I remember working for Royal Ordnance in Enfield in the late 80's. Every so often there were orders for No 4's and there still stock of brand new rifles wrapped in grease proof packing
I picked up a No4 Mk2 of gunbroker about 2 years ago that looks like it never fired a round. I know a lot of the Fazakerley “Irish Contract” rifles were never issued.
My grandfather had a gun shop for decades from the 50s into the early 90s and these Enfield were called, "mummy wrapped" because they looked like mummy wrapped appendages. It was linen wrapping with cosmolene. Took forever to clean off but the rifles were like new underneath. You would have to throw a rifle in a bog to get better age protection.
February 65 aged 16 a boy seaman I qualified as a R. N. marksman with a no. 4 mk 2. Ten shots prone freehand, 300 yards, three foot square target with a nine inch bull. I scored 78 best highest score In my mess. Joined the shooting club and went on to shoot at ranges out too 800 yards all achieved with iron sights.
Yes, nice to hear a compliment. I was in Army cadets in the mid 60s and we had these for drill and range use plus the Morris Tube conversion to .22 LR for our domestic small bore range All were good.
Five minutes and a shilling isn't a big deal for one rifle, but for a million rifles that is ten years of labour/machine time and likely the cost of tens of thousands of rifles.
@@Ghelasin I learned that in construction lol. "If a task that takes 5 minutes to complete takes you 10 minutes to finish it might not sound like much, but take double the time to finish that task a million times in a row and that's months of time wasted"
As someone that lives in Shirley, not far from where B.S.A were, hearing Ian correctly mention the work done here on No.4s was a nice treat. Thanks Ian.
@@tugboatyan awesome, bizarrely - despite living so close, my No.4 is a Long Branch, which is probably some sort of cultural crime. Great rifles all round.
Yeaah me to, can you imagine 12 and 13 year olds being given 303s to shoot today. I also fired Bren full auto. Great fun but the best bit was "night exercises" playing at soldiers getting dressed up as a tree and being given a live no 4 and a handful of 303 blank ammo to play with.
When i was in the cadets we used a very similar rifle to the no.4 for .22 training but sadly we had the l98A2 cadet rifle instead of the cool older service rifles. Still got turned into bushes for fun though :)
Yep, me too. 13 - 16 years old and made the Bisley Schools Championship Team...as substitute! We used to go to the local firing range behind RAF Bentwaters in a bus with all the rifles and boxes of ammunition. A bit disconcerting when you are shooting 1200 yards, trying your best, and a helicopter appears just above the target. It looked closer but was a long way off but enough to spoil your concentration.
The one I was issued as a cadet was made at Fazackerly in 1942 (I looked up its serial no. - and it wasn't so easy to do that in those pre-internet days). I often wondered if it had ever been fired in anger. I wish I could (legally) own one today.
I have a No4 Mk1 made by Savage under lend lease in 1942. An older gentleman viewing the rifle on a table at a gun show, was telling his grandson that the British wouldn't use them because they were made in America. The old gentleman was one of the free Polish who fought in the Falaise pocket, and said he proudly carried one. After they left, I immediately purchased it. Thanks Ian
I doubt that England having bought American weapons wouldn't use them. Britain was grateful for anything America could sell them and respect for US manufacturing was and remains very high. No disrespect to the heroes of Poland but something else might lie behind this account.
I recently grabbed a sporterized Savage No4 MK1* for dirt cheap and spent as much as the rifle cost me bringing it back to proper issue condition. I love the thing, it has such an iconic look and such a fantastic bolt action.
@@cbroz7492 When I was considering buying the base gun, I saw that there was a NOS wood set on Ebay with the auction ending that evening. I took it as a sign that I needed to buy the gun, lol.
I bought the wood and metal parts for an Enfield restoration many years ago and just came across a sporterized Savage for cheap that I'll restore with it. I'm pretty sure if I tried to source those parts today that it would add up!
Sure is a pretty one. Of all the rifles of that period I do think it's my favourite from and aesthetic point of view. that said, I am British so I'm probably biased!
@@chrispatten3482 Oh yes, I used to go to a public school once a week to shoot 22's, hanging around in the armoury waiting to start, and " playing" with Brens & Lee Enfields.
“There was going to be a D but they thought they had it figured out” Well, yea, I’d hope so, it’s only been what, 1000 years and 750 variations to that point?
I was a U.K army cadet around 79-83. Happy memories shooting these at a range on the East Yorkshire coast. The butts of which fell into the north sea some years ago.
@@jordanclark4635 Nice, we also had a large number of "DP" drill purpose, deactivated No4's that together with the .22 converted ones we were allowed to keep in our ACF local detachment "hut" (in a safe naturally). The MOD were petrified at the time that the I.R.A. or some such would break in an nick 'em, so the 303's we used at (Cowden ranges?) were kept together with few Brens :) at the area HQ at Driffield.
@@13thdukeofwybourne69 we were lucky, even had A2s, absolute rows of them and more than our .22 single shots, shocking that we were trusted, but had heavy security on them thank god, could take apart and clean the fuckers. Had a AR BB gun and handled a couple at bases, much as the SA80A2 was heavier, I’ve got to say holding it at the base and also being able to move so deeply into the rifle always made it for me personally much more ergonomic and trust forming, holding the weapon so close No live 5.56 was kept on school grounds though, so all made some sense, don’t think our range would’ve been rated for it anyway lol
Trials rifles - interesting historical snippet. In February 1940, Britain formed a ski/mountain warfare unit, 5th Battalion Scots Guards, for possible assistance to Finland in its war with the Soviet Union - which was an ally of Germany and thus an enemy state at that time. This battalion undertook ski training at Chamonix in France. Their issue rifles were trials pattern No1 MkVI and No4 Mk1. The regular No4 Mk1 was still a year or more away from production at that time.
No. Finland was not part of the Axis. Especially in the Winter of 1939-1940 when the Germans had a Pact with Russia - the whole partition of Poland thing. Finland does fight Russia from 1941 to 1944 in the Continuation War, with the objective of regain the province of Karelia. They make a sperate peace with Russia on actually fairly favourable terms.
@@elliottjames8020 He said that Germany was an ally of the Soviet Union, which isn't true either, they had a non-aggression pact and divided Europe (and Poland) between them.
Should be added that the anglo-french force only had a secondary objective to help the finns, the primary objective was to seize neutral northern Scandinavia, to deny the germans access to the iron ore there. The finnish peace with the Soviet union and norwegian and swedish 'no' to transporting the troops across northern Scandinavia put an end to the official plans, but it's why the anglo-french forces were readily available to be sent to Norway when Germany invaded Norway and Denmark on the 9th of April 1940. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_R_4
@@lavrentivs9891 while it's true that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was not a formal military alliance, the cooperation and coordination between both parties was quite close, and the Soviet supply of various trade goods to the Reich fueled the early German war effort. If they weren't allies, they were the closest thing to it. France and Britain also considered bombing the Caucasian oil fields, but couldn't get the Turks to cooperate well enough for that to be possible. Sean McMeekin's newest book lays this out over a few chapters.
Once international travel opens back up, I'd love to see Ian go to Lithgow in NSW Australia to check out the Lithgow Small Arms Factory, and Museum. Where all the standard infantry weapons for the Australian Defence Force have been manufactured since 1912.
@@ckg1776 actually 1 January 1901 was the establishment of the Australian defence force if I am correct been a hot minute since I checked but that sounds right to me
I bought a number one Mark 4 Enfield that oringinaly was made under contract to Savage arms in 1944 but in the 50's was converted to a non firing prop rifle so i got it cheap for $229 But I converted it back to a firing rifle by getting a new bolt with spring and firing pin and it works fine firing the .303 British cartridge. Thanks for the Information on the No.4 Mark 1 rifle.
I have a Savage Mark 4 with a buttplate that looks like it is made from Zinc. Now I wonder if it is actually Al-u-min-i-um. I guess brass was more important for making cartridge cases by the end of the War
DON'T USE THAT RIFLE ! If it had been "converted" to a "prop" rifle it may have a weak barrel,or chamber.! If it has a marking on the breech,or side,,of "DP",is for display purpose,and is unsafe!
@@johngardner2807Yeah I've herd some stories about DP Enfields, like literally could be anything up with them, Like maybe they were exposed to high temperatures, in a fire, they've cleaned them up, stuck new wood on but no telling what the heat has done to the steel!
My dad used one of these in ww2. He hated the small spike bayonet and wished they went back to the old long blade variety. He did love the rifle though.
@@dp-sr1fd And oil cans. Make sure you put the right one in the brew. Last time I used a bayonet (it was the later 'pig sticker' type) fitted to the handle of entrenching tools, we cleared up a field after a public event, as we didn't have enough of the litter spikes. After a while, killing empty coke tins becomes quite natural.
Thanks for the video Ian. Regarding the stacking swivel - I believe that the example you showed us was damaged. The wire loop showed remnants of brazing, or solder, where it had be secured to the mounting lug. The splines are just another example of the thoughtful engineering that went into British arms. These splines would help to relieve some of the load from the brazed joint.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge and enthusiasm Ian. My Fazakerley No.4 Mk1/2 came with the Mk.1 rearsight like yours but the addition of an A.J.Parker rearsight made it much better. No more fiddling with the foresight for windage adjustment.
The Enfield No4 mk1 is quite beautiful and transitioned well into a sporting rifle after the war. My father bought one for use as a bush rifle and bagged many a buck with the reliable rifle. The rifle would be stolen sometime in the 60's which is a shame as it probably would still be quite usefull for hunting.
I don't know but I'm starting to think that the catalog of Lee Enfield variants is probably no longer than the rules for cricket. You know, about the size of a phone book - and just as easy to read.
Interesting side note on the No4 Mk1 bayonet. In 1944 they added a cap to the end of the handle for the Pattern 1937 entrenching tool (which was a 1941 update of the Pattern 1908 tool) that duplicated the muzzle.end of the barrel, including the bayonet lugs. While this did allow the use of the bayonet as a handheld weapon or tool (albeit one with a handle about a foot and a half long), the primary reason was to allow the bayonet to more easily work as a mine probe.
I have one of the later entrenching tools to go with my No.4 and I have to say, it's always struck me as one of the smartest design decisions for a rifle / bayonet. I mean. I've never cleared a mine field full of bouncing Betties but it seems like it would work extremely well?
@@Penguinius it's better than nothing, but it's something you really don't want to do if you have any other option, especially with more advanced fuzes (such as started to be used by WWII). Super slow and risky - but better than nothing (and possibly faster than calling the engineers forward from division HQ to clear it for you).
@@dorsk84 Surplus stores that handle WWII British kit for reenactors, or even eBay. Look for a Pattern 37 entrenching tool, and check the photos to make sure it has the later handle - the early handles are bare wood at the bottom, with just the metal fitting at top for the e-tool head. The later ones have a metal buttcap with a rod sticking out (that duplicates the barrel profile of the rifle, including lugs). I'd have to check my handles, but IIRC, they omitted the "stop" on the one lug that the rifle has (because it doesn't matter which way is "up" when attaching the bayonet to the entrenching tool handle), or possibly they dropped it as an unnecessary flourish early in production. Pricey, but reliable source: www.sofmilitary.co.uk/1937-entrenching-tool-and-pouch-original.html?fbclid=IwAR0o4OA10Z-VZKNjKHCKAA2-PmtKp70x4GBoLNW5aLdhukqEAtRt4NzVQyc
Was thinking that. Lost a lot of the earlier pattern rifles in France and the no. 4 was put into accelerated production and issue. Otherwise I’d imaging the previous pattern/model would have been still in widespread British use throughout ww2.
If anything, it would have slowed development, with resources going to rapidly procure replacements based on existing proven designs. That was exactly what happened in the case of the 2pdr and 6pdr anti-tank guns, with the latter being delayed for a couple of years and 2pdrs were procured to replace those lost in France.
@@haldorasgirson9463 You're underestimating the difficulties of doing that. The new weapon may not work reliably, may not use ammunition compatible with other service equipment, and may use different machine-tooling. All the while you are fighting an industrial-scale total war against a peer-enemy, requiring vast amounts of equipment to be manufactured. It makes much more sense to produce existing proven designs than dislocating your industry and supply chains to produce and then supply something, especially when it will take months or years to ramp-up production, when requirements for the numbers of these weapons could be in the millions.
Nice. As an aside finally got to Cody Museum of Guns. Wife was patient with me 😄. Could have spent a lot more time there. Thanks for the heads up about the place. Truly amazing.
I used a number 4 mark 1 for 15 years with the Canadian Rangers. It had 2 grooves for some reason, was still extremely accurate. I’m currently issued the the C19 , very accurate rifle.
@@HO-bndk or you let them over populate an area, (+90% survival rate to maturity) and then they can humanity starve to death. Hunting helps keep the population in balance with nature, and lowers traffic incursions. Also they taste good.
As expected a sizeable section of this video is talking about the arcane and often unhinged British system of versions, variants and serial numbering. God, makes you proud to be British doesn't it?
It was designed to baffle the logical mind of the German while being perfectly understandable to a British man raised on the scoring system of cricket.
FYI : BSA Shirley - Shirley is a district of Birmingham not a town in its own right, it was a distinct plant in it own right, part of the BSA Group but seperate from the main BSA Works at Armoury Rd Small Heath Birmingham - they are about 8 miles apart
As someone who lived there, Shirley is most Certainly not a part of Birmingham, it comes under Solihull, and during the war was a town of its own right as Birmingham's urban sprawl hadn't reached that far
My Dad preferred the No. 1 he was first issued with and was rather miffed when they retired it and gave him a No. 4. I was never able to ascertain quite why. I liked the No. 4s we shot with in the 80s. I remember shooting a 1943-vintage weapon in Wales with the aperture sights and getting 1 MOA accuracy.
Odds are it was just familiarity. The rifle people were familiar and comfortable with being replaced probably annoyed a lot of people, and the No 4 wasn't some massive leap forward for the soldier. I have read of many Americans being pissed when they had to turn in their Springfields for Garands, and that was a massive leap forward.
A deceased acquaintance served with 2NZEF from start to finish. He said that the No. 4 rifles issued to the division (prior to the Greece debacle that handed the parts of North Africa to the axis for two more years) were more roughly made than the No. 1 Mk III rifles they replaced. As a winner of a musketry trophy just before the war, he was extremely pissed off that he had to exchange his No. 1 Mk III for a No. 4. NB It was definitely before Greece because he was captured in Greece (on the same day that Charles Upham won his first VC) escaped, fought on Crete, was evacuated, then served in North Africa and Italy.
When I was 14 years old in the Fourth Form, St Bernard's College received a Library Donation to give the whole Form a week off to Mark the Queen's Shoot at the Trentham Military Camp, near Wellington, New Zealand. I didn't mark the Final on Saturday, because of Cricket. Those were many WW2 Veterans in 1964. The 900 Yard Targets were quite Big and the Bulls Eye was about 3 Feet Radius. The Better Shooters, with this exact Rifle with Aperture Sights, often with Irregular Wind Gusts, from close to a Kilometre Up Range were scoring Nine out of Ten on a three foot Spread.
That sounds very similar to Mons Range at Canadian Forces Base Borden in Ontario, which goes to 1000yards. I found it challenging enough to shoot with a scoped .308, though much of that was simply finding the right scope elevation. Those 3ft bulls looked as though they were originally sized to work with Enfield aperture sights as anything smaller would be very hard to see without optics.
Another video adding to my No4 knowledge. Thanks Ian. Mine came out of Fazerkerly in 43 October and was FTR’ed in 55. If I had to guess based on the pristine condition of the barrel it was never reissued prior to it being imported by Big 5 sporting goods in the early 90s.
Good information , thanks, here in the mts. of Pa. the men from ww2 bought these in surplus stores for deer hunting, I have 2, they sold for $15.00 packed ingrease the 8mm, and Kraig were what most deer hunter,s carried.
It is my understanding that the No4 was only issued to combat troops taking part in D Day and the campaign in Europe thereafter. The rifle used by those who fought in the "Far East" against the Japanese (both British & Australian/NZ) & those who fought in North Africa through Sicily & Italy continued with the venerable SMLE. If correct then the role of the No4 in WW2 was marginal & a "niche" rifle for Europe post 6/6/44 till 8/5/45.
Love how old military British rifles carry the royal coat of arms. These days it’s used as a warrant to recommend cereals. Back then it was “you have incurred my displeasure, this man will shoot you in my name”.
loved it, when i was aged 13 to 18, i was a royal marine cadet, used the SMLE lots, drill, training, ranges.... we did get some SLR's in my later years. but the SMLE holds a place in my heart.
Fired my first rounds with a .22 short cartridge MK4 when I was 6 or 7 at a Chatham Naval Dock open day where shooters were to hit burnt out light bulbs on string from about 15 ft. After popping away, the guy in charge of the range asked my dad if I had ever shot before as it seemed that I had a natural 'hold' on the rifle. Later in life in the Air Training Corps I achieved ATC marksman and RAF marksman badges in .22 on a 25 yard indoor range and .303 on a 200 yard range on Rainham Marshes, Essex. Lovely weapon to use with that satisfying clunk as the bolt locks home.
