If you could have a brand new Lee-Enfield, which would you chose?

No 4 Mk 1* Only for the better sighting system, in reality the No.1 MkIII wins because it has a "proper" blade bayonet with a handle and I've always thought the No.1 MKIII looked better. :p

No.1 MkIII
full.jpg

200.0092.4.jpg


No.4 MkI
full.jpg

no4mk2s.jpg


You can't say the No.1 MKIII doesnt look better. :p

Dimitri
 
Yep... the butt end swivels around and then fits like usual. I have one... nice but didn't seem to see much use before the #9 come out.
 
Here is how it works:

17.jpg


No. 7 Mk. I/L Bayonet

The No. 7 Mk. I/L (number seven, mark one, land service) was intended to address a number of desires: 1) Replace the No. 4 spike bayonet (that nobody liked); 2) Utilize the bowie blade of the No. 5 Mk. I Jungle Carbine bayonet (that everybody liked); and, 3) Serve a dual role as a fighting knife. The No. 7 Mk. I/L was a very innovative and complex design. The No. 7 Mk. I/L effectively integrated the No. 4 socket and a synthetic composition grip, with the blade & crosspiece of the No. 5 bayonet. As a result, the No. 7 Mk. I/L would mount to the No. 4 rifle, the Mk. V Sten machine carbine, and the Sterling L2 submachine gun.

176,000 No. 7 Mk. I/L bayonets were produced. The design was perfected by the Wilkinson Sword Co., who produced 1,000 bayonets in 1944. Mass production was carried out by four manufacturers from 1945-1948. The four makers and their production are as follows: Birmingham Small Arms, Ltd. - 25,000; Elkington & Co. Ltd., Birmingham - 20,000; Royal Ordinance Factory, Poole – 30,000; and Royal Ordinance Factory, Newport – 100,000. Examples are found with both reddish-brown and black grips.

The No. 7 Mk. I/L bayonet shown below was made by Elkington & Co. and is marked with their dispersal code “M78”. Elkington was a legendary producer of fine silver plate. Elkington & Co. invented the electroplating process in the 1830s.


When the pommel is stowed, the No. 7 Mk. I/L looks like a conventional knife bayonet. In this configuration, it would mount to the Sterling L2 SMG. In order to mount to the No. 4 rifle (shown) or Mark V Sten, the pommel rotated 180 degrees to become a socket.

Despite all of it's ingenuity, the No. 7 Mk. I/L came to illustrate the old adage that a camel is a horse, as designed by committee. After an errant fired bullet struck the crosspiece during testing, the Ministry of Defense became concerned that the No. 7 Mk. I/L bayonet flexed too much when mounted to the No. 4 rifle. They ultimately decided only to issue it with the Sten Machine Carbine and Sterling L2 Sub Machine Gun. However, a few No. 7 Mk. I/L's were issued to units with the No. 4 rifle for ceremonial use.
 
Despite all of it's ingenuity, the No. 7 Mk. I/L came to illustrate the old adage that a camel is a horse, as designed by committee. After an errant fired bullet struck the crosspiece during testing,
Click to expand...

Thats the first thought I had when seeing it attached on the rifle. :eek:

For now I'm still a No.1 MkIII fan seeing as the No.7 bayonet doesn't seem safe, and the No.9 has no handle. :)

Dimitri
 
well since I have several nice No4's and not many No1's rate as minty, I'de have to take a nice Minty No1 to add to my collection

Preferably an Nice 1918 NRF :)

edit

or a Lithgow heavy barrel
 
Last edited:
Which Enfield

I have most of them and I guess a No1 sniper or a Long Branch No4 Mk 1 (T) Sniper.
The No1 Sniper is probably one I haven't owned.
I finally found a minty No1 Long Lee-Enfield with bayonet, last year and I am happy.
 
Easy......an early (WW1 era) Lithgow No1 MkIII or ShtLE MkIII with the windage adjustable rear sight.
If it was just a new Lee I'd like a Remington Lee, dunno what cal.
And if just a 303 Enfield then a brand spankers factory converted MkIII Martini Enfield rifle with the adjustable front sight.
 
Tyler said:
Ummm.... Ok?

So what was Longbranch making?
Click to expand...

ALL Long Branch PRODUCTION snipers were built on the No4MkI* action. This of course means that they were No4MkI*T's.

The Brits BUILT only No4MkI (and some Savage No4MkI*) actions as snipers which results in No4MkIT's (and Savage No4MkI*T's).

Some (well used) No4MkIT's requiring FTR were rebuilt as No4Mk1/2(T)s though no production snipers were built as No4Mk2's. Laidler says that NO No4MkI*T's were upgraded to No4Mk1/3(T) status.

Having said that, both Laidler & Skennerton have been proven wrong before.

According to Skennerton, when the Brits were planning the L42 sniper, they considered building new No4Mk2 actions as snipers, but converted the existing No4MkI(T) and No4MkI*(T) rifles to L42 status as an economic solution. According to Laidler NO L42s are built on No4Mk1/2 or Mk2 actions.

This of course does not include the police "Enforcer" snipers which WERE built on No4Mk2 actions (rumour suggests that a few MAY have been converted from Mk1/2 actions)
 
No1Mk3 with Aldis telescope sight. Almost unobtanium since many sights were stripped off after WW1 and sold on the civillian market.
Either that or a Australian heavy barrel with telescopic sight.

OR a P14 sniper. Possibly even a Ross with the same set-up.

The MOD never figured out that they would have to do it all over again in 20 years. The "war to end all wars" wasn't;)
 
The No.4, I have two. One an all matching serial numbers made by the U.S. Savage Arms. It has all the furniture, and can hit the target everytime at 200 yrds without a scope.

You can't rule out the Enfield model P-14 in 303 or the one made for the U.S. Military in 30.06 model P-17. I have a P-17 , It's heavy but still drops them on target.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom