Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What is the difference between the Lee Enfield No1 and the No4?
I am considering buying one of these just I would like to know which one is the better buy.

The number four is three digits more than the number one. Hope that clears that up for you.

whatwhat wrote:The number four is three digits more than the number one. Hope that clears that up for you.

"Some real help."

Oh a Lee Enfield Number One now is it? Well you should have said.

Google Images, you're welcome.

The actual operation of the weapons is no different from the SMLE no.1 MK1 to the SMLE MK.5. It has one of the best actions in bolt action weaponry, however, if you load the stripper clips wrong, the rifle WILL jam. I've got one of each.

Which do you suggest. And by the way all bolt action rifles of today are compared to the mauser 98, not the Lee Enfield. The main problem with the enfield bolt is that is has only 1 locking lug.

Peter Paul and his brother Wilhelm came up with the first Bolt-Action rifle to use metallic cartridges, the M1871. Not the first Bolt Action. That would be the Dreyse Needle Gun in 1824, and it wasn't adopted by Prussian Army until 1841.

As for the SMLE, are you looking for cheap? The most a No.1 MK III should cost is about $500 (and that's one that hasn't been re-arsenaled or screwed with, which the British did in massive propensity thanks to large cuts in their military budget after WWI). No.4 MK I's are everywhere and very cheap. Those should only be at the most $300 for one's in excellent condition. Lot's of No.4 rifles were made post war and are considerably cheaper.

Deff Jaw wrote:Which do you suggest. And by the way all bolt action rifles of today are compared to the mauser 98, not the Lee Enfield. The main problem with the enfield bolt is that is has only 1 locking lug.

Dude, you trying to give ANYONE weapon advise is like going out and haveing a blind man pick out what you are going to wear that day and expecting a good result. And yes, the rifle does have one of the best actions out there. I own two and hunt on a regular basis with one of them and love how smooth they are. As for which is better, they are pretty much the same with only slight differences. So find which one looks best in your eyes and buy that one.

Oh and By the way... The Ma Duce is still ahead in the MG thread in case you are wondering.

jp400 wrote:

Deff Jaw wrote:Which do you suggest. And by the way all bolt action rifles of today are compared to the mauser 98, not the Lee Enfield. The main problem with the enfield bolt is that is has only 1 locking lug.

Dude, you trying to give ANYONE weapon advise is like going out and haveing a blind man pick out what you are going to wear that day and expecting a good result. And yes, the rifle does have one of the best actions out there. I own two and hunt on a regular basis with one of them and love how smooth they are. As for which is better, they are pretty much the same with only slight differences. So find which one looks best in your eyes and buy that one.

Oh and By the way... The Ma Duce is still ahead in the MG thread in case you are wondering.

Well, it would be helpful to denote the differences between the two (aka not much). I think the changes are very minor between these versions less than the WWI Mauser vs. the Masuer Karbine. I would suggest going to some dedicated historical fire arm boards for more detail.

Once you get one you are of course under obligation to youtube your first Mad Minute!

jp400 wrote:

Deff Jaw wrote:Which do you suggest. And by the way all bolt action rifles of today are compared to the mauser 98, not the Lee Enfield. The main problem with the enfield bolt is that is has only 1 locking lug.

Dude, you trying to give ANYONE weapon advise is like going out and haveing a blind man pick out what you are going to wear that day and expecting a good result. And yes, the rifle does have one of the best actions out there. I own two and hunt on a regular basis with one of them and love how smooth they are. As for which is better, they are pretty much the same with only slight differences. So find which one looks best in your eyes and buy that one.

Oh and By the way... The Ma Duce is still ahead in the MG thread in case you are wondering.

I dont care for the mg thread. The MG 42 was designed to take out infintry. The germans knew from WW1 that the average infintry man was only exposed for 5 to 7 seconds. So they design it to get as many rounds off as possible. The M2HB was designed to take out tanks (from the WW1 era). John Moses Browning was first using a 51 caliber french round that wouldn't work. Then he use the 13mm T-gewehr round (of course changing it to 12.7x99mm) and the M2HB work like a charm.

Anyway know since you talk about things that I general don't care about anymore and you say I have bad advise.


Yes, I agree that the Enfield has a smooth bolt, but it is only for the cock on closing design. It is not because it has 1 locking lugg. All bolt actions of today are compared to the mauser 98 for a reason. The mauser 98's bolt action is a cock on opening design which is a good. Also with the Enfield to take the bolt apart you need a bolt disassembly tool and a screw driver. The mauser 98 you need the hole in the stock and that is it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormrider wrote:Peter Paul and his brother Wilhelm came up with the first Bolt-Action rifle to use metallic cartridges, the M1871. Not the first Bolt Action. That would be the Dreyse Needle Gun in 1824, and it wasn't adopted by Prussian Army until 1841.

As for the SMLE, are you looking for cheap? The most a No.1 MK III should cost is about $500 (and that's one that hasn't been re-arsenaled or screwed with, which the British did in massive propensity thanks to large cuts in their military budget after WWI). No.4 MK I's are everywhere and very cheap. Those should only be at the most $300 for one's in excellent condition. Lot's of No.4 rifles were made post war and are considerably cheaper.

Atleast we have people who have thier heads screwed on correctly. As for jp400 I wonder.

Thanks Stormrider. I read that the No1 mk3 is a U rear sight and a inverted V front sight. Isn't the No4 an aperture.

What do you want it for exactly? That'll pretty much sinch up the decision.

Shooting targets, but my decision has been made. A SMLE mk3 is what I want because the no4 mk1 looks like a piece of trash to me.

Deff Jaw wrote:Shooting targets, but my decision has been made. A SMLE mk3 is what I want because the no4 mk1 looks like a piece of trash to me.

Without looking it up on the internet, can you even tell me which one is which?

I'm willing to be that you can't, because the two rifles are damn near the same in every way. And performance wise, they are the same with both rifles producing groups about the same on identical targets.

So I can't help but wonder why you think one "looks like a piece of trash" but apparently love the other? Granted, buy the one that you like best, but I am curious to the thought process here.

In my eyes, thats like saying "I hate those blue ford four door cars, but love those blue chevy four door cars." Any way you look at it, it's still a four door blue car.

My 2 cents.

jp400 wrote:

Deff Jaw wrote:Shooting targets, but my decision has been made. A SMLE mk3 is what I want because the no4 mk1 looks like a piece of trash to me.

Without looking it up on the internet, can you even tell me which one is which?

I'm willing to be that you can't, because the two rifles are damn near the same in every way. And performance wise, they are the same with both rifles producing groups about the same on identical targets.

So I can't help but wonder why you think one "looks like a piece of trash" but apparently love the other? Granted, buy the one that you like best, but I am curious to the thought process here.

In my eyes, thats like saying "I hate those blue ford four door cars, but love those blue chevy four door cars." Any way you look at it, it's still a four door blue car.

My 2 cents.

But you're missing the cup!

I thought the Mk 4 was the jungle carbine version.

@ KK:
Not so I am afraid. It was the nickname for the No. 5 Mk 1, not 4.

Top one is No. 4 Mk I

Bottom one is No.1 Mk III.

BTW, the wire-wrapped ones are highly sought after. Nice one you have there.

I have a No.1 MkIII. Love the action on the rifle. It is really smooth.

Why would you want to take apart the bolt anyway? It's not like the bolt gets really dirty. I have taken both the bolt from my K98k and No.1 MkIII apart. All I see in there is cosmoline which does not keep it from operating.

The No4 MkI is a fine rifle, calling it "trash" is IMO very misinformed. It was probably one of the best bolt action rifles to serve for an extended period of time. Durable, fairly lightweight (for its size), accurate, reliable and balanced. There's a reason the British still used it a sniper up to the Falklands.

The only rifles from WWII I would hold in low regard would be the Mosin family (91/30, M38, M44) and the M1891 Carcano, neither design is overly flawed, but both rifles are what I would consider schizophrenic, the 6.5 and 7.35 Carcano rounds are pretty dumpy when compared to other nation's contemporary rounds. And the Mosin, although durable, is very un-ergonomic and not the most accurate rifle I have ever owned. In the end though, they're serviceable.

Stormrider wrote:The No4 MkI is a fine rifle, calling it "trash" is IMO very misinformed. It was probably one of the best bolt action rifles to serve for an extended period of time. Durable, fairly lightweight (for its size), accurate, reliable and balanced. There's a reason the British still used it a sniper up to the Falklands.

