Restore or leave as is... Lee No4mk2
- Thread starter Megaclocker
- Start date
They are out of stock. No ETA.
I just used mine. Steamed out the dents and used a LB buttplate on it instead of the chipped brass buttplate.
I think the rifle turned out pretty good.
They are out of stock. No ETA.
I just used mine. Steamed out the dents and used a LB buttplate on it instead of the chipped brass buttplate.
I think the rifle turned out pretty good.
Looks great..!, did you rub the stock with several coats of linseed oil
Steamed some of the major dents. Cleaned the oïl/dirt on the stock and rubbed some linseed on it.
Hopefully it shoots !
- Location
- WMU247 near Edmonton
But your wrong. That style of trigger guard was in use before the no5 it is common on late production no4 rifles.
Umm. Ok I can't help myself anymore.
1) it's not a long branch anymore. It's a Fazakerley No4mk1/3 built using a recycled LB receiver. These are actually uncommon and collectible in their own right. I'm cringing at everyone telling the op to restore it to a ww2 LB. please don't OP.
2) it is not supposed to have a Zamac buttplate on it. It is supposed to be a British post-war brass plate.
3) it is supposed to have a Suncorite 209 finish. That is correct.
4) the "waisted" trigger guard is correct for this rifle. Leave it be.
The op did a ice job cleaning a rare 1/3 variant. He should re-install a brass plate and call it done.
Please do not plant lb parts all over it. Except for the receiver and the odd part, it should haves mix of Faz and possibly BSA parts obit to be correct.
There. The purist in me feels better.
I actually installed a LB blued buttplate (steel).
Will try to located a brass british one. The other one was trashed up pretty bad.
I have never seen such a beat to death butt and butt plate. The rifle must have been used for square bashing for years and years.
Tough call whether to replace those...it's true that there are fewer and fewer original rifles and original has a value of its own for those that appreciate it in a rifle of this kind.
It's not original in the 1942 sense; after the British converted it to Mk1/3, lined out the Long Branch, and pencilled those new markings on etc. etc., but it is original to 1953. That's now 62 years ago.
Maybe the best investment of money and time is to leave it alone and find a rifle that is already in the kind of condition you prefer?
Tough call whether to replace those...it's true that there are fewer and fewer original rifles and original has a value of its own for those that appreciate it in a rifle of this kind.
It's not original in the 1942 sense; after the British converted it to Mk1/3, lined out the Long Branch, and pencilled those new markings on etc. etc., but it is original to 1953. That's now 62 years ago.
Maybe the best investment of money and time is to leave it alone and find a rifle that is already in the kind of condition you prefer?
- Location
- WMU247 near Edmonton
some of the 'experts' don't really know that much.
I suspect that I have forgoten more then some 'experts' know.
thanks Claven, your completely correct.
Claven stop being a party pooper ! its just another Enfield .
