Lee- Enfield

    Share
    avatar
    barriefield-brian
    Member

    Posts : 223
    Join date : 2012-06-16

    Lee- Enfield

    Post by barriefield-brian on Fri Feb 16, 2018 7:40 pm










     Number 4 Mark 1.  Picked this up but dont know much about them. It is a carbine but what I have seen listed as a jungle carbine have a bell shape on the muzzle. Clip is missing, are all clips the same? I have an ww1 and ww2 enfield but not sure which clip belongs to which gun as they look the same.  I have a spike bayonet #4 mark 2, is this the proper one or should it be the blade model? Thought I would post it here before cleaning up the rust.  All opinions appreciated. Cheers Brian
    avatar
    BAP
    Member

    Posts : 44
    Join date : 2016-04-23

    Re: Lee- Enfield

    Post by BAP on Fri Feb 16, 2018 9:24 pm

    Brian, it's a standard British No.4 Mk.1 and not a carbine. The fore wood has been cut to make it look more like a hunting rifle. The bad thing is that the barrel just forward of the bayonet lugs has been cut. With that cut it can't be restored to full military (ie. by replacing the cut wood with new parts). The Short Lee Enfields ("WW1") mags are a little different. The easiest way to tell them from the ones for the No.4 is look a the back of the magazine. the 'WW1' mags have a ridge running from the top to the bottom. The No.4 ("WW2") mag has the ridge only about half way from the top. The No.4 Mk.II spike is correct for WW2.
    avatar
    barriefield-brian
    Member

    Posts : 223
    Join date : 2012-06-16

    Re: Lee- Enfield

    Post by barriefield-brian on Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:17 pm








    [url=https://servimg.com/view/17664855/172][/url

    Thank you for that info. Well now I have 3 Enfields that cant be converted back. I have an 1916 with front sight marked PROV. PA 28017/ 5 as near as I can make out. The other is an 1926 with a front sight Parker Hale. No bayo lugs on either of these. I think maybe both clips are ww1 vintage as they appear identical except the more beat up one has extra numbers. The one I thought was a carbine threw me off because the wood was cut down the same way as the carbines and the lugs were still there. Shame they cut a wee bit off the barrel. I now know a bunch more than I did, thanks again. Cheers Brian
    avatar
    pylon1357
    Global Moderator

    Posts : 1288
    Join date : 2009-11-24
    Location : Resting on my laurels in Ottawa

    Re: Lee- Enfield

    Post by pylon1357 on Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:54 am

    Bloody shame they have cut so many of these rifles down. But it is understandable. These rifles are great for hunting, but with the added length, they are somewhat cumbersome in the bush. I have my No1MKIII that I love, but in heavy undergrowth it is a bugger. My No5MkI Jungle Carbine, is perfect for the bush. Unfortunately, some silly bugger removed the Bayonet lug off it.

    I have a No4MkI that needs wood, was sporterized but thankfully they never touched the barrel.


    _________________
    Cliff

    http://www.irishregimentofcanada.ca
    avatar
    barriefield-brian
    Member

    Posts : 223
    Join date : 2012-06-16

    Re: Lee- Enfield

    Post by barriefield-brian on Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:11 am

    So they saved maybe an inch or less as the bayo lugs are still there. Hardly worthwhile to mess up a rifle. Oh well it is what it is. Cheers Brian
    avatar
    BAP
    Member

    Posts : 44
    Join date : 2016-04-23

    Re: Lee- Enfield

    Post by BAP on Sun Feb 18, 2018 4:11 pm

    barriefield-brian wrote:[url=https://servimg.com/view/17664855/165]

    Thank you for that info. Well now I have 3 Enfields that cant be converted back. I have an 1916 with front sight marked PROV. PA  28017/ 5 as near as I can make out. The other is an 1926 with a front sight Parker Hale. No bayo lugs on either of these.  I think maybe both clips are ww1 vintage as they appear identical except the more beat up one has extra numbers. The one I thought was a carbine threw me off because the wood was cut down the same way as the carbines and the lugs were still there. Shame they cut a wee bit off the barrel. I now know a bunch more than I did, thanks again.  Cheers Brian

    Not so fast!! The 1918 Enfield made Short Lee Enfield is perfectly OK for a restoration. There never were bayonet lugs on the barrel for these and the barrel has not been cut. The original front sight looks to be there under that sheet metal fairing. Everything else looks unmolested and the things I'd consider before restoring it are first, the condition of the bore, second, whether the serial numbers match (bolt, receiver, barrel and rear sight) and third, whether the receiver has been drilled and tapped for a scope. The markings are for a Mk.III* which was the wartime expedient version of the SMLE and there appears to be a small "FTR" stamp which would indicate Factory Thorough Rebuild meaning it has been done over at least once by the army.

    The second one is a 1926 Indian made Ishapore one and as such doesn't quite have the appeal as a British WW1 era one. The Parker Hale sight is a little more permanent and therefore it looks like the original has been buggered. It too is restorable but would be a little harder to do and not quite as desirable at the end (my opinion).

    On the mags, they are both for the SMLE, though the better one is WW2 Australian made in their Orange Arsenal.
    avatar
    barriefield-brian
    Member

    Posts : 223
    Join date : 2012-06-16

    Re: Lee- Enfield

    Post by barriefield-brian on Mon Feb 19, 2018 11:11 am

    I think the Ishapore one is not a good candidate. I will check the 1916 one over carefully, if I can find the parts needed for a reasonable price may do it. Spent a couple of hours on my latest find and it cleaned up nicely. Thanks Brian

    Sponsored content

    Re: Lee- Enfield

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed May 23, 2018 11:52 am