The only rifles from WWII I would hold in low regard would be the Mosin family (91/30, M38, M44) and the M1891 Carcano, neither design is overly flawed, but both rifles are what I would consider schizophrenic, the 6.5 and 7.35 Carcano rounds are pretty dumpy when compared to other nation's contemporary rounds. And the Mosin, although durable, is very un-ergonomic and not the most accurate rifle I have ever owned. In the end though, they're serviceable.

What do you were when firing the mosin, because as i'm sure you know it was meant to be used by those wearing very heavy and very thick coats. When fired wearing just a t-shirt the stock feels a bit to short, and if hurts like a mother without the coat to take the recoil. Also i've never had an accuracy issue with them unless you're comparing it to a modern sniper rifle of course

Really?

I can out shoot any mosin with any of my rifles from my collection... most of which are far from a "Modern sniper rifle"... save for the Rem 700.

My Mosin M39 is extremely accurate...

jp400 wrote:Really?

I can out shoot any mosin with any of my rifles from my collection... most of which are far from a "Modern sniper rifle"... save for the Rem 700.

Maybe it got bent out of shape when the Russian who owned 60 years ago bashed a krauts head in

youbedead wrote:

Stormrider wrote:The No4 MkI is a fine rifle, calling it "trash" is IMO very misinformed. It was probably one of the best bolt action rifles to serve for an extended period of time. Durable, fairly lightweight (for its size), accurate, reliable and balanced. There's a reason the British still used it a sniper up to the Falklands.

The only rifles from WWII I would hold in low regard would be the Mosin family (91/30, M38, M44) and the M1891 Carcano, neither design is overly flawed, but both rifles are what I would consider schizophrenic, the 6.5 and 7.35 Carcano rounds are pretty dumpy when compared to other nation's contemporary rounds. And the Mosin, although durable, is very un-ergonomic and not the most accurate rifle I have ever owned. In the end though, they're serviceable.

What do you were when firing the mosin, because as i'm sure you know it was meant to be used by those wearing very heavy and very thick coats. When fired wearing just a t-shirt the stock feels a bit to short, and if hurts like a mother without the coat to take the recoil. Also i've never had an accuracy issue with them unless you're comparing it to a modern sniper rifle of course

I have shot it with heavy coat and just a t-shirt (didn't feel great, but I have definitely felt worse). It's a 1942 Isveshk manufactured one that was imported in the late 90's. Right now I am looking for a non-imported M91/30. I have a 6'3" wingspan, so I need long stocks, that probably didn't help my accuracy.

Ergonomics for the Russians have never been priority one anyway. The AK has the same issues with tiny rifle funriture, a lousy sight system and a very crude trigger mechanism. Yes it's reliable, but that's only good when your average soldier comprises of a (Congolese Rebel, VC member, Taliban/AQ member etc...) mlitia man who can barely read, let alone understand the concepts of regular rifle maintenance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

inquisitor_bob wrote:My Mosin M39 is extremely accurate...

Just ask the Russians in the Winter War of 1939

Stormrider wrote:

youbedead wrote:

Stormrider wrote:The No4 MkI is a fine rifle, calling it "trash" is IMO very misinformed. It was probably one of the best bolt action rifles to serve for an extended period of time. Durable, fairly lightweight (for its size), accurate, reliable and balanced. There's a reason the British still used it a sniper up to the Falklands.

The only rifles from WWII I would hold in low regard would be the Mosin family (91/30, M38, M44) and the M1891 Carcano, neither design is overly flawed, but both rifles are what I would consider schizophrenic, the 6.5 and 7.35 Carcano rounds are pretty dumpy when compared to other nation's contemporary rounds. And the Mosin, although durable, is very un-ergonomic and not the most accurate rifle I have ever owned. In the end though, they're serviceable.

What do you were when firing the mosin, because as i'm sure you know it was meant to be used by those wearing very heavy and very thick coats. When fired wearing just a t-shirt the stock feels a bit to short, and if hurts like a mother without the coat to take the recoil. Also i've never had an accuracy issue with them unless you're comparing it to a modern sniper rifle of course

I have shot it with heavy coat and just a t-shirt (didn't feel great, but I have definitely felt worse). It's a 1942 Isveshk manufactured one that was imported in the late 90's. Right now I am looking for a non-imported M91/30. I have a 6'3" wingspan, so I need long stocks, that probably didn't help my accuracy.

Ergonomics for the Russians have never been priority one anyway. The AK has the same issues with tiny rifle funriture, a lousy sight system and a very crude trigger mechanism. Yes it's reliable, but that's only good when your average soldier comprises of a (Congolese Rebel, VC member, Taliban/AQ member etc...) mlitia man who can barely read, let alone understand the concepts of regular rifle maintenance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

inquisitor_bob wrote:My Mosin M39 is extremely accurate...

Just ask the Russians in the Winter War of 1939

ahh, that explains it. The Russians do seem to have a habit of building weapons that are meant for midgets, hell one of the old requirements for the Russian tank corp was that you had to be under 5'6".

It's a 1942 Isveshk manufactured one that was imported in the late 90's.

my point that it got bent out of shape when used as a hammer still stands

Stormrider wrote:The No4 MkI is a fine rifle, calling it "trash" is IMO very misinformed. It was probably one of the best bolt action rifles to serve for an extended period of time. Durable, fairly lightweight (for its size), accurate, reliable and balanced. There's a reason the British still used it a sniper up to the Falklands.

The only rifles from WWII I would hold in low regard would be the Mosin family (91/30, M38, M44) and the M1891 Carcano, neither design is overly flawed, but both rifles are what I would consider schizophrenic, the 6.5 and 7.35 Carcano rounds are pretty dumpy when compared to other nation's contemporary rounds. And the Mosin, although durable, is very un-ergonomic and not the most accurate rifle I have ever owned. In the end though, they're serviceable.

The reason why I said it LOOKED like trash. The look of the SMLE Mk3 is much better IMO. Though how is Mosin Nagant 91/30 not very accurate an old Marine Corp veteran bought one and has put 10 rounds of the original russian ammo onto a target at 100 meters with less that 1 1/2" group. Most military bolt actions are very accurate todays commercial grade bolt action rifles are not as nice as the old military bolt actions.

Deff Jaw wrote: Most military bolt actions are very accurate todays commercial grade bolt action rifles are not as nice as the old military bolt actions.

Oh?

I own/have used several "modern" bolt action rifles and they function just as nice if not better then the older mil spec bolt actions. Technology has changed just a little bit over the last 60-100 years, and for the better I might add. Rifles today are made from materials that are just as strong yet lighter as their predecessors, and are at least just as accurate if not more.

Deff Jaw wrote:

Stormrider wrote:The No4 MkI is a fine rifle, calling it "trash" is IMO very misinformed. It was probably one of the best bolt action rifles to serve for an extended period of time. Durable, fairly lightweight (for its size), accurate, reliable and balanced. There's a reason the British still used it a sniper up to the Falklands.

The only rifles from WWII I would hold in low regard would be the Mosin family (91/30, M38, M44) and the M1891 Carcano, neither design is overly flawed, but both rifles are what I would consider schizophrenic, the 6.5 and 7.35 Carcano rounds are pretty dumpy when compared to other nation's contemporary rounds. And the Mosin, although durable, is very un-ergonomic and not the most accurate rifle I have ever owned. In the end though, they're serviceable.

The reason why I said it LOOKED like trash. The look of the SMLE Mk3 is much better IMO. Though how is Mosin Nagant 91/30 not very accurate an old Marine Corp veteran bought one and has put 10 rounds of the original russian ammo onto a target at 100 meters with less that 1 1/2" group. Most military bolt actions are very accurate todays commercial grade bolt action rifles are not as nice as the old military bolt actions.

Great. 100yds. I was shooting at 300yds, and while it wasn't clipping the ground or anything, but it was wild compared to my Garand or No1 MkIII. Hell, my Arisaka out shot it. It's a fine conscripts weaon, but not much more that that.

Your last sentence is embolism worthy, the Mosin bolt is a horrible design compared to anything remotely modern. It's designed to take abuse, that'a about it. It's not smooth, it's not quiet, it's not even that reliable. And since 99% of the Mosins in the US are importers, none of the bolts match. So it's a pig in a poke.

Stormrider wrote:

Deff Jaw wrote:

Stormrider wrote:The No4 MkI is a fine rifle, calling it "trash" is IMO very misinformed. It was probably one of the best bolt action rifles to serve for an extended period of time. Durable, fairly lightweight (for its size), accurate, reliable and balanced. There's a reason the British still used it a sniper up to the Falklands.

