Best Enfield ?

[meles meles]

At the risk of chuckin' a brick into a hornet's nest, what do you consider to be the best Enfield rifle, and why ?

We happen to be rather partial to our P14, though we admit that reverting to a 5 round magazine baffles us. Some say the no. 4 is better than the SMLE due to the sights and trigger being improved, though we think them inferior to those on our Long Lee. Maybe you think the Envoy or Enforcer are the pinnacle of development, to which we will raise you the AIA rifles... Two groove barrels or 5 groove? Justify your assertions, oomans...

[FredB]

P53. accurate, fun to shoot, makes a big hole.
Fred

[WelshShooter]

The best Lee enfield is the one that you own! I've only ever shot my No4 Mk1 and a SMLE .22lr trainer and I enjoyed both of them.

Realistically, the No4 or No1 MKIII more practical if you need spares etc.

[GeeRam]

The best Lee enfield is the one that you own!

Can't argue with that

[Alpha1]

The best Lee enfield is the one that you own!

Can't argue with that

Exactly the best Lee Enfield is the one in your cabinet. The rest of them are irrelevant they are just some thing you read about.

[GeeRam]

The best Lee enfield is the one that you own!

Can't argue with that

Exactly the best Lee Enfield is the one in your cabinet.

I've got two in the cabinet and couldn't decide between the two of them anyway.....

[ukrifleman]

I have 3 Enfield's, a No1 Mk111* Lithgow, No.4 Mk.1/2 and a No.4 Mk1 in standard military spec converted to 7.62x51.

I also have a model of 1917 Remington in 30-06, which has a 6 round capacity thanks to the rimless cartridge

From a military point of view, the No.4 has to be the winner, due to its 10 round mag capacity and a longer sight radius.

Personally, my Lithgow No.1 Mk.111* is the winner, due to its smooth action and handling characteristics.

Plus, it somehow feels more solid and dependable.

ukrifleman

[Laurie]

Over a period of many years, I owned a commercial BSA CLLE built for target shooting - a real Bisley rich b*gg*r's special with the optional Nickel special steel barrel and 'heart of walnut' timber with the fold-down double-zero match rearsight as well as the service sights. This was a commercial copy of the WW1 era 'Territorial Rifle' which in its service guise was a modified and upgraded LLE with a charger bridge welded on, new sights and small foresight protecting ears and issued to TA battalions to save on the cost of new-build SMLEs. As the Bisley Brigade of SR shooters mostly hated the SMLE after its adoption, BSA made civilian copies of the TA model in a high grade finish for the target shooting market. (I had no idea what this rifle was, and nor did anyone else in the old Vintage Arms Association branch I was a member of, until I bought a modern facsimile copy of a pre-WW1 BSA catalogue - long after I sold the rifle.)

Then I had a:

1943 dated Ishapore No.1 Mk III*
an Eddystone P'14
a No.4 whose provenance I can't remember now ...
... while not an Enfield but in the 303 mould, a really superb Ross Mk III

all at different times, none overlapping.

The one I liked least as you can tell by how little I remember about it it was the No.4. Just never took to it! Clunky action compared to the SMLE.

For range accuracy, the Ross and P'14 were clear winners. In terms of looks, finish and the investment potential that I would have got if I'd had the foresight to keep it, the BSA long Lee - but it was shot out with many cordite rounds down it, and I never liked the heavy single-stage trigger. The Ross came into this investment category too - in beautiful original condition with superbly figured walnut timber and nicely blued, not at all like the dull finished, unexciting timber and parkerised metalwork of the refurbished examples that later appeared. As a potential investment, I really should have kept it - even had a bayonet which I still have somewhere, also collectible I believe. ... and it shot really well too. Not a great service rifle - as the Director of Smallarms at Woolwich Arsenal said of the Ross models - target rifles masquerading as service models.

In terms of general fun and pleasure on the range, the SMLE which cost me all of £75 in the mid 80s was the clear winner. The fun to shoot factor was despite it being made in some form of wood presumably local to the Indian region it comes from that was so steeped in oil, that the stuff would ooze out all over the woodwork as the rifle got hot - which doesn't take too many rounds in an SMLE - making it difficult to hold especially on a hot day. The rifle was little used, maybe unused, and shot very well - more nicely made and finished than later Ishapore SMLEs too - none of yer ugly square foresight ears here. It wasn't as accurate as the Ross and P'14, but accurate enough. It must have had a tight bore too by 303 service rifle standards as I shot a lot of cheap Israeli 7.62 bullets down it which although undersize would still shoot groups around 5-inches at 100 yards.

It's down to what fits and suits you - everybody has a different view for these things that are as much affected by cultural / historical issues as range performance. I fell in love with the SMLE at age 10 seeing the scene in Lawrence of Arabia with Omar Sharif as Prince Faisal ride towards Lawrence for their first meeting, his image gradually becoming clearer as he comes out of the desert mirage and clutching an SMLE. (Which he shoots Lawrence's Arab tribesman guide with IIRC!) I want one of them I thought, and I eventually did get one. In the interregnum my school ACF company had 99 No.4s and one SMLE which I always took on exercises, but the b*st*rds wouldn't let me shoot it on range days. So you could say I was fated to be an SMLE owner at some stage - in my list of 100 things to do before I die!

[shotgun sam]

This thread is very interesting as tomorrow I pick up my certificate that is in for a variation to get another 303.
At the moment I have a 1917 SMLE which I enjoy shooting but the next one is going to be from the second world war. I like the sights on the SMLE and have mixed views on the MK 4 sights what are other peoples views on the two types of sights?

[WelshShooter]

This thread is very interesting as tomorrow I pick up my certificate that is in for a variation to get another 303.
At the moment I have a 1917 SMLE which I enjoy shooting but the next one is going to be from the second world war. I like the sights on the SMLE and have mixed views on the MK 4 sights what are other peoples views on the two types of sights?

The No4 MkI/II use an aperture for the rear sight, of which there are two versions that you will see on most No4's in circulation.
1. The MkI rear sight is an aperture sight which can be adjusted for elevation using a micrometer, which is very precise. There is also a second aperture battle sight zeroed for 300 yards.
2. The MkIII rear sight is an aperture sight which can be adjusted using a simple retaining catch which locks the sight on a certain elevation. There is also a second aperture battle sight zeroed for 300 yards.

On the other hand, the SMLE uses a typical blade sight with rear U notch sight. So the main difference between the two is whether you are comfortable using an aperture sight versus a U notch sight. Even though I enjoy shooting my Lee Enfield I do find the rear aperture sight a bit more difficult to use. I typically shoot this at Fig11 targets on Sennybridge and at the longer distances I find that the sight obstructs the target making it difficult to see (especially in dark, rainy conditions which is the norm!). When using rifles with standard U/V notch rear sights, such as on Mauser k98's etc., I don't find this is much of a problem.

Source of information:
https://www.milsurps.com/enfield.php?pg=ti14.htm