Lee-enfield nº4 newfag

if you insist on being pedantic about it you are right in that Rifle number 4 was no longer called SMLE while Rifle number 3 still was & that technically there was no 'mere' Number 4, but the thing is sometimes there just might be a need to refer to a number of versions of a thing by a common denominator, for Rifle number 4 Mark I and Rifle number 4 Mark II the common denominator is Rifle number 4, and considering most of the preceding versions of Lee-Enfield did in fact have SMLE in their names I submit that referring to number 4 as an SMLE is acceptable as well.

If it's a Mk2 that hasn't been fucked with it should be good to go as it is in regards to maintainace and windage adjustment. No ammo matches MkVII ball exactly, so the sights will not be 100% but PPU 174gr FMJ is about 75fps slower on average and the bullet they use (B143) has a roughly similar BC to the military bullet so they match the sights well enough; just a little low shooting.

BotR also posts on a forum called arrse.co.uk under stoatman, there's often interesting pdfs and documents shared in his threads and others. There's actually a few (or was when I used the site 5 years ago) who are quite knowledgeable, one called No.4(t) who had around 100 of them.

>Rifle number 3
No such rifle
>technically there was no 'mere' Number 4
There was
>SMLE is acceptable as well.
It isn't.
You come across as an underage aspie who doesn't have a clue. Have a wikipedia link, because that's all you're worth.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee–Enfield#Variants

PPU makes good plinking ammo but their cartridges are underloaded. Shooting at 100 yards required my NO4MK2 to have the sights raised to 200 yards to achieve POA/POI. I fired PPU M855 out of my 20, 16 and 14.5 AR15 previously zeroed to Canadian and Lithuanian M855 and all three rifles achieved a lower POI from 6~13 inches at 300 yards. I read somewhere that PPU's ammo is this way intentionally and uses a slower burning powder which I do not know if it is a genuine claim. Though my rifles show a lot more residue with less round when I fire PPU brand ammunition.

you seem rather selective with your pedantics, a Rifle number 4 exists but a Rifle number 3 doesn't? It's listed in that same fucking article, as you should know had you read it.

No, it doesn't. The 1914 isn't a lee-enfied, as it doesn't use the Lee action. Which is why it isn't listed under Lee-Enfield variants.

Hey nerds what does mk 1/2 mean on my no. 4?

having double-checked the article, while it doesn't refer to the Rifle number 3 as an SMLE or even Lee-Enfield, it DOES mention "Rifle number 3" so such rifle DOES exist, as for 'mere' number 4 existing, the first version called Rifle number 4 was "Rifle number 4 Mark I", NOT "Rifle number 4"

Cool.
Will check if vendors here can stock PPU.

you can refer to the Wikipedia article for information on the differences between the two versions.

The Barrel seems to be properly bedded, the rifling also seems to be nice and deep. The UK vendor that sold me this said the barrel was in great condition, but since i don't have allot of experience with rifles i am judging it's state with a little common sense. Action is sleeeeeeek, LOVE IT.

It was upgraded from mark 1 to 2.

Rifle No. 3 was the designation given to the Pattern 1914 Enfield. I've explained why that isn't a Lee-Enfield. You've been pulling things out of your arse with every post you've made.
The only one who's been over simplying and calling it a No 4 is you.I haven'tHowever the term No.4 is often used to refer to any of the variants of the No.4.

Only one question remains, do you have aspergers?

Also forgot to mention. It's a Fazarkeley from 1955 and this was the reason i got it as opposed to beat up ww2 production he had there as well commanding cheaper prizes or rare makes that commanded collector prices.

Congratulations eurofriend!

>I've explained why that isn't a Lee-Enfield.
you didn't explain anything in the post I was replying to, you said: "No such rifle", anything you posted while I was writing my reply is irrelevant because I quite obviously only saw any followup posts only after I had posted said reply.

>The only one who's been over simplying and calling it a No 4 is you
remind me, whose post contained this:
>>technically there was no 'mere' Number 4
>There was
?

Check out fair burn Sykes book all In fighting. Talks out about using the SMLE in close quarters and how to fire it rapidly.

>Only one question remains, do you have aspergers?
Ì haven't been diagnosed so I honestly don't know, even if I did, so fucking what?

Thank you.

