need taller front sight 303 Mark 4 Fixed
- Thread starter lone ranger
- Start date
I do believe however.....If you have a nice collectible Matching numbers Example it should be kept in its purest form & not Altered in any form. But when they are already shorted & hacked & non matching.......no harm done,..right.
Store bought sporters will never be collector grade.
Last edited:
Remember that the Army specified that Lee-Enfields be zeroed with the bayonet fixed. Rifles were zeroed @ 300 yds using the larger battle aperture which meant that bullets would strike 8.5 inches high @ 100 yds (all taken from "Shoot to Live"). That's a very realistic zero when engaging man- sized targets because it meant that the bullet would strike anywhere between the knees and head at practical ranges. Troops were, and still are, taught to aim at the center of mass.
Doesn't really matter what you appreciate, it's his property and he's entitled to do what he likes with it. It's a sporter No.4 and having it hit to POA and be functional and actually used by the owner is much more important than your concerns over originality.
thank you......thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Maybe I’m being naive or ignorant here but if you know it consistently hits 8.5” high at 100 yards then why not just hold over those inches? I kind of agree on not modifying the sight, some of those sights are now worth more than the sporter rifles themselves
50 years ago MILSURP rifles were cheap and abundant and it made sense to sporterise a No4 LE versus buying a Model 70 Winchester when we were making $250 a month. So people shouldn't be too rough on dad and grandpa for despoiling a MILSURP back then.
I sporterised all of a No5 LE, a M98 Mauser and a M1903 Springfield and have done a lot of hunting with them over the years. It would be foolish to do that nowadays given the cost of things.
Zeroing a hunting rifle (.30-06, .308, 7x57 etc) 2.5 inches high @ 100 yds lets you hold on a deers vital zone out to 350 yds and get a hit somwhere between the heart and spine.
I sporterised all of a No5 LE, a M98 Mauser and a M1903 Springfield and have done a lot of hunting with them over the years. It would be foolish to do that nowadays given the cost of things.
Zeroing a hunting rifle (.30-06, .308, 7x57 etc) 2.5 inches high @ 100 yds lets you hold on a deers vital zone out to 350 yds and get a hit somwhere between the heart and spine.
bdft
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I agree with you 100%. And, upon reflection, I think that this practice should be encouraged. It will make unmodified Lee Enfields more valuable.
- Location
- Blaster land, Okanagan BC
Try doing that when you have to take a quick shot at a deer between 25-100yds, I for one like it when my no.4 sporter puts a bullet where I’m aiming it at without having to worry about a holdover.
LOL...no doubt. You wouldnt know where to aim.
I like having a hand gun or a rifle that has a TRUE Point of aim. otherwise I'll just take out the Shotgun.
I have a hard enough time out in large open area trying to judge distance with no markers or land marks ,..adding to that...I might have to aim higher at a distance I'm not even sure of. Wow..that just complicates things even more. Yikes
I just want to add.....I think the 300 yard thing is totally foolish. They purposely zreo'd these rifles that way.......and expected you to hit a soldier at that distance.......ya right ! what the heck were they thinking. Tell ya what....set up a life size target of a person at 300 and see how effective you are...with IRON sites.
I really enjoy my jungle carbine. I'm spot on at 100 yards every time. No,.. I did not cut the bayonet lug off.
Last edited:
This is the difference between training and operation for a military rifle VS a civilian rifle - if you aim at an enemy's belt buckle or centre of mass as you are instructed at 100 yards you'll hit 8 inches high, still an effective hit. At 300, you're right on, and at 600 you are 8 inches low. This allows a functional single sight setting which allows for combat use at all practical ranges.
When we shoot our civilian sporting rifles we like to zero for the range that we use them at and hold right on target.
- Location
- WMU247 near Edmonton
you would be surprised what you can do with a little practice.
a few years back the range I was a member of had a 'pre-1950' sniper competition. Targets were 50m - 500m, I came in 3rd using a Martini Henry
even beat several of the scoped LB No4. Scopes are nice and most of my hunting guns have scopes.
as for modifying the sight, well I have a small stash of ladder sights and one or 2 spare Mk1 sights.
some of the ladder sights have had the battle sight broken off or filed down so I would not worry too much about modifying them. A good all original unspoiled ladder sight is getting expensive if you can find them, but it's your rifle.
I also have a small pile of different height front site blades that I salvaged from a box of cut off barrels that came from an estate auction. Old guy must of sporterized a lot of rifles in his day and kept all the metal bits.
some very good information posted on this thread. A lot of knowledgeable people.
we have kinda gone all over the place in this thread, LOL
A lot of different opinions too,..and thats good. We have 1 thing in common- WE all like our Enfields.
I just did the math....I got my first enfield when I was 15........holy crap...that was 46 years ago !!!! Dad bought it for me at the Army & Navy store for $8.00
we have kinda gone all over the place in this thread, LOL
A lot of different opinions too,..and thats good. We have 1 thing in common- WE all like our Enfields.
I just did the math....I got my first enfield when I was 15........holy crap...that was 46 years ago !!!! Dad bought it for me at the Army & Navy store for $8.00
Last edited:
- Location
- Western Manitoba
My uncle was in the Canadian Army in WWII. I recall him mentioning that the "long range" target shooting in training (400 yards? 600 yards??) was pretty straightforward for him - the silhouette shape that they shot at was exactly the same width, to him, as the front sight blade. He had learned to shoot in North Central Sask during the 1930's, so actually was a good shot when he joined the Army. Allowing for wind was the challenge.
The poster should be aware that some on this site have shot 1,000 yard targets at places like Bisley and Connaught, and have won, using aperture sights. That involves repeatedly hitting a 12" radius bullseye, at 800, 900 and 1,000 yards with 303 British cartridges, back in the day. Again, your windage call make or breaks your results.
I meant no Disrespect , believe me. I was unaware of this kind of specialized skill set using the Enfield. And WOW, 1,000 yards, that is Impressive to say the least.
That's not really the way individual shooting in combat works. It's not so much about hitting the target as it is about suppressing the target. If you actually hit them, that's nice, but really the purpose is to keep the enemy suppressed as the platoons / sections bound forward under covering fire until they're close enough to assault. The odds of even seeing an enemy exposed at 300 yards are infinitesimally small, much less them being exposed long enough to hit. Most all shooting at an actual visible enemy as opposed to an indicated target takes place at well under 100 yards. Rifles are really for personal defence. It's the section LMGs and the platoon and company weapons detachments with the GPMGs and mortars plus mainly the artillery that does the actual suppression and killing.
Believe it or not, they knew what they were doing back then, just as the Army knows what it's doing now. A 300 yard battle sight zero means your bullet will be close enough to hit or suppress out to that range, which is exactly the effect needed.
Last edited:
blasted_saber
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- A blue part of Ontario
THANK YOU for this comment