I just got myself one of these and i am very happy with it, I didn’t check before purchasing but afterwards it turned out every single serial number matches on the rifle even the magazine
I love how Ian goes into so much depth about the Lee Enfiedl and all its many derivatives. I think we've actually got beyond the point where if there's anything that Ian doesn't know about Lee Infields, it's probably not worth knowing. I'm proud to say I've fired one - probably a Mark IV - when I was in the cadets. We fired blanks but also FMJ 0.303 on the range. Our sadistic instructors didn't explain how to hold them properly (I was 14) and the first time I fired it, I nearly gave the rifle back, it kicked so hard. Fortunately, I persisted.
There was a scene in the TV Sitcom "Get Some In" (about national service) in which an RAF recruit or "Erk" is spotted by his corporal cleaning his fingernails with the tip of his No 4 Bayonet. Reproaching him, corporal Marsh (played by Tony Selby) furiously cries: "if you stab a man with a dirty bayonet like that, you'll give him blood poisoning!"
Actually I believe that the Geneva convention requires a soldier to keep the bayonet clean to prevent just such a thing. Sounds daft doesn't it, but I am sure I read that somewhere.
Those bayonets really make me wince, the thought of having that shoved into you, multiple times, feels like a far worse way to go than letting a .303 round do its job...
unless you get shot in the stomach or a limb and take days to die, eventually dying of a mixture of infection and blood loss. Close quarters combat with a bayonet, I would have thought would generally have been repeatedly stab the other until either you or them stops moving, probably because deceased, so pretty fast in comparison, unless the bullet inflicted injury was immediately fatal.
One of my old instructors 'suggested' that the only real use for a bayonet is for an NCO to prod the arses of recalcitrant pongos who prefer the comfort of their trench to the dubious pleasure of running towards a chap who is shooting at them.
That piling swivel is just broken. The brass area is where its supposed to be brazed solid. Its the same pattern of "narrow" piling swivel as used on all the inter-war production of No1 rifles.
@@Ghelasin Honestly, its not. I've had a Type A No1 MkVI and I have a Trials No4. The front piling swivel on each is a standard "narrow pattern" type, identical to those fitted on all inter-war military and commercial No1s, including the No1 MkV - I have a couple of those as well. In my parts box I've got several piling swivels and sling swivels that have become "unbrazed" in the same way.
@@Ghelasin My 1948 No4Mk1 has a piling swivel,so they did have them,depending on what was available.,and Most were left off,since the band is the same,for both.
I'm intrigued by the two blue backgrounded pictures to the right of Ian's head as we observe it. It's little details like this that can bring us into the room almost, as it were.
The Rifle No.4 was also built at the Longbranch Armoury, in Canada. I had a new, unissued example. The cocking piece was rectangular on mine and it had a simple flip sight for 200 and 400 yards. By 1943 when it was made, it was realised the rifles were mostly noise makers to keep both sides apart long enough to call up the artillery.
We grew up thinking it's the most powerful rifle in the world. Loving called .303 in our state Nagaland,India. Still in love with this gun. Owing one will remain a dream, given Indian draconian gun laws😭
First centerfire rifle I ever fired. These were present when I joined the Canadian Army Cadet Corps. Very accurate but I could never understand why the designers handicapped the rifle with such a limited capacity magazine. To my mind, the FNC1A1 we had were a great improvement.
I think the reason for a tiny mag was so that it would be easier, or there would be no burden when sliding around and laying the rifle on trench parapets.
Considering the design is from like 1890....originally 8 round single stack. Ahead of its time then. Even in ww2 most bolts were 5. So not really much of a handicap.
Had one of these No4 Mk1. My markings were simply ROF 41.........Ser No with A suffix. The A suffix denotes unusual parts fitted do not repair. As per comment below, the stacking swivel is damaged on that one and been knocked to one side hence it is loose. Very nice rifles.
I think it sounds complex at first, but if you think about it, it's very similar to modern NATO designations For example, Rifle M1 in the US' case is the first self-loading standard issue rifle. In our case, Rifle NoIV Mk I is the Fourth model of rifle adopted with the first upgrade or improvement on top of it.
Ian, just a quick hello and thank you! I really, really enjoy your videos! Great military/gun history and extremely well researched. Also, great video editing and presentation. Have you any other channels?
Also I know that I have asked two separate other questions, but certain things you talked about in this video really sparked my interest. Why was it that the British military went about developing and adopting a rifle based off of the smle, where they put so much effort into accurizing the rifle, when they already had the p14 p13 program? The effort they went through to redesign the smle seems excessive, as there are very few components that are actually interchangeable between the smle and the no. 4 rifle, so new tooling would have to be made for these rifles. There was already tooling made up for the p14 rifle in Britain and the United States, and by all accounts from what I have read, the p14 greatly exceeds the accuracy of the smle. It would seem easier to me to take the technical data package for the p14, and adapt it / modernize it to your needs then developing entirely new rifle that would require new tooling. I would understand if what they had adopted was similar to the Mk V, in that most of the components were interchangeable with a standard smle, but they didn't.
Rifle accuracy isn't the deciding factor in a combat rifle. The No1, despite being a developmental design itself, had proved itself outstanding in WW1 and it was extremely popular with the Army at home and overseas. Britain had about 2 1/4 million No1s remaining after WW1, and there was no particular rush to replace it - unless a suitable self loader came along. The No4, whilst modernised, does actually have quite a few finished components interchangeable/exchangeable with the No1, plus a great deal of manufacturing commonality - e.g. receiver forgings. The P14 was dead and gone. It had only ever been produced in USA, the assembly lines were long gone, it had never been adopted as a first line rifle in Britain, and the idea of a Mauser action had been negated by the success of the Enfield action in WW1. Apart from the technical characteristics of a rifle, a major factor was the desirability of training, support and supply of a new rifle. The No4 in this respect was easy to introduce alongside the No1, as it was just an iteration of the existing system.
@@turbogerbil2935 understandable, the whole issue of the No 4 kind of reminds me of the M14, and that one of the major arguments for its development was that it was supposed to reuse tooling for the smle while meeting army requirements. In reality, there were so many changes that there were basically no tooling that could be reused. It's easier to understand with knowledge of the fact that the Army was playing around with the idea of adopting a self loading rifle, but I still find it bizarre. Also the p14 still shares most of the basic layout of the smle in terms of its design. The manual of arms is almost identical.
@@alexguymon7117 External appearances can be deceptive; a lot of the critical parts of the No1 and No4 are the same or interchangeable. Off the top of my head, trigger, sear, sear spring, 2x taper pins, cocking piece & striker (can be interchanged as a pair), striker spring, magazine catch, magazine shell (with slight mod. Thousands of No1 mags used in No4s) magazine follower, swivel screws x3. Bolt body, bolt head and receiver start as the same forgings, bolt bodies are identical less for the 180o screw index change. Butt stocks, butt plates, butt plates screws, butt plate trap, spring & screw, rear swivel base are the same or interchangeable. Mid band just a simplification on the No4. More significant than (easily replaced) production tooling, many of the No1 gauges are applicable to the No4, as all the critical dimensions of the working parts and the bore are the same.
Great video as usual. I remember that I had a cousin that had a Winchester shotgun from the 1960s that had a fiberglass barrel it had a steel tube wound in glass fiber. If I recall they were not successful but I don’t recall why.
Ian, a great video like your others. I wonder what value would be placed on a Mark 6 rifle nowadays, a true rarity one could brag about if one was lucky enough to get one. I shot a modified No. 1, Mk 3, (heavy, bedded barrel, Lane aperture sights) on ANZAC Rifle Range, Liverpool NSW in the sixties, a great shooter and very effective for long range shots on foxes on our orchard in the Southern Highlands (Bowral, Moss Vale districts). Later went on to a No. 4, Mk 1 (T) but missing it's scope and other kit, a very good shooter. Nowadays I have a 1941 Lithgow No 1, Mk 3* in OE condition and a 1952 Long Branch No. 4, Mk 2, manufactured to meet demand for rifles for the Korea conflict. This one has a newish Sportco barrel. I use these rifles in Combined Service matches with SSAA.
My first rifle was a No4 Mk1 1944. Bought in 1989 for $120. I gave it to a friend in '92, and haven't seen it since. It's somewhere in Arizona. It was marked Made in Canada 1944. Can you shed some light on this Ian. Will try to track it down.
Hi now your talking about the best bolt action battle rifle. Ever even better than the 1903 which was a dam fine rifle too. Ihave a no4 mk1 made in Britain in 1943. And shes my favorite rifle. Love the slick bolt and micrometer peep sight. Its filled my freezer with deer meat way more than once. Still all original and all parts are same number. Cost me 60 dollars a long time ago. Mine has the button to posh down to pull the bolt. AWSOME video😊
Early 1970s most of the cadet forces were using mk4s. I got my 6 inch grouping at 200m with one, so they were still good kit. When firing .22 we had sleeved down mk4s, so one way or another we handled them a lot. We thought it was great when we got hold of SLRs. At University 8 years later my friend was using one in the wet and the bolt blew out of the back. No injuries, but underpant changes were needed.
@@gunner678 Useful for indoor range trainer. Shooting the normal SLR in the Victoria Barracks in the City was frowned on. Lots of fun and no sore shoulder.
Loved mine,..until it was stolen (along with 4 other rifles) by stupid kids who ended up dumping them in the local river. Thankfully they never got the bolts or ammo. What really pissed me off was they actually used my own tools to break into the security I had for the firearms. Maybe not so stupid kids after all.
@@alexisXcore93 yeah.... one of them was a Hakim 8mm. I almost "lost the plot" & went hunting for the bastards myself. The thing is, when the cops finally found out who it was, it was too late for recovery &! only a slap on the wrist was given. The youngest was only 8 (the smallest) & boosted him through the toilet windows to get in. Ahh well, that was close on 30 years ago.
I just got one of these and man is it a beautiful gun I picked it up for an absolute steal as well. Only about 3/4 of its actual price and it's going to stay in my family forever
Got one in 410. Then I got n4 MK2 1955 love shooting it was on a military range with club and at 300 yds was hitting window pop up mil target in window ( sun helped a bit here) love it . And it fires fast Uk
While in the RAF as a Radar operator (1964-76) I was trained on the No 4. Known to us as the 303. It was our weapon until I was retrained on the SLR (L1A1) when I was stationed in Singapore in 1968. The SLR followed by the SMG would then be my personal weapons for 8 years in the REME TA (British Army Reserves)
I like the short throw of the bolt on the MK4. My first rifle was purchased out of several barrels full of surplus rifles in 1962 for only $5 American. And surplus ammo was only .02¢ a round. I used this rifle from 8yrs old until I was 24 yrs. And in that time I took 21 deer & 2 elks and several prong horn antelope. Those were the days a man could actually feel free from gov oppression and make a living off the land.
I think it's interesting that they decided to mount a socket bayonet directly on the barrel self rather than making a longer spike bayonet that could be mounted in a similar fashion to the smle bayonet below the collar. Either was an issue with durability? It's also interesting to see how often rifles and weapon systems running the same issues of designers being too ambitious and adding additional features that were of little use or impaired the function of the weapon that only be deleted later. Think of the volley sites on the smle or magazine cut off. Granted, there was actual doctrine to use those, but point still stands.
I imagine that mounting the bayonet to the nosecap and stock would involve a heavier bayonet and / or a more complicated and expensive nosecap and stock, whereas the standard nosecap is a relatively cheap and simple assembly of stamped steel and the stock is already fairly complex in its bedding arrangement. It probably cost less overall to either leave two lugs on the barrel or add two lugs rather than come up with an SMLE arrangement.
I was at the REME museum at Lyneham the other day I think I saw what was a Lee Enfield converted to automatic fire by the South Africans, one of only four left. Should have paid more attention.
Perhaps the New Zealand designed and made ‘Charlton’? Stopgap answer to an anticipated Japanese invasion early ‘40s. Original ‘Steampunk” looking weapon.
![Digital Circus Episode 4 [TRAILER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/abZtsmMUbJo/mqdefault.jpg)
Fun fact, the SMLE was only replaced because they ran out of confusing designations!
Lol it all makes sense now. 😂
So they ran out of room on the metal to put more stars? Yeah that does explain it.
It is known
L85a1, L85a2, L85a3, L1a1, L86, L129:
*Allow us to introduce ourselves*
Indeed.
I remember working for Royal Ordnance in Enfield in the late 80's. Every so often there were orders for No 4's and there still stock of brand new rifles wrapped in grease proof packing
That's cool
There's a video called 'Lee Enfield No4 Mk2 Unboxing' where a guy unwraps one and shows how to prepare it for use.
I picked up a No4 Mk2 of gunbroker about 2 years ago that looks like it never fired a round. I know a lot of the Fazakerley “Irish Contract” rifles were never issued.
@@faeembrugh I got one of those rifles, sadly since sold.
My grandfather had a gun shop for decades from the 50s into the early 90s and these Enfield were called, "mummy wrapped" because they looked like mummy wrapped appendages. It was linen wrapping with cosmolene. Took forever to clean off but the rifles were like new underneath. You would have to throw a rifle in a bog to get better age protection.
February 65 aged 16 a boy seaman I qualified as a R. N. marksman with a no. 4 mk 2. Ten shots prone freehand, 300 yards, three foot square target with a nine inch bull. I scored 78 best highest score In my mess.
Joined the shooting club and went on to shoot at ranges out too 800 yards all achieved with iron sights.
Nobody cares, boomer.
Impressive!!
Yes, nice to hear a compliment. I was in Army cadets in the mid 60s and we had these for drill and range use plus the Morris Tube conversion to .22 LR for our domestic small bore range All were good.
"beveling of the receiver takes 5 minutes and costs a shilling".....
"dump it"
Five minutes and a shilling isn't a big deal for one rifle, but for a million rifles that is ten years of labour/machine time and likely the cost of tens of thousands of rifles.
@@88porpoise Yeah, that's something a lot of people miss "But doing it would have been really cheap", not when you make millions of them
@@Ghelasin That's how the car manufacturers work.
@@88porpoise just the cost of the cutting oil and milling die alone would have been a nice stack of dosh.
@@Ghelasin I learned that in construction lol. "If a task that takes 5 minutes to complete takes you 10 minutes to finish it might not sound like much, but take double the time to finish that task a million times in a row and that's months of time wasted"
As someone that lives in Shirley, not far from where B.S.A were, hearing Ian correctly mention the work done here on No.4s was a nice treat. Thanks Ian.
The newest addition to my collection was birthed down the street from you in 1944. Still a beautiful example of BSA workmanship after all these years.
@@tugboatyan awesome, bizarrely - despite living so close, my No.4 is a Long Branch, which is probably some sort of cultural crime. Great rifles all round.
The No.4 was the first military rifle I used when I was an Army Cadet in the early 1970's. I've loved them ever since!
Yeaah me to, can you imagine 12 and 13 year olds being given 303s to shoot today. I also fired Bren full auto. Great fun but the best bit was "night exercises" playing at soldiers getting dressed up as a tree and being given a live no 4 and a handful of 303 blank ammo to play with.
When i was in the cadets we used a very similar rifle to the no.4 for .22 training but sadly we had the l98A2 cadet rifle instead of the cool older service rifles. Still got turned into bushes for fun though :)
Yep, me too. 13 - 16 years old and made the Bisley Schools Championship Team...as substitute! We used to go to the local firing range behind RAF Bentwaters in a bus with all the rifles and boxes of ammunition. A bit disconcerting when you are shooting 1200 yards, trying your best, and a helicopter appears just above the target. It looked closer but was a long way off but enough to spoil your concentration.
The one I was issued as a cadet was made at Fazackerly in 1942 (I looked up its serial no. - and it wasn't so easy to do that in those pre-internet days). I often wondered if it had ever been fired in anger. I wish I could (legally) own one today.
@@andybelcher1767 Bentwaters! Near Woodbridge. I knocked around there later on in life.
I have a No4 Mk1 made by Savage under lend lease in 1942. An older gentleman viewing the rifle on a table at a gun show, was telling his grandson that the British wouldn't use them because they were made in America. The old gentleman was one of the free Polish who fought in the Falaise pocket, and said he proudly carried one. After they left, I immediately purchased it. Thanks Ian
I doubt that England having bought American weapons wouldn't use them. Britain was grateful for anything America could sell them and respect for US manufacturing was and remains very high. No disrespect to the heroes of Poland but something else might lie behind this account.
Brititshmuzzleloaders: *sniffs through mustache* Acceptable.
I've often wondered if him and Ian could communicate via moustache twitches.
@@thenoobcannon9830 LOL, that's a great comment/question.
I recently grabbed a sporterized Savage No4 MK1* for dirt cheap and spent as much as the rifle cost me bringing it back to proper issue condition. I love the thing, it has such an iconic look and such a fantastic bolt action.
That's the fun of our hobby...restoration and the search for the correct parts.
@@cbroz7492 When I was considering buying the base gun, I saw that there was a NOS wood set on Ebay with the auction ending that evening. I took it as a sign that I needed to buy the gun, lol.
@@booliganshootingsports Any excuse will do!
BOTR is very rude about sporterised Enfields! And rightly so!
I bought the wood and metal parts for an Enfield restoration many years ago and just came across a sporterized Savage for cheap that I'll restore with it. I'm pretty sure if I tried to source those parts today that it would add up!
Just something so aesthetically pleasing about the No4 rifle.
Sure is a pretty one. Of all the rifles of that period I do think it's my favourite from and aesthetic point of view. that said, I am British so I'm probably biased!
When I was a teenager I used to spend days surrounded by them in the school armoury. Sounds like something from 'If...' doesn't it?
@@chrispatten3482 Oh yes, I used to go to a public school once a week to shoot 22's, hanging around in the armoury waiting to start, and " playing" with Brens & Lee Enfields.
Grew up with one of these in South Africa, had US Army markings on it.
I had the privilege to use them , many years ago , such a wonderful feeling bolt mechanism.
“There was going to be a D but they thought they had it figured out”
Well, yea, I’d hope so, it’s only been what, 1000 years and 750 variations to that point?
I was a U.K army cadet around 79-83. Happy memories shooting these at a range on the East Yorkshire coast. The butts of which fell into the north sea some years ago.
Was a RAF/CCF cadet in Bridlington, shot the .22s at school between like 09-12
@@jordanclark4635 Nice, we also had a large number of "DP" drill purpose, deactivated No4's that together with the .22 converted ones we were allowed to keep in our ACF local detachment "hut" (in a safe naturally). The MOD were petrified at the time that the I.R.A. or some such would break in an nick 'em, so the 303's we used at (Cowden ranges?) were kept together with few Brens :) at the area HQ at Driffield.
@@13thdukeofwybourne69 we were lucky, even had A2s, absolute rows of them and more than our .22 single shots, shocking that we were trusted, but had heavy security on them thank god, could take apart and clean the fuckers. Had a AR BB gun and handled a couple at bases, much as the SA80A2 was heavier, I’ve got to say holding it at the base and also being able to move so deeply into the rifle always made it for me personally much more ergonomic and trust forming, holding the weapon so close
No live 5.56 was kept on school grounds though, so all made some sense, don’t think our range would’ve been rated for it anyway lol
They likely dumped the aluminum butt plate due to aluminum demand for aircraft (as WW II started in 1939.)
I would have written the same.
My thoughts also.@@SteamCrane
Trials rifles - interesting historical snippet. In February 1940, Britain formed a ski/mountain warfare unit, 5th Battalion Scots Guards, for possible assistance to Finland in its war with the Soviet Union - which was an ally of Germany and thus an enemy state at that time. This battalion undertook ski training at Chamonix in France. Their issue rifles were trials pattern No1 MkVI and No4 Mk1. The regular No4 Mk1 was still a year or more away from production at that time.
No. Finland was not part of the Axis. Especially in the Winter of 1939-1940 when the Germans had a Pact with Russia - the whole partition of Poland thing.
Finland does fight Russia from 1941 to 1944 in the Continuation War, with the objective of regain the province of Karelia. They make a sperate peace with Russia on actually fairly favourable terms.
@@elliottjames8020 He never said it was. He said the Mountain Warfare unit was intended to help Finland.
@@elliottjames8020 He said that Germany was an ally of the Soviet Union, which isn't true either, they had a non-aggression pact and divided Europe (and Poland) between them.
Should be added that the anglo-french force only had a secondary objective to help the finns, the primary objective was to seize neutral northern Scandinavia, to deny the germans access to the iron ore there. The finnish peace with the Soviet union and norwegian and swedish 'no' to transporting the troops across northern Scandinavia put an end to the official plans, but it's why the anglo-french forces were readily available to be sent to Norway when Germany invaded Norway and Denmark on the 9th of April 1940.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_R_4
@@lavrentivs9891 while it's true that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was not a formal military alliance, the cooperation and coordination between both parties was quite close, and the Soviet supply of various trade goods to the Reich fueled the early German war effort. If they weren't allies, they were the closest thing to it. France and Britain also considered bombing the Caucasian oil fields, but couldn't get the Turks to cooperate well enough for that to be possible. Sean McMeekin's newest book lays this out over a few chapters.
Once international travel opens back up, I'd love to see Ian go to Lithgow in NSW Australia to check out the Lithgow Small Arms Factory, and Museum.
Where all the standard infantry weapons for the Australian Defence Force have been manufactured since 1912.
Infantry Museum at Singleton is (or was) worth a good look too.
Come on down mate we’ll be happy to have ya =)
@@ckg1776 actually 1 January 1901 was the establishment of the Australian defence force if I am correct been a hot minute since I checked but that sounds right to me
I went to Lithgow small arms factory museum in 2018
@@BobJury-lf6bb Been there twice loved it. We only went to stay a day but stayed six days as so much to see.
I bought a number one Mark 4 Enfield that oringinaly was made under contract to Savage arms in 1944 but in the 50's was converted to a non firing prop rifle so i got it cheap for $229 But I converted it back to a firing rifle by getting a new bolt with spring and firing pin and it works fine firing the .303 British cartridge. Thanks for the Information on the No.4 Mark 1 rifle.
I have a Savage Mark 4 with a buttplate that looks like it is made from Zinc. Now I wonder if it is actually Al-u-min-i-um. I guess brass was more important for making cartridge cases by the end of the War
@@robertrobert7924
My savage also has that butt plate.
DON'T USE THAT RIFLE !
If it had been "converted" to a "prop" rifle it may have a weak barrel,or chamber.!
If it has a marking on the breech,or side,,of "DP",is for display purpose,and is unsafe!
@@johngardner2807Yeah I've herd some stories about DP Enfields, like literally could be anything up with them,
Like maybe they were exposed to high temperatures, in a fire, they've cleaned them up, stuck new wood on but no telling what the heat has done to the steel!
My dad used one of these in ww2. He hated the small spike bayonet and wished they went back to the old long blade variety. He did love the rifle though.
My father said he didn't like the round holes the bayonet made in toast...
Kudos to anyone who knows the immortal lines from "Dads Army" character Corporal Jones about Enfield bayonets..........
Yes, but the spike bayonet was perfect to make holes in tins of condensed milk. Which may have been it's original purpose.
@@dp-sr1fd And oil cans. Make sure you put the right one in the brew.
Last time I used a bayonet (it was the later 'pig sticker' type) fitted to the handle of entrenching tools, we cleared up a field after a public event, as we didn't have enough of the litter spikes. After a while, killing empty coke tins becomes quite natural.
@@harryfaber Soft drinks cans don't like it up 'em!
Thanks for the video Ian. Regarding the stacking swivel - I believe that the example you showed us was damaged. The wire loop showed remnants of brazing, or solder, where it had be secured to the mounting lug. The splines are just another example of the thoughtful engineering that went into British arms. These splines would help to relieve some of the load from the brazed joint.
in Australia we didn't adopt the no4 because we needed the 16" bayonet for the emus
Plus the wombats
Don’t forget about the ruddy wombats
Yet you still lost.
@@Jh5kRadio it's was a negotiated ceasefire
@@rebeccatyler3851 after a humiliating defeat.
Those goddamn platypuses were no help whatsoever..
Thanks for sharing your knowledge and enthusiasm Ian. My Fazakerley No.4 Mk1/2 came with the Mk.1 rearsight like yours but the addition of an A.J.Parker rearsight made it much better. No more fiddling with the foresight for windage adjustment.
15:03 All three British Manufacturing Facilities for Enfield rifles mentioned, thanks very much!!!!!
The Enfield No4 mk1 is quite beautiful and transitioned well into a sporting rifle after the war. My father bought one for use as a bush rifle and bagged many a buck with the reliable rifle. The rifle would be stolen sometime in the 60's which is a shame as it probably would still be quite usefull for hunting.
I don't know but I'm starting to think that the catalog of Lee Enfield variants is probably no longer than the rules for cricket. You know, about the size of a phone book - and just as easy to read.
Next Headstamp book…?
Interesting side note on the No4 Mk1 bayonet. In 1944 they added a cap to the end of the handle for the Pattern 1937 entrenching tool (which was a 1941 update of the Pattern 1908 tool) that duplicated the muzzle.end of the barrel, including the bayonet lugs. While this did allow the use of the bayonet as a handheld weapon or tool (albeit one with a handle about a foot and a half long), the primary reason was to allow the bayonet to more easily work as a mine probe.
Ok then.... where do I get one of these E-tools? I need it to go with my No4.
I have one of the later entrenching tools to go with my No.4 and I have to say, it's always struck me as one of the smartest design decisions for a rifle / bayonet. I mean. I've never cleared a mine field full of bouncing Betties but it seems like it would work extremely well?
@@Penguinius it's better than nothing, but it's something you really don't want to do if you have any other option, especially with more advanced fuzes (such as started to be used by WWII). Super slow and risky - but better than nothing (and possibly faster than calling the engineers forward from division HQ to clear it for you).
@@dorsk84 Surplus stores that handle WWII British kit for reenactors, or even eBay. Look for a Pattern 37 entrenching tool, and check the photos to make sure it has the later handle - the early handles are bare wood at the bottom, with just the metal fitting at top for the e-tool head. The later ones have a metal buttcap with a rod sticking out (that duplicates the barrel profile of the rifle, including lugs).
I'd have to check my handles, but IIRC, they omitted the "stop" on the one lug that the rifle has (because it doesn't matter which way is "up" when attaching the bayonet to the entrenching tool handle), or possibly they dropped it as an unnecessary flourish early in production.
Pricey, but reliable source: www.sofmilitary.co.uk/1937-entrenching-tool-and-pouch-original.html?fbclid=IwAR0o4OA10Z-VZKNjKHCKAA2-PmtKp70x4GBoLNW5aLdhukqEAtRt4NzVQyc
I have a No.4. Such a solid gun from another era and runs smooth even after all these years. I would love to know its history.
Finally a video on the good ol' Number 4! Thanks Ian!
I should imagine that losing hundreds of thousands of rifles and machine guns in France, and Dunkirk in particular must have accelerated development.
Was thinking that. Lost a lot of the earlier pattern rifles in France and the no. 4 was put into accelerated production and issue. Otherwise I’d imaging the previous pattern/model would have been still in widespread British use throughout ww2.
If anything, it would have slowed development, with resources going to rapidly procure replacements based on existing proven designs. That was exactly what happened in the case of the 2pdr and 6pdr anti-tank guns, with the latter being delayed for a couple of years and 2pdrs were procured to replace those lost in France.
The OG "I lost it in a boating accident"
Stop development, start production.
@@haldorasgirson9463 You're underestimating the difficulties of doing that. The new weapon may not work reliably, may not use ammunition compatible with other service equipment, and may use different machine-tooling. All the while you are fighting an industrial-scale total war against a peer-enemy, requiring vast amounts of equipment to be manufactured. It makes much more sense to produce existing proven designs than dislocating your industry and supply chains to produce and then supply something, especially when it will take months or years to ramp-up production, when requirements for the numbers of these weapons could be in the millions.
I find so many of these videos are so interesting and informative that they worth watching repeatedly. Thank you!
Nice. As an aside finally got to Cody Museum of Guns. Wife was patient with me 😄. Could have spent a lot more time there. Thanks for the heads up about the place. Truly amazing.
Awesome, I'm very jealous, rather nice of the wife haha
lol. Even Ian gets confused over these supposedly logical naming conventions. heh. Cheers for the upload.
Anyone really thinks english rifle designation logic?
British rifle designations are basically numbers out of a hat as near as I can tell.
I used a number 4 mark 1 for 15 years with the Canadian Rangers. It had 2 grooves for some reason, was still extremely accurate. I’m currently issued the the C19 , very accurate rifle.
No4 Mk1 still killing deer at our house in November. Deer do not run very far after taking a hit from the .303. Most fall on the spot. Very humane.
Though not as humane as not shooting them at all, of course.
@@HO-bndk or you let them over populate an area, (+90% survival rate to maturity) and then they can humanity starve to death. Hunting helps keep the population in balance with nature, and lowers traffic incursions. Also they taste good.
I think some of the record moose and elk hunts in Canada were done by .303
@@HO-bndk: Have Mommy fix you soybeans for supper. You'll feel morally superior.
I use American Eagle 150-grain lead bullets that really scoot.....So far No. 4 3, Bambi 0
As expected a sizeable section of this video is talking about the arcane and often unhinged British system of versions, variants and serial numbering. God, makes you proud to be British doesn't it?
It was designed to baffle the logical mind of the German while being perfectly understandable to a British man raised on the scoring system of cricket.
@@davidcolter "It's not over until the number of overs scheduled to be bowled that day, have been bowled."
@@davidcolter As a German, I thoroughly agree with that sentiment.
FYI : BSA Shirley - Shirley is a district of Birmingham not a town in its own right, it was a distinct plant in it own right, part of the BSA Group but seperate from the main BSA Works at Armoury Rd Small Heath Birmingham - they are about 8 miles apart
But don't call be Shirley...
As someone who lived there, Shirley is most Certainly not a part of Birmingham, it comes under Solihull, and during the war was a town of its own right as Birmingham's urban sprawl hadn't reached that far
@@andreww2098 Fair play I stand corrected
My Dad preferred the No. 1 he was first issued with and was rather miffed when they retired it and gave him a No. 4. I was never able to ascertain quite why. I liked the No. 4s we shot with in the 80s. I remember shooting a 1943-vintage weapon in Wales with the aperture sights and getting 1 MOA accuracy.
From an aesthetic standpoint I prefer the No. 1. But functionally the No. 4 is better in every way except the bayonet.
Odds are it was just familiarity. The rifle people were familiar and comfortable with being replaced probably annoyed a lot of people, and the No 4 wasn't some massive leap forward for the soldier.
I have read of many Americans being pissed when they had to turn in their Springfields for Garands, and that was a massive leap forward.
A deceased acquaintance served with 2NZEF from start to finish. He said that the No. 4 rifles issued to the division (prior to the Greece debacle that handed the parts of North Africa to the axis for two more years) were more roughly made than the No. 1 Mk III rifles they replaced. As a winner of a musketry trophy just before the war, he was extremely pissed off that he had to exchange his No. 1 Mk III for a No. 4.
NB It was definitely before Greece because he was captured in Greece (on the same day that Charles Upham won his first VC) escaped, fought on Crete, was evacuated, then served in North Africa and Italy.
When I was 14 years old in the Fourth Form, St Bernard's College received a Library Donation to give the whole Form a week off to Mark the Queen's Shoot at the Trentham Military Camp, near Wellington, New Zealand. I didn't mark the Final on Saturday, because of Cricket. Those were many WW2 Veterans in 1964. The 900 Yard Targets were quite Big and the Bulls Eye was about 3 Feet Radius. The Better Shooters, with this exact Rifle with Aperture Sights, often with Irregular Wind Gusts, from close to a Kilometre Up Range were scoring Nine out of Ten on a three foot Spread.
That sounds very similar to Mons Range at Canadian Forces Base Borden in Ontario, which goes to 1000yards. I found it challenging enough to shoot with a scoped .308, though much of that was simply finding the right scope elevation. Those 3ft bulls looked as though they were originally sized to work with Enfield aperture sights as anything smaller would be very hard to see without optics.
Oh, a video about the Enfield rifle. Finally.
Another video adding to my No4 knowledge. Thanks Ian.
Mine came out of Fazerkerly in 43 October and was FTR’ed in 55. If I had to guess based on the pristine condition of the barrel it was never reissued prior to it being imported by Big 5 sporting goods in the early 90s.
I have a deactivated No4 mk1 with the same SMLE style round cocking piece and I always thought it was the wrong piece until watching this...
Same here.
Some savage and longbrach rifles came with them too. Usually earlier savages. Mine is later with the rectangle style.
@@tays8306 mine is Longbranch so that explains it....thanks
I recently purchased a MK4 #1.
Thank you clearing up a few questions I had about it’s production.
Cheers.
Just watched the britishmuzzleloaders intro to the No.4 the other day!
Good information , thanks, here in the mts. of Pa. the men from ww2 bought these in surplus stores for deer hunting, I have 2, they sold for $15.00 packed ingrease the 8mm, and Kraig were what most deer hunter,s carried.
Got to luv a bit of Enfield history, thanks Ian
Again another info filled video. Many thanks Ian.
I admire your level of competency and knowledge- Impressive ! ! !
I've got a No 4 Mk 1; Accurate at heck & I love it !
Piling swivel not 'stacking swivel' in England-shire.
Piling like piling your mum or is it something else
@@gunnermurphy6632 goteem
@@gunnermurphy6632 *mum
@@AUstudios better?
"The naming of the parts" poem.
It is my understanding that the No4 was only issued to combat troops taking part in D Day and the campaign in Europe thereafter. The rifle used by those who fought in the "Far East" against the Japanese (both British & Australian/NZ) & those who fought in North Africa through Sicily & Italy continued with the venerable SMLE. If correct then the role of the No4 in WW2 was marginal & a "niche" rifle for Europe post 6/6/44 till 8/5/45.
Love how old military British rifles carry the royal coat of arms. These days it’s used as a warrant to recommend cereals. Back then it was “you have incurred my displeasure, this man will shoot you in my name”.
I think on a strictly practical social level, I'll take the cereals.
loved it, when i was aged 13 to 18, i was a royal marine cadet, used the SMLE lots, drill, training, ranges.... we did get some SLR's in my later years. but the SMLE holds a place in my heart.
Used to live in Maltby. Never knew there ha been an armoury there. Thanks Gun Jesus.
Fired my first rounds with a .22 short cartridge MK4 when I was 6 or 7 at a Chatham Naval Dock open day where shooters were to hit burnt out light bulbs on string from about 15 ft. After popping away, the guy in charge of the range asked my dad if I had ever shot before as it seemed that I had a natural 'hold' on the rifle.
Later in life in the Air Training Corps I achieved ATC marksman and RAF marksman badges in .22 on a 25 yard indoor range and .303 on a 200 yard range on Rainham Marshes, Essex. Lovely weapon to use with that satisfying clunk as the bolt locks home.
I just got myself one of these and i am very happy with it, I didn’t check before purchasing but afterwards it turned out every single serial number matches on the rifle even the magazine
I love how Ian goes into so much depth about the Lee Enfiedl and all its many derivatives. I think we've actually got beyond the point where if there's anything that Ian doesn't know about Lee Infields, it's probably not worth knowing. I'm proud to say I've fired one - probably a Mark IV - when I was in the cadets. We fired blanks but also FMJ 0.303 on the range. Our sadistic instructors didn't explain how to hold them properly (I was 14) and the first time I fired it, I nearly gave the rifle back, it kicked so hard. Fortunately, I persisted.
There was a scene in the TV Sitcom "Get Some In" (about national service) in which an RAF recruit or "Erk" is spotted by his corporal cleaning his fingernails with the tip of his No 4 Bayonet. Reproaching him, corporal Marsh (played by Tony Selby) furiously cries: "if you stab a man with a dirty bayonet like that, you'll give him blood poisoning!"
Actually I believe that the Geneva convention requires a soldier to keep the bayonet clean to prevent just such a thing. Sounds daft doesn't it, but I am sure I read that somewhere.
I remember seeing that series on the telly when I was very small. Robert Lyndsey was in it I think.
Just picked up this same model for $600! Good condition and matching numbers stamped 1944. I can’t wait to shoot it tomorrow!
Those bayonets really make me wince, the thought of having that shoved into you, multiple times, feels like a far worse way to go than letting a .303 round do its job...
unless you get shot in the stomach or a limb and take days to die, eventually dying of a mixture of infection and blood loss. Close quarters combat with a bayonet, I would have thought would generally have been repeatedly stab the other until either you or them stops moving, probably because deceased, so pretty fast in comparison, unless the bullet inflicted injury was immediately fatal.
Well "they don't like it up 'em", as Corporal Jones used to say.
One of my old instructors 'suggested' that the only real use for a bayonet is for an NCO to prod the arses of recalcitrant pongos who prefer the comfort of their trench to the dubious pleasure of running towards a chap who is shooting at them.
I bought a no4 mk1 2 months ago. Ive been waiting for this video. Thank you so much Ian.
This is the Enfield video I have been waiting for. I bought into an Enfield project a few years ago and finally think I can get it done.
That piling swivel is just broken. The brass area is where its supposed to be brazed solid. Its the same pattern of "narrow" piling swivel as used on all the inter-war production of No1 rifles.
I'm sorry, Ian said that wasn't true; which retroactively changes history through the powers of Gun Jesus.
This was a Prototype Rifle, using a Prototype Swivel
@@Ghelasin Honestly, its not. I've had a Type A No1 MkVI and I have a Trials No4. The front piling swivel on each is a standard "narrow pattern" type, identical to those fitted on all inter-war military and commercial No1s, including the No1 MkV - I have a couple of those as well. In my parts box I've got several piling swivels and sling swivels that have become "unbrazed" in the same way.
@@Ghelasin My 1948 No4Mk1 has a piling swivel,so they did have them,depending on what was available.,and Most were left off,since the band is the same,for both.
Thank you for including the correct pronunciation for aluminum, very much appreciated.
I'm intrigued by the two blue backgrounded pictures to the right of Ian's head as we observe it. It's little details like this that can bring us into the room almost, as it were.
I've got a No. 4 Mk. I*, dated 1943 from Savage and has the C.A.I. Georgia, VT Reimport marking on the underside of the muzzle.
Just picked up an Ethiopian No.4 Mk2 from Royal Tiger Imports a few weeks ago. I love it
The Rifle No.4 was also built at the Longbranch Armoury, in Canada. I had a new, unissued example. The cocking piece was rectangular on mine and it had a simple flip sight for 200 and 400 yards. By 1943 when it was made, it was realised the rifles were mostly noise makers to keep both sides apart long enough to call up the artillery.
We grew up thinking it's the most powerful rifle in the world. Loving called .303 in our state Nagaland,India. Still in love with this gun. Owing one will remain a dream, given Indian draconian gun laws😭
Have the Khyber pass boys make them 8mm Kurz instead.
Thanks from the UK 🇬🇧 for a very detailed history of the Enfield rifle.
First centerfire rifle I ever fired. These were present when I joined the Canadian Army Cadet Corps. Very accurate but I could never understand why the designers handicapped the rifle with such a limited capacity magazine. To my mind, the FNC1A1 we had were a great improvement.
I think the reason for a tiny mag was so that it would be easier, or there would be no burden when sliding around and laying the rifle on trench parapets.
@@adobotachibana732 Still twice the capacity of the main alternatives though
Quite an improvement over the single-shot Martini-Henry rifles.
Considering the design is from like 1890....originally 8 round single stack. Ahead of its time then. Even in ww2 most bolts were 5. So not really much of a handicap.
Ten rounds was a large capacity for a bolt action rifle, contemporary rifles such as the Kar98, M1903 and Arisaka had five round internal magazines.
Kids spelling "DAD" in the framed pictures is very cute.
I didn’t realize Ian had kids
@@Trashcansam123I belive these arent his but the guns' owner's.
Some No4 Mk1 T’s are still found with magazine cutoffs, most likely indicating that they used early rifles for snipers.
Those are,usually a re-named Mk6,as the true No4Mk1's never had the cutoff.
Had one of these No4 Mk1. My markings were simply ROF 41.........Ser No with A suffix. The A suffix denotes unusual parts fitted do not repair. As per comment below, the stacking swivel is damaged on that one and been knocked to one side hence it is loose. Very nice rifles.
Loved my Mark 4
Anyone else thouroughly confused by the number/mark nomenclature on these rifles?
No. 1 Mk 8 Enfield V2 Type 55
I think it sounds complex at first, but if you think about it, it's very similar to modern NATO designations
For example, Rifle M1 in the US' case is the first self-loading standard issue rifle.
In our case, Rifle NoIV Mk I is the Fourth model of rifle adopted with the first upgrade or improvement on top of it.
You should see the designations for all the Garands
It's to preserve employment of the bureaucrats...
Meanwhile in the U.S.
"Just call it the M1 its fine"
I've shot thousands of rounds through these, it was our range competion rifle in the cadets back in the 70's really good over 300 yards
Ian, just a quick hello and thank you! I really, really enjoy your videos! Great military/gun history and extremely well researched. Also, great video editing and presentation. Have you any other channels?
I have a No4 Mk1* from Canada/Longbranch. I’m excited to see these!
The early foresight protector is known as the “waisted” protector…
Yup, I've got a very early 1941 BSA with the waisted front sight protector
Also I know that I have asked two separate other questions, but certain things you talked about in this video really sparked my interest. Why was it that the British military went about developing and adopting a rifle based off of the smle, where they put so much effort into accurizing the rifle, when they already had the p14 p13 program? The effort they went through to redesign the smle seems excessive, as there are very few components that are actually interchangeable between the smle and the no. 4 rifle, so new tooling would have to be made for these rifles. There was already tooling made up for the p14 rifle in Britain and the United States, and by all accounts from what I have read, the p14 greatly exceeds the accuracy of the smle. It would seem easier to me to take the technical data package for the p14, and adapt it / modernize it to your needs then developing entirely new rifle that would require new tooling. I would understand if what they had adopted was similar to the Mk V, in that most of the components were interchangeable with a standard smle, but they didn't.
