Was there any real point to the Mk2 upgrade?

steelgray

steelgray

Regular
Rating - 100%
37   0   0
Location
Ottawa Valley - Ontario
If you look at how the trigger assembly mates with the main part of the action on a No4. is is clear that no amount of swelling of wood could change the relationship between the rear of the trigger guard and the lower extension of the socket. That connection is made metal-on-metal and their is a screw forcing the two parts together.

I can see a theoretically possibility that swelling of the stock around where the front of the trigger guard assembly is drawn upward by a long vertical screw could change the distances between receiver proper and the trigger assembly. However, the distances are such that any swelling of wood, proximate to this forward section of the trigger guard assembly, could only make the most insignificant change to how the sear engages its counterpart.

Was this just a classic case of solving a problem that doesn't exist?
 
Last edited:
Where did the OP come up with the ''swelling wood" theory??? That's a new one.

The King Screw has a pillar to keep everything tight at the front of the receiver and at the rear, the trigger guard has a screw that attaches it through a bracket, threaded on one side, to make sure the distances are not going to be a factor.

It likely all boils down to convenience of assembly and pricing. The No4 MkII stock is much easier to install but it's sides are held together at the rear end with a small diameter bolt that passes behind the trigger/sear assembly it fit into a nut on the far side.

Without the proper tools, that nut on the far side can turn when trying to remove the small bolt.

That being said, the rifles were built with the idea that armorers would be taking them down for inspection/cleaning/repair and their kits would have the proper tools.
 
bearhunter said:
Where did the OP come up with the ''swelling wood" theory??? That's a new one.

The King Screw has a pillar to keep everything tight at the front of the receiver and at the rear, the trigger guard has a screw that attaches it through a bracket, threaded on one side, to make sure the distances are not going to be a factor.

It likely all boils down to convenience of assembly and pricing. The No4 MkII stock is much easier to install but it's sides are held together at the rear end with a small diameter bolt that passes behind the trigger/sear assembly it fit into a nut on the far side.

Without the proper tools, that nut on the far side can turn when trying to remove the small bolt.

That being said, the rifles were built with the idea that armorers would be taking them down for inspection/cleaning/repair and their kits would have the proper tools.
Click to expand...

Where did the OP come up with this? Try Forgotten Weapons (CLICK ON LINK)

"The final standard pattern of the venerable Lee Enfield as a standard-issue service rifle was the No4 MkII, introduced after the end of World War Two. The new pattern was adopted to resolve problems that had come about because of wartime simplifications to the rifle. Specifically, the use of kiln-dried wood for stocks. On the original No4 design, the trigger was pinned to the trigger guard, which was in turn connected to the front handguard. The sear was pinned to the receiver. If the handguard swelled, shrank, or warped (which was much more likely on the quickly kiln-dried stocks used during the war, compared to the naturally dried pre-war wood), the trigger/sear interaction could be impacted.

To solve this, the receiver was changed slightly to include a boss for attaching the trigger. This kept both the trigger and sear pinned to the (metal) receiver, and stock shifting was not longer a problem. In addition, a change was also made to remove the boss originally intended for mounting the magazine cutoff lever, so that No4 rifles would be made using No5 receiver forgings (this change did not result in a new rifle designation).

Many existing rifles were refitted to the new standard, with upgraded MkI rifles becoming Mk I/2 and upgraded MkI* rifles becoming MkI/3."
 
Hi steelgray. One fault of the No.4 rifle was that if you drop the rifle (or at least come down on a hard surface) the trigger guard can be bent in and that screws up your trigger pull. A devil to fix in the field. Some soldiers would fall rifle first to avoid fire. The magazine protects the trigger guard for the most part though. When Long Branch started producing the stamped (lightened) trigger guard that made matters worse as that guard is easily bent and often broken at the corners. A rifle with a bent trigger guard makes accurate shooting near impossible with inconsistent trigger pressure which weakens the soldiers effectiveness. The Mk 2 trigger system ensures effectiveness of the mating of the trigger, sear, and cocking piece. In a similar problem if you drop any Enfield rifle on a full #### cocking piece that bends the soft firing pin and it too screws up your firing effectiveness if not prohibits rifle discharge. Come by my shack and I'll show you how to fix this in the field. I do not believe that in northern hemisphere climates wood swelling was ever an issue. JOHN (trained in old school)
 
After having repaired, worked on, hundreds of No4's, and bedded tons of new forends or re-bedded old ones, trust me on this one, the Mk II modification is a brilliant one.

With the Mk I (and the SMLE No1Mk3, for that matter), the minute you change any one parameter, all the other ones may need to be tweaked too. Change the forend, the trigger guard, your postal code, or the particular brand of coffee you're having that morning, and all hell breaks loose. I say Hip Hip Hurray for the Mk II! :)

Lou
 
louthepou said:
After having repaired, worked on, hundreds of No4's, and bedded tons of new forends or re-bedded old ones, trust me on this one, the Mk II modification is a brilliant one.

With the Mk I (and the SMLE No1Mk3, for that matter), the minute you change any one parameter, all the other ones may need to be tweaked too. Change the forend, the trigger guard, your postal code, or the particular brand of coffee you're having that morning, and all hell breaks loose. I say Hip Hip Hurray for the Mk II! :)

Lou
Click to expand...

Bang on Lou.
 
louthepou said:
After having repaired, worked on, hundreds of No4's, and bedded tons of new forends or re-bedded old ones, trust me on this one, the Mk II modification is a brilliant one.

