Lee Enfield Barrel swap

G

gerard488

Regular
GunNutz
Rating - 100%
25   0   0
Probably a dumb question but here goes:
Does a No1 MkIII have the same barrel shank thread as a No4 Mk1?
For example, can I screw the barrel from a 1916 No1 into a Savage No4 receiver?

I have a new .223 rem barrel that has been rethreaded to fit a Lee Enfield action and a new locknut to go with it.
I have a Savage No4 Mk1*complete working rifle that is non matching, drilled for scope mounts, barrel and stock have already been cut.
I also have a 1942 Lithgow No1 non matching action and bolt without a barrel, magazine or safety.

My questions are,
*Which action would be the best one to use for a 223 conversion?
*Which action would be stronger/safer?
*Is the difference enough to justify dismantling a No 4 rifle that is usable as opposed to using a No1 action that is already dismantled and without a barrel?
I know that usually the cost makes it not worthwhile but so far I have only spent $60 and I already have the actions and stocks.
Thanks in advance for any answers.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, I have a No1 sporter barrel and I`m sill tossing around the idea of converting it to a 7.62x39. Just checking my options in case I decide to go ahead with it.
 
The threads are the same (14 TPI) but the barrels breech up differently. The smle on the barrel end, the No.4 on the reinforce shoulder.

The threads are timed off by 180 degrees (to prevent interchangeability) so extractor slot will be on wrong side.

Can be done with some machine work. Set back shoulder half a thread, face off the end of barrel. Ream the chamber.Some skills needed, but nothing a good hobbiest could not do with a decent lathe (I have done it twice, headspacing is trickey)
 
Last edited:
I have a new .223 rem barrel that has been rethreaded to fit a Lee Enfield action and a new locknut to go with it.
I have a Savage No4 Mk1*complete working rifle that is non matching, drilled for scope mounts, barrel and stock have already been cut.
I also have a 1942 Lithgow No1 non matching action and bolt without a barrel, magazine or safety.

My questions are,
*Which action would be the best one to use for a 223 conversion?
*Which action would be stronger/safer?
*Is the difference in the two actions enough to justify dismantling a No 4 rifle that is usable as opposed to using a No1 action that is already dismantled and without a barrel?
I know that usually the cost makes it not worthwhile but so far I have only spent $60 and I already have the actions and stocks.
Thanks in advance for any answers.
 
Last edited:
gerard488 said:
My questions are,
*Which action would be the best one to use for a 223 conversion?
You're going from a .303 to a .223. I would have no worries either way.
*Which action would be stronger/safer?
See above.
*Is the difference in the two actions enough to justify dismantling a No 4 rifle that is usable as opposed to using a No1 action that is already dismantled and without a barrel?
No. Keep the working one; they're great rifles.
Click to expand...

I must say, I've never seen such a thing been done. Report back when you've completed it, eh?
 
The No4 action is stronger. A friend of mine has built a number of heavy barrel .223 single shot gopher rifles with one piece stocks on No4 actions. They certainly do the job and look kind of bizzare with a truck axle sized barrel hanging off that comparatively flimsy receiver.

There are better ways of getting a .223 and better uses for a Lee-Enfield action, but it can be done. Incidentally he would only use a Long Branch or Savage rifle for this conversion claiming that they are stronger than the Brit made ones. The .223 Rem runs at pressures plus of 50,000 PSI as does the 7.62 NATO, many of which have been built on No4 actions, so the action is strong enough. The Indians built 7.62 rifles on MkIII actions, but my understanding is that these were newly made actions with better/stronger steel.
 
I have met a gentleman who was doing extensive and meticulous testing of .233 target rounds on an SMLE action. The flex of the receiver was "compensating" for vertical distribution, as the SMLE and No.4 have been known to do since before WWII. He was using the SMLE rather than the No.4 as he felt the No.4 receiver was too rigid for a smaller calibre such as .223. No question he knew exactly what he was doing!

The more parallel sided cases such as .223 create less pressure on the bolt face than a more tapered case obviously.
 
OP, as mentioned the barrel will time 180 degrees on the No4 action. This means you will have to cut a new extractor relief. This used to be a fairly common thing. Some people prefer the profile of the No1 barrel to the No4 and like the idea that they can hide the knox on the underside. The No1 barrels usually have a smoother outside finish and if you're building a sporter might be considered more presentable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom