No1 MkIII Vs #4 Mk1 (Lee-Enfield)

W

wogpotter

New member
Sorry this is not a mark/model caliber war, just a thought.:rolleyes:

I fired & carried a sweet Lithgow #1 Mk III today, to all those who say the SMELLIE is better than the #4 Mk 1 (or 2) I understand now, its not for me as I can't find the front sight , but I do understand the whole balance thing.:D
 
I have had a variety of Lee Enfield rifles, to include a nice Lithgow MKIII I should have kept. I agree, the MKIII variant has superior handling qualities by far. The MK IV has some admirable attributes, but it handles like a plank compared to the older rifle.

My sole Lee Enfield right now is a 1917 MK III* manufactured at the Enfield armory. A perfect bore, and it is a keeper.
 
I have numerous No4's, but no Mk3s. Just never liked the look of the SMLE, or Bulldog as we used to call it in South Africa.
 
The No. 4 is the better rifle, but I have to admit that when I think "British military rifle" the old Mk III is what comes to mind.

Jim
 
I own a NO4 and my brother has a sportered 4. I have played with a few NO1 MKIIIs in the stores but to me they just seem like a bulkier design that is more front heavy. I'm not knocking the design and if I could find a decent one at a decent price I would grab it in a heart beat but I do believe that the NO4 replaced the NO1 with good reason.
 
I have 2 no5's, 2 No1's and 17 No4's.

The balance and rear mounted aperture sight make the No4's makes it a superior rifle. The No1's have much more history behind them, two world wars and untold conflicts.
 
Don't misunderstand me I'm not parting with my #4 Mk2, & I don't find the aesthetics of the #1 as pleasing either, but it really does handle better, I don't know why there is so little difference in many ways.
Obligatory & gratuitous #4 pic::cool:
DSCF6171.jpg
 
Obligatory,"Wow, that is a sweet Mk 1V, Wogpotter!" I too own a Lithgow Mk111 and a Savage Mk1V. I much prefer the Savage handling qualities. The Mk111 seems to be muzzle heavy and the sights aren't as good as the Mk1V, IMHO:)
 
I need to get a MK IV to round things out. Sooner or later a nice one will show itself and come home with me.
 
that is a great looking MK4, I kindof wish I had one but for some reason my LGS is extra prowd of theirs and are asking $1400(yes you read that correctly) for it.
 
No. 4 rifles were deemed suitable for conversion to 7.62 NATO due to their increased strength. This was not the case with the No. Mk IIIs.
 
No. 4 rifles were deemed suitable for conversion to 7.62 NATO due to their increased strength. This was not the case with the No. Mk IIIs.
Click to expand...

Both No4's and No1's have been manufactured in 7.62 for military and police issue.
 
I don't think the No4 is a better rifle ... served my countrymen through two World Wars, The Malayan Emergency and Korean Wars. The No4 was a simplification in manufacture of the No1 rifle, which was far more complex and difficult to make by comparison. Apart from a heavier profiled barrel on the No4, the stock and rear sights, the two rifles are essentially the same animal beneath the waterline. I prefer the balance of the No1 rifle to the No4 personally.
 
Both No4's and No1's have been manufactured in 7.62 for military and police issue.
Click to expand...

I'm not including the Ishapore 2A and 2A1s in that group. The Indian guns had newly manufactured receivers that used a very high grade steel which were capable of withstanding the pressure of the 7.62 NATO.

Tests with original British and Australian made No. 1 actions resulted in the development of excess headspace within a very few rounds.

The No. 4 rifles were able to withstand a simple conversion to 7.62 NATO as is without the manufacture of new receivers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top