With the Mk I (and the SMLE No1Mk3, for that matter), the minute you change any one parameter, all the other ones may need to be tweaked too. Change the forend, the trigger guard, your postal code, or the particular brand of coffee you're having that morning, and all hell breaks loose. I say Hip Hip Hurray for the Mk II! :)

Lou
Click to expand...

Dang it, Lou! That is why I never get to the top of the winners list at the Mil-surp shoots. I have to stop changing things in my life, including my underwear. If I can win in blown-out gotch, I'll do it!

But seriously ... the OP asks an important question that has to be answered in the context of wartime No.4 production. The Brits were experts at distributing production one workshop deep all around the country. If a Midlands village doorknob company had 4 skilled machinists and a spread of serviceable machinery, they might be recruited into making foreend bands or trigger guards. Enfield, BSA and Maltby didn't make guns as much as assemble them with parts delivered from all over. The tolerances had to be generous so rejection rates would be tolerable. Ever wonder why there are interchangeable bolt heads? It is because the designers couldn't ensure barrels, breeching shims, bolts and receivers would headspace well enough together just on hope and prayer. The hung trigger was an imperative change that needed an engineering change to address a previously identified design failing. Just because it worked in 1938 when the Trials No.4s passed acceptances, didn't mean it was actually perfected.
 
You would have been incorrect, if you thought that. No. 4 Mk 1 made by the various British Makers - the No. 4 Mk.1* variant was made only by Canada Long Branch and USA Savage during WWII - was never any made in Britain. The overhauls were in 1950's(?) in Britain to create the Mk 1/2 and Mk 1/3 - when the Mk 2 were also newly made.
 
Potashminer said:
You would have been incorrect, if you thought that. No. 4 Mk 1 made by the various British Makers - the No. 4 Mk.1* variant was made only by Canada Long Branch and USA Savage during WWII - was never any made in Britain. The overhauls were in 1950's(?) in Britain to create the Mk 1/2 and Mk 1/3 - when the Mk 2 were also newly made.
Click to expand...

I learned something new today. ;) I have a No4 Mk2 so I'm not buying another one.

Whats the deal w No1 Mk3* rifles? Are they an upgrade or just made outside of UK?
 
I think was old days British military way of making or designating patterns - so would make a blue print - was to be "Final" - no changes - was "sealed" - might be called a "No. 1 rifle" or something. Then a change found to be necessary, but that system did not allow alterations of a "sealed" blue print - so a minor change resulted in a "star" added to a name and a "major" change resulted in a "Mark" version - resulting in "new" blueprint that was also "sealed" that incorporated whatever change as a rifle with a "new name" - so a No. 1 Mark 3 * started as a sealed No. 1 blueprint, then went through Mark 1, Mark 2 and Mark 3 major changes, then went through a "*" minor change - since the original blueprint. If alteration was big enough, ended up with entirely new name for the rifle - like from No. 4 to No. 5.

As I understand that system, rifles were always made to a blue print - but in some cases, that rifle might then be "upgraded" to incorporate changes made in a later blue print. Was a british military supply thing, I think - so there was specific parts list for No. 1 Mk3* - they wanted all spare parts to be "drop in" with no individual fitting required - to be "good enough for government work" - apparently did not always get that - see various write ups about Pattern 14 (P14 or No. 3 rifle).

I am not sure of the year, but sometime in the 1920's (?) British Army came up with the numbers for the rifles - I think the No. 1 was originally the SMLE (Short, Magazine, Lee Enfield) - the No. 2 was a .22 Long Rifle training version of that first one, the No. 3 had been the Pattern 14 (P14) from WWI. Later in that series was No. 4 (just before or at start of WWII) and then No. 5 during WWII. Their next one, I think, was "L1A1" so another naming scheme appears to have been implemented, but I could be corrected about that. Somewhere in there was FN-FAL, but I do not know who's name that was.

Also, I am not real certain when or where the designation stamps changed from Roman numerals to Arabic numbers - so, for example, can see Mk III or Mk 3 on some guns - is a clue to their age (?) or where they were made (?), but I do not know when that change was made.
 
Last edited:
steelgray said:
Where did the OP come up with this? Try Forgotten Weapons (CLICK ON LINK)

"The final standard pattern of the venerable Lee Enfield as a standard-issue service rifle was the No4 MkII, introduced after the end of World War Two. The new pattern was adopted to resolve problems that had come about because of wartime simplifications to the rifle. Specifically, the use of kiln-dried wood for stocks. On the original No4 design, the trigger was pinned to the trigger guard, which was in turn connected to the front handguard. The sear was pinned to the receiver. If the handguard swelled, shrank, or warped (which was much more likely on the quickly kiln-dried stocks used during the war, compared to the naturally dried pre-war wood), the trigger/sear interaction could be impacted.

To solve this, the receiver was changed slightly to include a boss for attaching the trigger. This kept both the trigger and sear pinned to the (metal) receiver, and stock shifting was not longer a problem. In addition, a change was also made to remove the boss originally intended for mounting the magazine cutoff lever, so that No4 rifles would be made using No5 receiver forgings (this change did not result in a new rifle designation).

Many existing rifles were refitted to the new standard, with upgraded MkI rifles becoming Mk I/2 and upgraded MkI* rifles becoming MkI/3."
Click to expand...

Forgotten weapons doesn't always get it right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom