Enfield Sporters for a first hunting rifle?

Would you recommend a Lee Enfield sporter as a first rifle on a budget?

  • YES - the average Enfield sporter would make a good first rifle.

    Votes: 91 82.0%

  • NO - they are better off with a modern entry-level bolt action

    Votes: 18 16.2%

  • NO - other (please explain)

    Votes: 2 1.8%
  • Total voters
    111
I know of many .303's that have been first guns.
I see no problem with it. If you can pick up a .303 brit, sporterized, under $200, I say go for it.

Nebies for the most part aren't rloaders, so that arguement goes out the window. If by chance they are reloaders, then the Enfields nor the Stevens cheapos should be the gun they are looking for (keep saving)

Another nice thing about the LE, is that while inexspensive, it does have some history to it, you can feel a bit of pride when shooting it, and usually guys will ask about em when they see you with one, and I think those things are important to new hunters as well.
 
Id reccomend they buy a Stevens 200 in 308.

Most new hunters are pretty young, they may not have that nostalgia feeling that others do for a SMLE.

Give them somethign that shoots well, out of th ebox, for a reasonable price, and is "new" and they will probably stay interested.
 
Gatehouse said:
Id reccomend they buy a Stevens 200 in 308.

Most new hunters are pretty young, they may not have that nostalgia feeling that others do for a SMLE.

Give them somethign that shoots well, out of th ebox, for a reasonable price, and is "new" and they will probably stay interested.
Click to expand...


I have not seen a Steven in 308 in months. Im 21 i have a Lee Enfield no4 mk2. I am also ordering a no4 mk1 spoterized with mount as we speak for hunting. The price is right, i like how they shoot, accurate and they have history.

Its an Enfield need i say more.
 
Once upon a time the answer was an unequivocal "Yes, a sportered Enfield is a great choice for a beginning hunter on a budget." Only a few years ago I picked up one in the full wood for $200 and it has served me well. The cheapest new rifle on the market then was a NEF Handi-Rifle, which was nearly $400 before Savage resurrected the Stevens brand with the 200 model.

But now there are several good new guns at prices that are affordable for almost anyone who can afford to start hunting at all (Stevens 200, Mossberg ATR100, NEF Handi-Rifles, Traditions muzzleloaders.) A good serviceable Enfield is still a fine choice, if you can find one.

You're right, manbearpig, they are getting hard to find and the prices have crept up to the point where most beginners might as well be choosing those new rifles.
 
I've recommended the Stevens 200 to a couple of new shooters. Both ended up with 7mm-08 and are aboslutely pleased with them. To new shooters, I'd recommend that over a LE. Being that Savage "forgot" to renew the export permit, I'm sure they're going to disappear off the shelf fast, so one should act quickly.
 
Swede M1938 6.5x55mm $225 for the whole setup.

SWEDISHM193865x55.jpg
 
Shot my first caribou with a sported No.4.
My first car was a VW beetle. Drove it 60,000 odd thousand miles.
Turned down a PH sported No. 4 this week for $75. Didn't need it, a friend did.
There are rifles that are easier to shoot well than a sported .303. That reason alone might make something else better for a novice. For someone with a limited budget, and some experience, its pretty hard to beat a .303. Or for someone who wants an effective, practical rifle, as far as that goes.
 
Any novice shooter I have taken out has had a hard time hitting with enfields. Heavy creepy triggers, bad stock design, high scopes. To bad as I have 2 of them I bought for loners, inluding a PH that is extreamly accurate.

Give them a Remington 700 with a 3-4 pound trigger and a low mounted scope and supprize they are hitting way better. The same problem applies to win 94's especaly with open sights. I have never seen any novice able to hit out to 100 yards with one.
 
I'd recommend an Enfield sporter if the new hunter found one in good shape , that shot well, cheap. The first CF rifle I ever owned was a BSA sporterized SMLE I picked up in the late seventies for sixty bucks, two boxes of ammo included. That particular rifle was an atrociously inaccurate arm, but I know from experience that Enfields are generally pretty accurate. They are also a good, safe, dependable bolt rifle. The recoil is tolerable, and I'd be quite happy to hunt deer, moose, elk or blackies with the .303 British cartridge. A new hunter who finds one for less than $175 or $200, especially if it has a scope mount included, could do a lot worse.
 
The time has long since passed that ANY military surplus rifle was a reasonable choice as a first rifle. It's too bad in a way. A whole industry was built up on the sporterization of Enfields, Springfields, and Mausers. They did a wonderful job of providing an inexpensive alternative to the factory-ready rifle. Plainly, this is no longer the case.
My first big game rifle was a #4 Lee Enfield sporter. My Dad bought it for me because he felt it was the best rifle in Barrottos used rack at the time. I still have that rifle although it is now a 30/40 krag. Noetheless, today, there are too many more appropriate choices for the new shooter. Regards, Bill.
 
The only thing wrong with 303 sporters is their varying condition. Many people think that they are indestructable or will shoot any off the shelf ammunition well. As most of us on this board know, that just aint so.
When these sporters are checked out properly and shoot acceptably, they make very good first hunting rifles. When they give minimum 4-6inch groups at 100 yds/m they are marginal hunting rifles and should only be used within their accuracy limitations. The same can be said about any rifles.
Hunting requires an unspoken ethic from us. That is the ability to hit where you aim. Only practice and perseverence at different ranges and from different aiming positions will get us there. If the rifle is a problem at longer ranges, many 303 rifles are long range challenged (100+yds/m) and the newbie hasn't figured this out, there is a very good chance of a wounded animal getting away and maybe turning a decent hunter away from the sport.
Another problem with 303 sporters is their weight, especially for small hunters. Because of the weight factor, the powerful round emits a lot of recoil and because the rifles aren't normally fitted with an ergonomically correct stock, the recoil may be even more punishing, not to mention uncomfortable to shoulder and align the sights.
A commercial sporter can be had far easier in more moderate calibres and are more likely to be proper fitting in a similar price range.
If the above problems are incosequential or fixed, the 303 surplus sporter will make a fine first rifle. bearhunter
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom