Tell me about Lee endfields K, i want one but dont know shit

Get one. Now get out.

>>33252017
any variations to stay away from, things to look out for? good price range?

>>33252001
Roughly equal to the Carcano.
https://youtu.be/P-stGi5PlV8
https://youtu.be/hl51NVkt6Sg

Not quite as good as the Carcano.

>>33252001

you can't adjust the sights on the mk3 so you'd better pray that they zeroed it properly 75 years ago

>>33252001
They're better than the carcano desu.

>10 round capacity
>sword/tent stake bayonet depending on model
>rimmed cartridge for good extraction

And you can actually find .303 British

>>33252034

great guns all of them. roll with the mark 4 since the sights are generally easier to use.

>>33252034
Jungle Carbines are harsh. They're interesting, but don't go down that route unless you really like Enfields. They, along with some of the police models, are probably the only ones I would routinely avoid.

The only reason I wouldn't buy an SMLE is if I liked handloading to extremely high pressures. They won't blow on you but they will fail if you push them high. It's nowhere near what Mauser fanboys claim, but it's not as strong of an action as the Mauser.

Aside from that it's a fine rifle and production remained at an excellent quality, the accuracy requirements for a standard SMLE to meet a minimum were harsher than the K98s selected for conversion to sniper weapons. Ammunition is not cheap but it's not expensive if you're employed, really. .303 will deal with most things you are likely to encounter.

>>33252001
In every way objectively shit when compared to the Mauser and the Mauser is beyond garbage next to the Garand

>cock on close meme
>SINGLE REAR LOCKING LUG
>rimmed round
>full wood stock
>over built and heavy
>bayonet is useless
>designed by brits, so shit on the technical level

Do yourself a favour, get a Mauser and then when you feel like upgrading from being a bolt action baby get a Garand, the best standard issue rifle there ever was.

>>33252412
I'm sat with Richard Law's book on the Mauser rifles and he has the following to say:

>For sniper conversion - At 100M, 3 of 5 shots in a rectangle measuring 80 x 140 mm, all five within a circle of 120 mm. Assuming that this is all shots edge-to-edge, this is exactly 4 minutes of angle.

5 round groups at 100m with special "Anschussmunition".
a) 3 of 5 shots within a fixed 80x140mm box, touching is in (this is to check the sights are close enough).
b) 5 of 5 shots touching a movable 120mm circle (i.e. just over 4.5 MOA centre-to-centre).

>If the rifle fails a), the front sight can be adjusted up to 0.2mm laterally. If it fails b), it is allowed to cool off and gets another go. If it fails the 2nd attempt, it goes back for rework. 60 percent of rifles had to go back for rework.

This is contrasted with the SMLE, which had to acquire:

>SMLE and No. 4: 3.5 minutes of angle ( four out of five shots within a 1 x 1.5 inch rectangle at 100 feet, assuming outside edge-to-outside edge)

Not only was the SMLE required to meet a higher minimum standard for any service than the K98 was for sniper conversion, it was fundamentally better built across the board. The action was not as strong, but that's about it. The Mauser is a worse rifle in every other metric. Minimum standards, adaptability, capacity, balance, sight picture etc etc.

I recommend the books, by the way, if you can actually read.

>>33252412

0/10

you're not even trying anymore

>>33252001
>rear locking
>single locking lug
>cock on close
>rimmed cartridge
>unnecessarily heavy
>shit for sights
The Lee magazine was an important development and both the Long and Short rifles served well, but so would any other repeater.

Frankly, I'd put it below even the Mosin Nagant, and that's basically a smokeless Berdan II knockoff.

>>33252567
>>33252412
Same poster

>>33252497
Does the book cite sources for these claims? I find it hard to believe that the country most known for fielding snipers in ww1 had such loose requirements for a dedicated sniping rifle.

>>33252001
Ignore the Mauser fanboys, the Lee Enfields are fine for rifles actually designed for war. Mausers are nice civilian rifles and easier to feed if you aren't Canadian or British.

>>33252412
>>33252567
This is either poor trolling or legitimate retardation.

File: 01d33b91c55fd01f9f18ac7921bf7db1.jpg (710KB, 1400x933px) Image search: [Google]

710KB, 1400x933px

>>33252412
>Do yourself a favour, get a Mauser and then when you feel like upgrading from being a bolt action baby get a Garand, the best standard issue rifle there ever was.


been there done that

>>33252898
>designed for war

ahahahahaha

No they were an upgrade of a VERY early repeater rifle that was inherently inaccurate.

So after the Boer War they gave them a big overhaul. Then another.

It's basically trying to tighten down the screws on something that wants to shake apart. Yeah, eventually the design was functional but it took a LOT of steps and still has some core problems.

Look at the P13 and No.4 series. Both try to address the worst parts of the SMLE:

accuracy, sighting, receiver strength

File: No1Mk3.jpg (1MB, 2853x1873px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2853x1873px

>>33252001
great guns. the SMLE is one of the best looking rifles ever made, and the No4 is one of, if not the best bolt action service rifle ever made.

>fast smooth action
>10 round mags (that are also detachable)
>reliable
>accurate
>sexy

They have been steadily increasing in price but I still see them for $250-375

Just make sure you get British made ones, or the GRI marked Ishapores....the RFI Ishapores are solid rifles, but no where near the quality of the ones made by the brits.

File: G43 Scope.jpg (844KB, 3264x1263px) Image search: [Google]

844KB, 3264x1263px

>>33252630
>he doesnt know about the G43

literally 95% of them have scope rails and were made by slave labor. no two have the same dimensions. trust me, the germans did have some pretty loose standards to field those numbers.

>>33252630
I havent read that book but its likely he was comparing the K98k to the SMLE and not the Gew 98.

I think the Gew 98 would have better numbers.

>>33252001
Indian patterns tend to be cheap

>>33252001
>303 british
... Can I interest you in some ddr2 ram for sale?

>>33252070
i dont have 100 minutes for this shit, why does c&r think the enfield is no better than a carcano

>>33253568
It's 7mm/30cal-ish bullet going 2000+ fast coming out of a 5 (winkyface) round boltgun.
They are basically the same.

>>33253568
They suffer from a lot of problems that mostly get ironed out, but never quite all the way. The Carcano by contrast, got it right the first time and other than a small, temporary change in caliber, was essentially unchanged in 50 years.

A lot of it ultimately comes down to Britain not being a land power. They had large colonial holdings, yes, but they never viewed their land forces with the same priorities as their navy. And this manifests itself both in the adoption process and the final result.

>>33252211
Horseshit!

>>33252001
>wants one
>doesn't know about them
find a critical thinking board first

File: 1471702638814.jpg (185KB, 800x713px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 800x713px

How difficult is it to find parts for them?
I cant find one within my price range that isn't sporterized so I'm just thinking of buying one and piecing it back together to its original state.

>>33255028
It'll cost more to do that than to just buy one that isn't fucked.

File: SMLE mk V.png (3MB, 3372x1284px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3372x1284px

>>33252034
Be wary of Jungle Carbines, people convert no.4s to try con you out of money
>>33252318
You can adjust them on the no.1 Mk.III just not the no.1 Mk III*

No.4 is technically better but aesthetically less appealing than the Lee Metford and the SMLE
My favourite SMLE is the no.1 Mk. V which is sort of a cross between the SMLE & the No.4, only issue is they're damn rare (pic related)

There are also the Ishapores L2a1s which are SMLEs in 7.62 so there's that

Careful, your ignorance is showing

>>33255194
>You can adjust them on the no.1 Mk.III just not the no.1 Mk III*
You just had to double down on the stupid there.
The sights on every Enfield are adjustable.
If you're referring just to the back windage adjustment then that can be found on early III*s as well and the non-adjustable is also found on late IIIs.

>>33255538
>If you're referring just to the back windage adjustment
Yes
And I'm not the one being stupid, every book I have on the SMLE says the III* removed the windage, not the normal mk III and every one I've seen in the flesh supports that
It was among the listed changes to the III* from the III

>>33255028
Parts are surprisingly easy to find, but they are a little pricey

>>33255903
Did you read the LOC?
The main change is the lack of the cut off slot and plate, even then some still retained.
Other changes were somewhat optional for both III and III* production.
After the war when rifles were being converted back to III configuration the simpler sight was often kept.

>>33255999
>main change is the lack of the cut off
and the volley sights and the windage

What do you mean "somewhat optional" War was well on the way the Brits were losing guns DORA was in full swing, III*s were to be made quicker, keeping half the features did not make manufacturing quicker
Yes its true about the conversions after the war but thats still not production standard

>>33256111
The lack of cut off slot is the ONLY change absolutely required for III*. Others are listed as "may embody". New production III*s would have had most listed changes, as parts inventory allowed.
Already existing IIIs would have again had some or all of the changes applied but were typically marked with the * after removal of volley sights and cut off plate.

>>33253351
>mid war semiautomatic
>germany's main sniping rifle

Pick one and only one man. I own more Enfield than mausers and I still think you're touched in the head

>>33252001
>inb4 leefag circlejerk

>>33252951
These are legitimate problems with the rifle. Its not garbage but for all its neat features, its not really all /k/ makes it out to be.

>>33252001
Most common variants.

No.1 Lee Enfield "MLE", or Emily, or the Long Lee
>Produced roughly 1895-1903/07
>Doesn't accept clips
>Mag sometimes chained to receiver
>Dust cover
>Magazine cut-off
>Volley sights
>Ladder sight

No.1 Mk.III* Lee Enfield "SMLE" or "Smelly"
>Produced roughly 1915-1960s
>Simplified version of No.1 Mk.III which was produced about 1907-1915
>Accepts clips
>No dust cover
>No magazine cut-off
>More tradition style of rear sight with 'slider'
>Not windage adjustable
>It's basically the one in OP's pic
>Was produced in India for so damn long that the later ones were chambered in 7.62 Nato

No.4 Lee Enfield
>Produced roughly 1941-1950s
>Substantial improvements in accuracy
>1.5MOA from factory for Mk.I
>1MOA from factory for Mk.2
>Floating barrel
>Long-radius aperture sights
>Thicker barrel than Mk.III*
>Back to ladder sight for post-war No.4s
>No.4s during war had two position rear sight for 300yd (273m or so) and 600yd (545m or so)
>Still produced in Australia in .308/7.62 Nato, even though they never used the No.4 Militarily

No.5 Mk.I Lee Enfield "Jungle Carbine"
>Produced roughly 1944-1946/47
>There is no No.5 other than the Mk.I; it's kind of dumb that it even has a 'Mk.I'
>Carbine length
>Only about 7lb unloaded, roughly 2lb lighter than No.4
>Only Lee Enfield variant without a brass buttplate with storage compartment in buttstock
>Flash hider
>Lightening cuts
>Different style of bayonet than either Mk.III* which was a shortsword or No.4 which was a cruciform spike socket-style bayonet
>Still produced in Australia in 7.62x39, even though they never used the No.5 Militarily

I hope this helped, and my apologies if any of this information isn't accurate.

>>33252001
I have a 1945 Ishapore No1 MkIII. Not crazy about the sights, but it's a good rifle. If you see Ishapore, don't buy any one made after 1948, when the street shitters got independence, quality dropped like a turd from Pajeet's anus onto the designated street. Before that, they're just as good as any other Commonwealth Enfield. I prefer the look of the No1 MkIII and the Long Lees, but the No. 4 has better sights, no question.

>>33253329
You can also look down the sights as you work da bolt, the handle doesn't get in your way and the bolt doesn't occupy your face space

File: image.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>33252001
They're great rifles. Not the best, but I still love my No.4.

Which ones are the ones that have the muzzle flush with the forend/front sight block thing?

I find those incredibly awesome looking

>>33256557
not Op, but this was helpful for me. thank you. enfields have never been my thing

>>33252001
PING

>>33256711
No. 1 Mk III*
the SMLE
I also like those.

>>33256724
Lee Enfields have been my thing for years, and I have studied them thoroughly. Glad to have been of help. I never call then Enfields though, if anything I call them Lee rifles. The 'Metford' in Lee Metford and 'Enfield' in Lee Enfield stands for the type of rifling. Lee stands for James Paris Lee, who invented the bolt design. James Paris Lee is a Scotsman who lived for a long time in Canada, and later moved to the United States. He designed the box magazine and/or the detachable box magazine. So you can thank Mr. James Lee for damn near every modern magazine on the planet.

... my friends are right, I 'make guns sound nerdy'...

>>33256557
Couple things.
Indian No2 rifles are not really SMLEs. They used different metals and forging to make them stronger for the .308
Australia never made No4s or No5s. Britain made 308 No4s after the war while Canada converted theirs.

File: IMG_20170115_1443379_rewind.jpg (660KB, 1920x1088px) Image search: [Google]

660KB, 1920x1088px

>>33252001
Get a no 4. Best bolt I own. I wish I bought this rifle before any other bolt I own. I mostly use it as my primary deer rifle now.

>>33256929
Look up AIA; the No.4s and No.5s produced in Australia are not made Militarily. as for the Indian 7.62 Nato Lee Enfields, using different metals or forging techniques make no difference. A Lee bolt is a Lee bolt, even if you manufacture it out of wood.

>>33252412
The spike bayonet is one of like 4+ bayonets made for the No4 mkI/II

>>33257196
AIA is commercial firm. Their "No4s" are not an actual No4 and have a very large amount of differences. There is virtually zero parts compatability with an actualk No4. If produced by the gov. they are different enough they would have been the No10 rifle.
>A Lee bolt is a Lee bolt
Try using a wrought iron Long Lee bolt head in a 2A then.

I never understood the difference between the No and MK designations. Like, what is the difference between a No 3 MK I and a No 4 MK II?

>>33252412
>SINGLE REAR LOCKING LUG
There's two.

>>33257302
The No3mk1 uses an entirely different action, for starters - a cock on close mauser design.
AKA the no3mk1 is the P13

>>33257302
The No refers to rifle type. The Mk is a subtype, usually based on manufacturing or small usage improvements.
No1 rifles are the SHtLEs, No2s are the .22 trainers made from MLEs and SHtLEs, No3s are the P14, No4s are the classic WW2 rifle, No5 is the jungle carbine, No6 the Aussie Jungle carbine mde from No1s, Nos7-9 are .22 training rifles made from the No4s.

>>33257329
And then there's the L42A1......

I've long thought of converting a No4 or a Ishapore .308 to one

>>33257302
From my understanding no. Means there was a big enough change to make a new version of the rifle. Mk is like an update

>>33257329
Thanks, I get it now. You explained it very well.

>>33257302
No.4's are broken down into Mk1, Mk1*, Mk2, Mk1/2 and Mk1/3.

Mk1 was the first that was produced early in WW2.

Mk1* was a stripped down easier to manufacture model made during the war.

MK2 was a post war design that had new improvements.

Mk 1/2 is a Mk1 updated to Mk2 standards.

Mk1/3 is a Mk1* updated to Mk2 standards.

This is a real basic rundown of the No.4.

>>33252567
>single locking lug
false
>cock on close
not an issue. so is the Swedish Mauser
>rimmed cartridge
literally not an issue
>unnecessarily heavy
stop being a weak bitch
>shit for sights
No 4 sights>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Mauser 98 sights

>>33253233
literally all of your points are strawmen

>>33257260
A bolt design is just that, a design. It doesn't matter who makes it, or out of what. Also, not all Lee bolts are interchangeable between all the different models, but they are still all Lee bolts. If the Indian 7.62 rifle has a bolt that rotates 60 degrees, has two rear locking lugs, a screw-on bolt head, requires a specific tool to disassemble, and so on and so forth just like many other Lee Enfield rifles, then it's a Lee Enfield. If you took a Lee Enfield and somehow rechambered it to 7.62x39 but still used the same bolt, it's still a Lee Enfield. If you manufactured a SUPER tiny rifle which is basically a Lee Enfield that is half the size of a normal Lee Enfield and is chambered in .22lr and the bolt is somehow made out of aluminium, then it is still a Lee Enfield provided it has the same bolt design and has Enfield rifling.

What you're describing sounds like taking a book, printing one with all the same words but in Comic Sans, and saying it's a completely different book.

