In that sense, the No4 fits the profile of the SMLE, but the No5 would probably have been considered a LEC according to the old naming standards.

If the British military had kept using the term SMLE, they would almost certainly have applied it to the No4 (probably not the No5), but they stopped officially using the term SMLE in 1926. The newest version of the SMLE-designated rifle in service in 1926 was renamed as the No1 rifle. By the time the No4 (1930s) and No5 (1940s) rifles were developed and adopted by British and some Commonwealth forces, the terms SMLE and LEC were no longer in official use, so those rifles were never officially called SMLEs or LECs even though that's basically what they were.
Click to expand...
That is exactly what I meant, call them what you may, other than the Long Lee`s all after are (Short Rifles, Magazine Fed, Lee Enfield`s) SMLE...............and the No5 is even a, Shorter MLE !
 
Never had a problem with the #4mk1 cheek weld. I am 6'3", and though I prefer the L stock, the normal stock is fine also.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
"Lee-Enfield" not "Enfield"
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
MJ
MJ
OldIron86
  • Locked
Need Lee Enfield stock parts!
Replies
11
Views
1K
Steel Horse Rider
S
D
  • Locked
enfield question
Replies
2
Views
336
Z71
Z
M
  • Locked
lee enfield question
Replies
23
Views
3K
rr2241tx
R
R
  • Locked
Lee Enfields
Replies
22
Views
1K
gvn19
G
Back
Top