Enfield Question

[Lone Revolver]

I have a sporterized no.1 mk.3, but I want to get a military Enfield. I don't know if I should get a no.1 mk.3 or a no.4 mk.1. Any advice will be helpful.

[Vic303]

Try to find a nice No4 MkII. It'll have the better trigger mounting setup, and will be the 'newest'. Or maybe a No4 Mk I...Any Enfield is a good Enfield!;f

[DesertEagle]

I certainly agree with your sentiment - Military is the way to go! As an aside, chopping up pieces of history is an abomination to me, so that's my opinion on that. I'll just leave it at that lest this turn into a rant instead of anything resembling an answer.

I personally like the 1mk3's, as unlike most people, I find notch/blade sights easier to use that peep sights, which AFAIK is a standard feature of the 4mk1's. Similarly I don't think a .308 enfield is worthy of my time, because 303 is what god entended the enfields to be chambered in ;f

I also like the fact that the 1mk3's have in almost all if not all cases have been around longer, and they have more history in their (full length! ;f) wood, more stories to tell. Mine is a 1916 mfg and looking at the condition of the wood (several fairly significant dings, a big chunk out at the muzzle) it has definately BTDTGTS!

I can only imagine what caused the big chunk out of the wood just behind the muzzle. I'd like to think it was a bayonet fight to the death. You can just seem to look at the rifle and it is almost the same sense of awe, respect, and gratitude as talking to a WWI vet. It has that same air of tired confidence. I mean that in the best way, like as in a confidence that is completely unassuming, the kind of "I just did my job, I'm not a hero, everyone else is" type confidence that so many vets have ;? Not as an insult.

D.E.

[Lone Revolver]

Thanks for the help (sorry about the delay). I just got a no.4 mk.1 a few days ago. I think it was made in 1948 (8/48 on the reciever), but I don't know where it was made. Does anyone how to tell where it was made?

[bp_cowboy]

but I think they used to have an arsenal mark on top of the receiver. I think the Savage Enfields were the best looking ones made, especially if it had the "cut" forearm piece. I had 4 at one time and it was a nice rifle, but my best shooter came from England. After I got all of the spray paint removed and put on a more graduated micrometer site it was a awesome weapon. Although there are not allot of bullet selections for reloading I was able to produce good results. Plus weapon is throated so deep never had to trim brass.

[MrMurphy]

Check the strap holding the stock on, under the bolt in the bolt's "down" position. There should be a marking there basically saying it was made in King George V's reign, but also WHERE (an abbreviation). If you can get a pic of this, and the reciever, I can probably tell you where yours came from.


I have a British No.4 Mk1 myself. It's accurate out to 950 yards (I've shot it that far and hit).

[Lone Revolver]

The information wasn't under the bolt, but it is on the side of the reciever. It is a little hard to see, but that is an F next to no.4 mk.1.

[Lone Revolver]

I forgot to mention that there is an F on the bolt head, an F on the sight, an F near the rear of the bolt, and an F by the magazine.

[MrMurphy]

That's an extremely rough marking, doesn't look at all like my Lee-Enfield's... (F) means Fazackerly if I remember right. I'll look it up. That was one of the factories.

[Lone Revolver]

I found a websit on enfields, and it said that the markings on Enfields made after 1945 were done with an electro-pencil. I think that is why it is so rough.