>I submit that referring to number 4 as an SMLE is acceptable as well.
Well instead of submitting another cock into your arse why don't you fucking educate yourself, you dumb retard? Go read Maj. Reynolds book for a start.

why don't you grow a pair and go release your anger on a live human being face-to-face instead of adding to the toxicity already on this board where your identity is being protected so that you can be as much of an ass as you want without repercussions beyond being unable to access the site for a while without getting another IP address?

What would y'all pay for a mk. III that's in good condition, all matching but one part refurb, no bayo or extras?

Hey dumbass, even the best No.4 won't beat a savage axis

Sounds like a great gun.
The value is totally subjective. Some collectors won't want it at all because it's post-war and they want something that served in WWII. Other people like the fact that it it's going to have better workmanship and won't have been abused. It depends entirely on the buyer.

Personally, I'd rather have a great shooter than a weapon that saw duty so I think you did great.

I never said it would. Obviously the Axis or any of a zillion other modern rifles would be expected to be more accurate. No fucking question.

I simply said that if user's Enfield shoots poorly the most likely culprit is stock fitment and you can fix that.

You, on the other hand, need to fix your reading comprehension.

also it's from 1918

Sell it and buy a mauser.

I used to own the exact same Enfield in perfect condition with bayonet. DESU it shot like dog shit and the magazine always had FTF issues at the end of the mag. The sights are nice but I still much prefer a Springfield or M1917's peep sights.I traded mine for an M1 Garand and haven't looked back. IMO enfields are cool but pretty over rated. I would prefer almost any bolt gun of the period over it except for the Mosin Nagant.

Sorry for being a negative nancy. Enfield can be pretty cool and 303 is hella cheap. I honestly enjoy shooting the SMLEs much more than the No 4s. Congrats on becoming hazfuns. I always feel good when I know yuropoors are arming themselves still.

Attached: HW_clip.png (1195x660, 1.13M)

Lemme guess: you didn't check the bedding, specifically near the foreend of the stock?

I've been looking into this stuff since I'm looking to buy a Mk. 1/3, but the main difference between the No. 4 Mk. 1 vs Mk. 2 is that the trigger is hung from the receiver - said to make for a better pull. So many Mk. 1 rifles (mostly Savage and Long Branch) were sent to the Fazakerley factory to be given the upgrade. You should see two serial numbers, one from the original manufacture, then another one from the upgrade, along with a "FTR" mark meaning "Factory repair".

Also, a Mk. 1/3 is just an upgraded version of a Mk. 1*, instead of a Mk. 1.

I also want a mauser. But it's hard to come by decent mausers. The good ones sell really fast and all that is left is usually the old whores that have been fingered by a million men. And thanks mate i can't wait to get this thing on the range.

And I never said it would shoot poorly, just that it might be lacking in accuracy for hunting, and won't be a laser beam. Both of those are objective truths

If you find it lacking in accuracy for hunting then most likely the stock fitment is the problem and you should correct that.

In other words, if you feel the need to comment on its accuracy as a negative, then most likely there is something wrong with the particular rifle you have. It's a milsurp, nobody is expecting it to be a laser beam. But it's plenty good enough for hunting (either that or there's a problem which you can probably fix).

>I also want a mauser. But it's hard to come by decent mausers. The good ones sell really fast and all that is left is usually the old whores that have been fingered by a million men

Yeah I feel you its pretty much the same in the states. Only real option is to buy a Yugo M48 or something without breaking the bank.I am just waiting for a good Czech one to come up cheap.

>Lemme guess: you didn't check the bedding, specifically near the foreend of the stock?

Not really. I got it for really cheap at a estate sale and didn't know much about them. I just knew that it didnt hit dog shit even though it was basically a brand new rifle (sat in grease since the 50's) and that I could sell/trade it for a lot more than I put into it. Also im pretty sure the FTF doesn't have much to do with bedding. The magazine was matching and I cleaned the fuck out of it.

When did I say I found mine lacking for accuracy? I merely stated he might find his lacking for accuracy, which is true. Sure, these can be 2 inch group guns, if you get lucky. Not all have nice bores, throats, crowns or stock fitting. Sure, this one probably went straight into storage but that is no guarantee. He stated he wanted it for hunting, its an objective truth that an old military rifle might not be up to par. But, since he's using it on boars at likely less than 100 yards he'll probably be fine. Seems like you need to work on your reading comprehension, buddy.