No.4 Mk1 What did they do to this thing?

CPitre

CPitre

Member
Rating - 100%
77   0   1
Location
Eastern Alberta
I have what I would call a "heavily sporterized" .303. The charger bridge and rear sight assembly are completely gone and I don't have another No. 4 to compare with it to figure out what's been done. Is this rifle permanently FUBAR or can the rear end of the receiver be fixed. I'm trying figure out where the bridge etc would have attached and how. I want to fix this poor thing as I would like to get a scope on it but all the mounts I found require attachment to parts I don't have. I had it out for a few shots at 450yds today and it seems to be capable of great accuracy except for the aftermarket barrel mounted sights. I'd like to get the most out of this rifle I can. Help!

bridge.png

leftside_zps3d93c38a.png

enfield_zps89bbe6d9.png
 
Last edited:
The rear and of the Body (receiver) has been MILLED OFF from your rifle and then the Body contoured to become a permanent Sporter.

I'm afaid there is nothing practica which can be done to restore this one.

OTOH, you have a dandy Moose rifle which likely will NEVER break down nd packs the wallop of the original .30-'06, which was no slouch.

There are scope mounts available which attach to the left side of the action but hold the scope over the barrel for easier sighting. They are not terribly expensive, for the most part.

Somebody here will be able to point you toward one, I am sure.

Looks like a nice rile.

Can you post a couple more pics?
 
Never say "No" to restoration. I replaced receivers if the remainder of the components are in good salvagable condition.

The receiver is beyond "economical" restoration as the charger bridge and rear sigth ears have been removed as well as some reprofiling. You can buy a receiver around a $100.00. Marstar have a number of them for sale or you can advertise on "EE".

What manufacturer is the rifle?

Ron
 
Well - Those type of modifications were done by the likes of Parker Hale. If it is a PH, its a legitimate sporter, and worth more than something that is molested even more. You can get a side mount, made by PH, or have one made up for cheaps out of angle iron - Gairlochian used to make them here...
 
looks like its been ground down to fit a low profile scope. When they sold for a dime a a dozen, people were trying to make money with "new and Improved" versions. I'm sure it can drop a moose with no problem, yet not so desirable for the average collector.
 
Added additional photos to my original post above for you guys. Thanks for the input. I figured this was a permanent cut off job. The photo of the left side is up but the only attachment point for a scope mount is that one screw. Oh and if you're wondering, that black blemish on the left side is someone covering up an engraving they removed, that kind of pisses me off. Also it should be noted the barrel has been shortened, that I don't mind as I travel some nasty woods and the full length barrel would just get caught in everything. Changing the receiver seems like a good idea. I'll look into it.
 
As a Sporter, she doesn't look too bad. (neatly done, looks professional and not a "hacksaw and a sixpack" job). Make a good truck gun, for sure!
 
Well - The Lee Enfield was never designed to accept a scope. Any of the receiver based mounts will put the scope extremely high above the bore. To boot, the infamous Weaver T-01 (uses 22 rings) is generally under engineered. So your going to spend a lot of coin, more than the rifle is worth, to get a so-so mount
Alternatively, the side mount arrgt will put the scope tight to the receiver and is robust. It requires a D+T into the side of the receiver - not particularly expensive. Maybe someone will have mercy on you and offer up a Parker Hale side mount and rings...
 
Thanks guys. Actually the fact that the job was so cleanly done was the reason I couldn't figure out what I was looking at. I wasn't sure at first if the bridge/rear sight ass. was a bolt on part or cast as part of the receiver. Thanks for clearing that up and for the ideas. I'm going to weigh out all my options and go from there.
 
smellie, you didn't look close enough at the pics. It looks like the receiver has the side bedding pins, behind the ways.

Whoever did that job and it looks to be commercial like PH or Globe, did it well. That someone went to the lengths taken to bed it for competition is another thing. That was either done by someone in the know about such things or it was a special order rifle.

OP, don't mess with it. If you must add a scope to it, do it with good taste. That isn't a run of the mill bubba.

I had one just like it. The work was done offshore by PH and the finish was polished to a high lustre. It had the tell tale bedding pins as well. The rifle, shot extremely well. The real problem with it was my aging eyes. Even with corrective lenses, I can't focus both sights sufficiently on a target, let alone take a chance of wounding an animal with it. I sold it about a month ago to a young fellow that actually knew what he was looking at. I gave him a good deal. That rifle should be capable of minute of angle, with the right ammo and a good shooter behind the trigger. Treat her gently, keep corrosive ammo as far away as possible from her and learn how to shoot that dual stage trigger. Keep it clean. Scrub out the copper fouling with Wipe Out at the end of each hunting season and foul it again just before the next season.

That rifle will do whatever is asked of it. Just remember to keep things in perspective.

That rifle is similar in power to a 308 Winchester. If you're going to quibble about 50-100fps velocity differences, any game animal you take with it will never know the difference, unless you tell it there is some. Not that it will really care though.
 
I think I have one like it, and it "even" has a similar V-type barrel-mounted rear-sight added to it, ahead of the chamber.


However, with my rifle (bought it like that, really ! ;) ) , there is that two-piece scope mount (the one with the 2 large screw-knobs) mounted on it now, alongside one of those orginal 2-7X ART Redfield scopes.


I've no complaints :wave: , because that No.4 barrel is a solid improvement over that of (most) any SMLE sporter I've handled......:evil:
 
Last edited:
The consensus seems to be let 'er be. I won't fuss with it right now anyhow, the season is almost over and I have the winter to figure things out. I'll take another trip to the range and see if a bit of practice might make me like those sights a little more.
 
.
Personally. I would leave it as it is and use it for a hunting rifle. It has been tastefully modified to a sporter, with the barrel shortened, just the thing for those Ontario Cedar swamps or brush. Economically, it would cost you more to restore this to original shape than you could buy an original Number 4 rifle for. You need a receiver, barrel, wood, bands, sights and such.

What you have is a well made Sporting rifle. As far as the open sights go, all it takes is a bit of practice and you should be able to have a rifle capable of hunting accuracy out to 200 yards. I think too many people today rely on scopes on hunting rifles, and usually more magnification than they really need, and they tend to forget just how effective a set of open sights really is. And anyone who does not think open sights are useful, I would like to point out that SMELLIE, myself, and a whole lot of other people here in Canada regularly shot at ranges up to 1000 yards with open sights, using the Lee Enfield and SMLE rifles.
.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom