So, I'm fixing up my enfield..

TransAm1991

TransAm1991

Regular
Rating - 96.6%
28   1   0
Location
Windsor, Ontario
Yes, I know, it's missing the bayonet lug... This is going to be a hunting/target rifle for me..
When asking if it was worth picking up a "bubba'd" Enfield, everyone said it's better to buy one and have it all original, well, my total investment on fixing this one to look like it would have is actually alot lower than it would be buying one from a surplus box before shipping. Plus I get the entertainment of working on it.
It's a '42? Lee Enfield, sporterized in 1956 in England, fired, mechanically sound, everything works like it should. It has the neat ladder sight from a MK II, and the barrel is almost like new.
(Question, the barrel seems to be thicker than a normal enfield, was this something changed after, or was it something they came with?)
I ordered a new stock set, with the bands for under $100, so my total investment is under $300.
Start.
Just cleaned it up after firing through 3 rounds, action is smooth and really throws the empty casings a long way.
Enfield1.jpg

Enfield2.jpg
 
The barrel looks normal to me, from those camera angles. The barrels were machined in the last couple of inches, leaving the bayonet lugs (on the portion cut off of yours) and the accommodating the foresight mounting area. I have one with the barrel cut just like yours.
 
TheTooner said:
The barrel looks normal to me, from those camera angles. The barrels were machined in the last couple of inches, leaving the bayonet lugs (on the portion cut off of yours) and the accommodating the foresight mounting area. I have one with the barrel cut just like yours.
Click to expand...

When I bought it it was in a picture with another lee and the barrel looked comparably thicker
 
Was the other one you saw pictured with it also a No.4? A sportered No.1 Mk.III might show a slimmer barrel. (Unsportered, they'd have a full stock to the muzzle and you wouldn't be able to see the barrels on either type except for the part cut off your No.4.)

To me, from here, at those angles, it looks like a normal one. The only heavier barrels for No.4s that I know of weren't machined at the muzzle end for the standard No.4 sight that appears to be on yours. (I'm referring to post-WWII conversions to 7.62mm L42 sniper rifles for the Army and Enfield Envoy police marksman rifles, both of which would have heavier profile barrels than yours and other modifications which would be obvious and too valuable to convert back to a sporter like yours and mine.)
 
Last edited:
sights

transam1991 said:
do you know how to use that ladder sight? I can't quite figure out with the numbers correspond to.
Click to expand...

CLUE - Think in hundreds of yards using a Mark VII round.

Also, you have a Number 4 rifle. If you are comparing this rifle's barrel with a SMLE (No.1 rifle) barrel, than it is a lot heavier.

.
 
When the ladder sight is folded down you have the fixed range peephole sticking up. This is the battle sight. It would be zeroed for out to 300 yards and was used for any close quarters and quick engagements and, if there was enough light to use the sights at all, night firing. For longer ranges and any instance that there was time for more deliberate aiming, the ladder sight was brought up and set to yardage given in a fire control order or estimated by the firer.

Yours appears to be what we commonly call the "stamped" type as opposed to the "milled" type. On yours you squeeze the sides to relieve spring pressure and slide it up/down to line up the top edge of the sliding part with one of the numbered marks on either side. Those numbers correspond to hundreds of yards. Odd numbers one side, even the other, so they could be big enough to see. At that point the smaller peep is then set to the correct elevation for that range.
 
TheTooner said:
When the ladder sight is folded down you have the fixed range peephole sticking up. This is the battle sight. It would be zeroed for out to 300 yards and was used for any close quarters and quick engagements and, if there was enough light to use the sights at all, night firing. For longer ranges and any instance that there was time for more deliberate aiming, the ladder sight was brought up and set to yardage given in a fire control order or estimated by the firer.

Yours appears to be what we commonly call the "stamped" type as opposed to the "milled" type. On yours you squeeze the sides to relieve spring pressure and slide it up/down to line up the top edge of the sliding part with one of the numbered marks on either side. Those numbers correspond to hundreds of yards. Odd numbers one side, even the other, so they could be big enough to see. At that point the smaller peep is then set to the correct elevation for that range.
Click to expand...
Makes sense, I was checking it out, it's amazing the technology that's in a 70+ year old rifle! The 10 round detachable mag still has me baffled..
 
JP Lee was a very smart guy - that's still the fastest bolt gun made. Also, while folks may want a 'better' rifle than that little sporter, it's fair to say that there's nothing in North America that you couldn't effectively hunt with it, in any weather and over any terrain. The only downfall to the Lee Enfield and the 303 cartridge is that no matter what you've set out to hunt, someone has already killed it with a 303 Lee Enfield.
 
Enjoy, is this your first LE? Just so you know, you will need more room in the gun safe cause most people can't stop at 1. Their kind of like crack for Canadian gun owners.

By the way that mag design is about 110 years old. Goes back to the lee-metford I think.
 
macadoodle said:
Enjoy, is this your first LE? Just so you know, you will need more room in the gun safe cause most people can't stop at 1. Their kind of like crack for Canadian gun owners.

By the way that mag design is about 110 years old. Goes back to the lee-metford I think.
Click to expand...

First LE, I also have an addiction to lever action rifles... Pretty soon I'll have to invest in a new safe.
 
You young guys..... the heyday of rifle design occurred in the early 1900's. Detachable mags were on the LE from that time frame. Look at the straight pull Ross - try to get that technology in a current rifle and you're required to spend thousands of dollars on a Blaser.
Rifles havent necessarily gotten any better in recent years, but they sure have become cheaper to manufacture. Whats the current price for a walnut stocked rifle, with iron sights, blued barrel and a detachable mag?
 
cosmic said:
You young guys..... the heyday of rifle design occurred in the early 1900's. Detachable mags were on the LE from that time frame. Look at the straight pull Ross - try to get that technology in a current rifle and you're required to spend thousands of dollars on a Blaser.
Rifles havent necessarily gotten any better in recent years, but they sure have become cheaper to manufacture. Whats the current price for a walnut stocked rifle, with iron sights, blued barrel and a detachable mag?
Click to expand...
A catalog I received in the mail the other day had a remington 700 on sale for 529.00 I'm not sure if it was Walnut, but it looked like some kind of wood..
But what's the fun in that? My Lee would be much more fitting with me in the bush!
 
TransAm1991 said:
A catalog I received in the mail the other day had a remington 700 on sale for 529.00 I'm not sure if it was Walnut, but it looked like some kind of wood..
But what's the fun in that? My Lee would be much more fitting with me in the bush!
Click to expand...

here's a test - take a new factory hunting rifle and scope, unload it and roll it down a hill (a good one) repeat 5 times, do the same with a Lee, then take aim and fire on a 100 yard target, as if the rifle had never been dropped. Which rifle is better?
 
Well - That Remington likely didnt have iron sights or a detachable mag. To get those features, look at 750$ plus.... Perhaps you missed my point, I think LE's are tremendous - I hunt with one, along with a P-14, and a Ross. Every once and a while I shame myself and take out my Tikka 695, or my Remington 700 Classic, or my Ruger M77.
 
just so ya know folks; the detachable mag wasn't supposed to be detached in usual usage; the rifle would have been reloaded using a couple of 5 round stripper clips.

As in, our boys back in WW2 wouldn't have usually been trucking around multiple mags, a la M4/M16.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom