Enfield Rifles

Wich one would you buy ?

N°4 Mk I




or N°1 Mk III?

 

No 1 Mark III for me.

 

I'd like to use it in ex service gun shooting.

Italian Army used 91, Mannlicher M95, US M1903 and P17 and both Enfield's.

91 is a good rifle but has very bad sights, expecially 91/38.
Mannlicher are very old guns and nobody makes their original cartridges 8x50r.
Both US guns are very expensive (€ 1.300,00-1.500,00)
Enfields are instead very cheap (€ 400 to 600) and have far less recoil than 30/06.

 

If the ex service gun shooting means competition target shooting at bullseye targets, the receiver sights on the No 4 will probably do you better than the open sights on the No 1 Mk III.

 

No. 1 Mk III, of course.

 

Yup, me too.

 

Treat yourself and get both - it's Christmas!

 

Exactly what I was thinking.

 

I wouldn't buy either of the rifles illustrated, especially for shooting. Various reasons - No.4 looks like the stock has been 'pickled' to clean it up which may leave it liable to split and the metalwork probably acid dipped. The No. 1 looks like an ex Indian stock and is probably either shot out or a bag of bits - it is typically missing the stock extensions by the sight and has a replacement cocking piece...

Without the pedantry, I would be happy with either, both steeped in history.

 

Thanks you!

 

Just to explain my choice, though this may be old stuff to L-E junkies.

Firstly, I am aware that thanks to its sights the No.4 had somewhat better long-range accuracy and was easier to make than the No. 1. That said...

1. The No. 1 (SMLE) was around longer, lasting in production from c. 1902 to at least 1945 (Australian factories) and even later if you count the Ishapore 7.62mm.
2. If I had a choice of bayonets, I'd go with the Pattern 1907 for the SMLE. George Macdonald Fraser said there was no real difference in effectiveness for bayonet fighting between the Pattern 1907 and the No. 4 spike, but the former was also a useful tool and the latter really wasn't.
3. Finally, the SMLE is one of those weapons (Vickers, Bren, Webley Mk VI) that just shouts "British Empire in its Prime." I know the No. 4 may have been marginally better as a combat weapon and considerably better as a manufacturing proposition, but the history makes the difference for me.

 

Thank you for help.

 

And '03 Pattern Bandolier Equipment!

 

My three SMLEs:


The No. 1 Mk III is a Lithgow that someone stripped of most the extras and then sanded with a palm sander. A sin. But, it was only $70 and it is a fine shooter. I find the No. 1 a bit more shootable than my pair of No. 4 Mk II rifles. They are a Maltby and a Fazakerley. The Maltby has the stamped sight and the Fazakerly has the milled sight. Yes, I know the sling is incorrect on the Fazakerley. It is a Thompson sub-machine gun sling. However, it was on a crappy sporterized/butchered BSA No. 1 that I gave to my best friend. I thought the sling was the coolest part of the BSA sporter, so I kept it. He likes the BSA because it looks like Crocodile Dundee's rifle. Ha!

 

Good catch!

Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea was a great TV show but they did something pretty unforgivable. They butchered a bunch of rare No. 5 Jungle Carbines to make various ray guns. I noticed different versions over the years but they were always No 5s. They took the stocks off and attached all kinds of weird handles and gas canisters to them. They were painted either gold or silver, depending on what type of ray gun they wanted for the episode. Brings a tear to the eye. I can only find one still at the moment

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057798/

 

Nice trio!

 

I still want to scream when I see how that godawful Star Wars chopped Mauser C96s into 'blasters.' God, how I hate George Lucas.

 

We should be thankful the Germans didn't think of it first. The war would have been over by 43!

 

I thought he did a Sterling job...