Rifle accuracy isn't the deciding factor in a combat rifle. The No1, despite being a developmental design itself, had proved itself outstanding in WW1 and it was extremely popular with the Army at home and overseas. Britain had about 2 1/4 million No1s remaining after WW1, and there was no particular rush to replace it - unless a suitable self loader came along. The No4, whilst modernised, does actually have quite a few finished components interchangeable/exchangeable with the No1, plus a great deal of manufacturing commonality - e.g. receiver forgings.
The P14 was dead and gone. It had only ever been produced in USA, the assembly lines were long gone, it had never been adopted as a first line rifle in Britain, and the idea of a Mauser action had been negated by the success of the Enfield action in WW1.
Apart from the technical characteristics of a rifle, a major factor was the desirability of training, support and supply of a new rifle. The No4 in this respect was easy to introduce alongside the No1, as it was just an iteration of the existing system.
@@turbogerbil2935 understandable, the whole issue of the No 4 kind of reminds me of the M14, and that one of the major arguments for its development was that it was supposed to reuse tooling for the smle while meeting army requirements. In reality, there were so many changes that there were basically no tooling that could be reused. It's easier to understand with knowledge of the fact that the Army was playing around with the idea of adopting a self loading rifle, but I still find it bizarre. Also the p14 still shares most of the basic layout of the smle in terms of its design. The manual of arms is almost identical.
@@alexguymon7117 External appearances can be deceptive; a lot of the critical parts of the No1 and No4 are the same or interchangeable. Off the top of my head, trigger, sear, sear spring, 2x taper pins, cocking piece & striker (can be interchanged as a pair), striker spring, magazine catch, magazine shell (with slight mod. Thousands of No1 mags used in No4s) magazine follower, swivel screws x3. Bolt body, bolt head and receiver start as the same forgings, bolt bodies are identical less for the 180o screw index change. Butt stocks, butt plates, butt plates screws, butt plate trap, spring & screw, rear swivel base are the same or interchangeable. Mid band just a simplification on the No4.
More significant than (easily replaced) production tooling, many of the No1 gauges are applicable to the No4, as all the critical dimensions of the working parts and the bore are the same.
I love a magazine cutoff!
Another great video!
Great video as usual. I remember that I had a cousin that had a Winchester shotgun from the 1960s that had a fiberglass barrel it had a steel tube wound in glass fiber. If I recall they were not successful but I don’t recall why.
I think that stacking swivel is broken, it's not supposed to slide backwards and forwards.
That is what I was thinking. To what purpose do you need different angles of a stacking swivel?
Ian, a great video like your others. I wonder what value would be placed on a Mark 6 rifle nowadays, a true rarity one could brag about if one was lucky enough to get one. I shot a modified No. 1, Mk 3, (heavy, bedded barrel, Lane aperture sights) on ANZAC Rifle Range, Liverpool NSW in the sixties, a great shooter and very effective for long range shots on foxes on our orchard in the Southern Highlands (Bowral, Moss Vale districts). Later went on to a No. 4, Mk 1 (T) but missing it's scope and other kit, a very good shooter. Nowadays I have a 1941 Lithgow No 1, Mk 3* in OE condition and a 1952 Long Branch No. 4, Mk 2, manufactured to meet demand for rifles for the Korea conflict. This one has a newish Sportco barrel. I use these rifles in Combined Service matches with SSAA.
My very first milsurp was a Long branch No4 Mk1 from 1942. I bought it in the late 80's and it definitely has that been there done that look to it.
My first rifle was a No4 Mk1 1944. Bought in 1989 for $120. I gave it to a friend in '92, and haven't seen it since. It's somewhere in Arizona. It was marked Made in Canada 1944. Can you shed some light on this Ian. Will try to track it down.
Hi now your talking about the best bolt action battle rifle. Ever even better than the 1903 which was a dam fine rifle too. Ihave a no4 mk1 made in Britain in 1943. And shes my favorite rifle. Love the slick bolt and micrometer peep sight. Its filled my freezer with deer meat way more than once. Still all original and all parts are same number. Cost me 60 dollars a long time ago. Mine has the button to posh down to pull the bolt. AWSOME video😊
Finally! This is my first hunting rifle, I was hoping that you would do the No4 mk1!
Early 1970s most of the cadet forces were using mk4s. I got my 6 inch grouping at 200m with one, so they were still good kit. When firing .22 we had sleeved down mk4s, so one way or another we handled them a lot. We thought it was great when we got hold of SLRs. At University 8 years later my friend was using one in the wet and the bolt blew out of the back. No injuries, but underpant changes were needed.
I remember the 22 trainer. Bit of a toy plinker after using the SLR.
The H and K indoor range adaptor for the SLR but certainly not a toy plinker.
@@gunner678 Useful for indoor range trainer. Shooting the normal SLR in the Victoria Barracks in the City was frowned on. Lots of fun and no sore shoulder.
Don’t forget about the Number 5! The “Jungle Carbine”
Loved mine,..until it was stolen (along with 4 other rifles) by stupid kids who ended up dumping them in the local river.
Thankfully they never got the bolts or ammo.
What really pissed me off was they actually used my own tools to break into the security I had for the firearms.
Maybe not so stupid kids after all.
I think he has a video on them
@@misenplace8442 clever little shits, but stupid.
@@alexisXcore93 yeah....
one of them was a Hakim 8mm.
I almost "lost the plot" & went hunting for the bastards myself.
The thing is, when the cops finally found out who it was, it was too late for recovery &! only a slap on the wrist was given.
The youngest was only 8 (the smallest) & boosted him through the toilet windows to get in.
Ahh well, that was close on 30 years ago.
@@misenplace8442 I hope their parents gave them a good beating lol
I wish there would be a huge family tree to look at, with pictures and the alternate nomenclature in brackets
I just got one of these and man is it a beautiful gun I picked it up for an absolute steal as well. Only about 3/4 of its actual price and it's going to stay in my family forever
Got one in 410. Then I got n4 MK2 1955 love shooting it was on a military range with club and at 300 yds was hitting window pop up mil target in window ( sun helped a bit here) love it . And it fires fast Uk
I was still using the SMLE No1 Mk3* in the school Army cadets here in Australia in the late 60's early 70's.
Im pretty sure some of the cadet programs in the UK still use 303s chambered in .22 as the "beginner" rifle.
@@roadsweeper1 See ukshootingnews.wordpress.com/2016/03/23/savage-arms-fvt-will-replace-22-no-8-cadet-rifle/
Maybe you used my Lithgow SMLE....made in 1926
While in the RAF as a Radar operator (1964-76) I was trained on the No 4. Known to us as the 303. It was our weapon until I was retrained on the SLR (L1A1) when I was stationed in Singapore in 1968. The SLR followed by the SMG would then be my personal weapons for 8 years in the REME TA (British Army Reserves)
I like the short throw of the bolt on the MK4. My first rifle was purchased out of several barrels full of surplus rifles in 1962 for only $5 American. And surplus ammo was only .02¢ a round. I used this rifle from 8yrs old until I was 24 yrs. And in that time I took 21 deer & 2 elks and several prong horn antelope. Those were the days a man could actually feel free from gov oppression and make a living off the land.
did my rifle drill as an air cadet with these in about 1980
Snap. We also had some .22 carbine Lee Enfields.
The No4 MK I is the rifle I want to add to my collection the most. It is a beautiful piece.
A + for saying Fazackerley right!
At least it's pronounced more or less how it's spelled, as opposed to, say, Featherstonehaugh.
@@ZGryphon Fanshawe or Fetherstone? now try these, Gateacre and Childwall? ;)
I think it's interesting that they decided to mount a socket bayonet directly on the barrel self rather than making a longer spike bayonet that could be mounted in a similar fashion to the smle bayonet below the collar. Either was an issue with durability? It's also interesting to see how often rifles and weapon systems running the same issues of designers being too ambitious and adding additional features that were of little use or impaired the function of the weapon that only be deleted later. Think of the volley sites on the smle or magazine cut off. Granted, there was actual doctrine to use those, but point still stands.
I imagine that mounting the bayonet to the nosecap and stock would involve a heavier bayonet and / or a more complicated and expensive nosecap and stock, whereas the standard nosecap is a relatively cheap and simple assembly of stamped steel and the stock is already fairly complex in its bedding arrangement. It probably cost less overall to either leave two lugs on the barrel or add two lugs rather than come up with an SMLE arrangement.
thank you
I was at the REME museum at Lyneham the other day I think I saw what was a Lee Enfield converted to automatic fire by the South Africans, one of only four left. Should have paid more attention.
Perhaps the New Zealand designed and made ‘Charlton’? Stopgap answer to an anticipated Japanese invasion early ‘40s. Original ‘Steampunk” looking weapon.
Did a bit of Googling and think it was a Rieder. Also very steampunk looking.