The only rifles from WWII I would hold in low regard would be the Mosin family (91/30, M38, M44) and the M1891 Carcano, neither design is overly flawed, but both rifles are what I would consider schizophrenic, the 6.5 and 7.35 Carcano rounds are pretty dumpy when compared to other nation's contemporary rounds. And the Mosin, although durable, is very un-ergonomic and not the most accurate rifle I have ever owned. In the end though, they're serviceable.

The reason why I said it LOOKED like trash. The look of the SMLE Mk3 is much better IMO. Though how is Mosin Nagant 91/30 not very accurate an old Marine Corp veteran bought one and has put 10 rounds of the original russian ammo onto a target at 100 meters with less that 1 1/2" group. Most military bolt actions are very accurate todays commercial grade bolt action rifles are not as nice as the old military bolt actions.

Great. 100yds. I was shooting at 300yds, and while it wasn't clipping the ground or anything, but it was wild compared to my Garand or No1 MkIII. Hell, my Arisaka out shot it. It's a fine conscripts weaon, but not much more that that.

Your last sentence is embolism worthy, the Mosin bolt is a horrible design compared to anything remotely modern. It's designed to take abuse, that'a about it. It's not smooth, it's not quiet, it's not even that reliable. And since 99% of the Mosins in the US are importers, none of the bolts match. So it's a pig in a poke.

Pig in a poke.... now there is a phrase I have not heard in YEARS! (yet it fits here oh so well)

Also Deff, 1 1/2 Moa groups (If they can be called that with that spread) at 100 yards is horrible for a bolt action. For reference, my Rem 700 chambered in 223 can shoot what is called a "Dime" at that range. Which means that I can drop 3 rounds so close together that I can cover the shot group with a dime.

Ah then Arisaka rifle. How does that shoot? One of the few rifles from that timeframe that I have not shot...... yet.

jp400 wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

Deff Jaw wrote:

Stormrider wrote:The No4 MkI is a fine rifle, calling it "trash" is IMO very misinformed. It was probably one of the best bolt action rifles to serve for an extended period of time. Durable, fairly lightweight (for its size), accurate, reliable and balanced. There's a reason the British still used it a sniper up to the Falklands.

The only rifles from WWII I would hold in low regard would be the Mosin family (91/30, M38, M44) and the M1891 Carcano, neither design is overly flawed, but both rifles are what I would consider schizophrenic, the 6.5 and 7.35 Carcano rounds are pretty dumpy when compared to other nation's contemporary rounds. And the Mosin, although durable, is very un-ergonomic and not the most accurate rifle I have ever owned. In the end though, they're serviceable.

The reason why I said it LOOKED like trash. The look of the SMLE Mk3 is much better IMO. Though how is Mosin Nagant 91/30 not very accurate an old Marine Corp veteran bought one and has put 10 rounds of the original russian ammo onto a target at 100 meters with less that 1 1/2" group. Most military bolt actions are very accurate todays commercial grade bolt action rifles are not as nice as the old military bolt actions.

Great. 100yds. I was shooting at 300yds, and while it wasn't clipping the ground or anything, but it was wild compared to my Garand or No1 MkIII. Hell, my Arisaka out shot it. It's a fine conscripts weaon, but not much more that that.

Your last sentence is embolism worthy, the Mosin bolt is a horrible design compared to anything remotely modern. It's designed to take abuse, that'a about it. It's not smooth, it's not quiet, it's not even that reliable. And since 99% of the Mosins in the US are importers, none of the bolts match. So it's a pig in a poke.

Pig in a poke.... now there is a phrase I have not heard in YEARS! (yet it fits here oh so well)

Also Deff, 1 1/2 Moa groups (If they can be called that with that spread) at 100 yards is horrible for a bolt action. For reference, my Rem 700 chambered in 223 can shoot what is called a "Dime" at that range. Which means that I can drop 3 rounds so close together that I can cover the shot group with a dime.

Ah then Arisaka rifle. How does that shoot? One of the few rifles from that timeframe that I have not shot...... yet.

The Arisaka really is a pretty smooth shooter, the recoil is very manageable the bolt design is very robust, but also pretty smooth. It's not an overly heavy rifle either.

It sounds like your Remington 700 is a varmit's worst nightmare. I would like to get one of those in .308.

Varmit no, but I can attone for a half dozen Coyote's that won't argue against how accurate it is.

I really want to get one in 30-06, but that is another pipe dream for another year I think.