>>33257431
The heavy bit sounds like it's true, but it really isn't. No.4 Lee Enfield is about 9lb unloaded, which is on par with many other rifles. M91/30 was 8.8lb as I recall, Kar98k is probably around 8.5lb, I dare say the Type 99 was around 8-9lb, it was basically the average weight of rifles in WWII. 8-9lb, that took up the bulk of it, with many semi-auto rifles tipping the scales at 10-11lb unloaded. The SVT-40 was something special though, what was it, 8lb unloaded? Proabbly 8.5-8.6lb with 10 rounds of 7.62x54r? Now granted it turned out the stocks were too flimsy so they had to use thicker ones, but that's still admirable. SVT-40 is heavily under-rated, even if it suffered accuracy issues.

So generally speaking ishapores are ok?

>>33257489
Yes, Commonwealth troops needed guns too. Best bet is to steer clear of anything made there 1948 on, QC is spotty.

>>33257196
>using different metals or forging techniques make no difference.

>cast iron is the same at carbon steel

>>33255272
This is okay. It's when people try to appear knowledgeable while actually ignorant that's the problem.

>>33257489
I have an Enfield UK side form '17 and I can safely say it seems a bit better built than an Izzy MKIII, but both are still fine rifles.
>>33257536
^listen to this guy though. WWII and prior are your best guns.

>>33257590
I think I'm being trolled very subtly.

>>33256557
Anyone know where I can find a No.1 Mk 3 SMLE in NZ?

>>33257766
I certainly don't, but I can't imagine that it's hard. New Zealand is part of the Commonwealth, isn't it? Likely used Lee Enfields for its Military in the past? Close neighbour to Australia who has literally been producing Lee Enfields for probably over 100 years?

On a different note, I recall hearing that you can get SKS rifles in New Zealand but there's no magazine restricted; fixed 10-rnd mag is fine. True?

>>33255999
The LoC focused on the windage sight and gave permission for manufacturers to forego the cut off but did not require it.

>>33256167
and yet hundreds of "Mk III* " marked rifles exist with cut offs but none with volleys.

>>33257443
how the fuck is shit accuracy, weak receivers, and bad sighting "straw men" when the government acknowledged them and attempted to correct them?

>>33258039
>>33257965
>>33257965
Bullshit.

"British List of Changes, Para 17622.
Rifle-short, M.L.E., Mark III.
1. Modifications.
Rifle, Short M.L.E., Mark III*, without cut-off.
2. Introduction.
1. In future manufacture, rifles of the above mentioned pattern may embody any of the following modifications:
(a) The omission of long range sights (dial and aperture) from stock, fore-end and body etc...
(b) The wind-gauge on the back sight leaf being replaced by a fixed cap held to the leaf by a screw.
(c) etc...
2. The pattern of this rifle has been approved to govern manufacture of rifles required without cut-offs.
It differs from the Mk 111 rifle in that the body is not slotted and drilled to receive the cut-off and screw, but, like the Mark 111, may embody the modifications mentioned at 1 above.

The lack of cut -off slot is the primary feature of a III, all else is optional and could also apply to the III.
>>33258039
Those were rifles made as IIIs with the cut off removed and then altered further to meet the changes of 1 above. They were * stamped either before leaving the factory or after modification by a field armourer.

If you want to get a No1 Mk3 to use, try for a Lithgow. They tend to be newer production. You might also get lucky and find one with a heavy barrel (Lithgow was the only arsenal to make No1Mk3s with heavy barrels).

>>33258534
i have a 42 lithgow. how do i know if it has a heavy barrel?

>>33252630
Not that anon but lower requirements means higher volume. It's a DMR role not a 'sniper' role that needed to be filled.

>>33260168
For the g43 you're more than correct about it being a DMR, but the guy was saying those requirements were for a Mauser to be converted to sniper service

>>33252001
I've inherited a Lee Enfield no. 4 mk. 1 that's been sitting in a closet in an air-conditioned room for about 20-30 years, completely unused (and, I'm assuming, not maintained) throughout that period. Would it be fair to assume that this thing will fire fine? I mean, if there's gonna be any change in its condition, it'd most likely be that the rifling got worn down, right? I just don't want to take this thing to a range and have it blow up in my face.

>>33261170
Post some pics of it, you'll probably learn a thing or two about it. If it's not even rusted up, then yeah, chances are it's 110% safe to shoot. If you're really, truly, and seriously worried, then take it to a gunsmith to give it a look-over, but I've shot one SERIOUSLY well-used Mk.III* Lee Enfield from 1915 before, and it ran like a champ.

File: 20170310_090941.jpg (3MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5312x2988px

>>33261204

Well, I definitely haven't seen any rust, though I haven't taken it completely apart yet. I figure that it'll probably be fine.

Pic is the rifle in question.

>>33261332
Looking gorgeous! Let's see more. Cover the serial number with some tape if you want, but it's no big deal. There should be some writing on the left side of the receiver which should tell us where it was manufactured. Longbranch is Canadian, and pretty much anything else will be English. Hard to tell but it looks like there's a typical Mk.I style of bolt removal so it's not a Mk.I* but then again I can't see it too clearly. I also can't see the rear sight.

Check the bore to see how it's doing. If there's indeed no rust, then yeah, that little beauty should be A-OK to take to the range. When I first started getting/shooting 60-70+ year old rifles, I was a little worried about them exploding too. Seriously, unless it's a REALLY fucking shitty example, it seems to be basically a non-issue. If you're still worried then take it to a gunsmith but it looks perfectly fine to me from this angle. If it says No.4 Mk.I/2 then it means that it was a Mk.I rifle that was later refurbished into a Mk.2. If it's a No.4 Mk.I/3 then I think that means it was a Mk.I* that was refurbished into a Mk.2. Correct me if I'm wrong, if anyone reads this and thinks it sounds fishy.

File: 025[1].jpg (88KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 800x600px

>>33260067
There should be an H on the barrel by where it screws into the receiver. There's a way to tell using the barrel's outer diameter at the muzzle but it would probably be harder since you would need to know how wide the normal barrel is.

I don't think mine has the H but it's capable of 1MOA from the bench anyways.

>>33252001
Why are people so fucking lazy they can't look shit up on google and wikipedia?

>>33252001

Really neat and great rifles, but if you have the cash for it also consider a Ross rifle.

>>33261332
the thumbnail looks like an eye

>>33261395
Damn accurate. Most Mk.III* Lee Enfields don't get accuracy like that to my knowledge. 1MOA is more No.4 territory.

>>33261390
Alright, I'll see about snapping some photos of it. I'm pretty sure that I saw some markings on it that indicated it was made in 1943, though. Oh, and the rear sight is a peephole, as well as an adjustable long-range sight that can be adjusted for ranges up to (I assume) 1300 meters, since it's graduated up to the number 13.

File: image.jpg (4MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2448x3264px

>>33262795
If you post a picture of the serial number, I'll be able to give you the year it was made and where.

Dumb question but I'm actually looking at getting a bolt action as well. Would a Carcano or Enfield serve me the best or is there a modern equivalent that's better for the same price?

I swear I can't find anything that looks cool
>tfw R700 is amazing but Remington is shit
>Savage Arms stuff looks like it's for Fudds

Fuck me, looks like I might actually have to go for one of the 80 year old designs.

>>33262950
What are you wanting to do with the rifle?

>>33262950
Enfields are very good.

That said, a modern rifle will serve you better. It's a better investment. If you want something a bit different and rarer, look to the Tikka M65A.

>>33263097
Shoot targets. Plain and simple, I don't care about anything, not even realworld functionality as long as it shoots well and doesn't jam every other round like a piece of shit.
So in order of preference
>Build Quality
>Trigger and Ergonomics
>Accuracy
>aesthetics

Obviously WWII designs win hands down on the aesthetics side. I don't know how they fair in the other categories though compared to more modern stuff too though. I honestly would have gotten an R700 or an M40 a long time ago if I didn't have such big concerns about Remington's past. Even the fucking marines are pissed at them now. It's bad

>>33263143

Buy a CZ 527
detachable 5 round mag, great rifle, cheap, good aesthetics

>>33263163
Thanks for the advice. I'll see into it. It does look nice too

>>33262950
get a mosin

>>33262883

I can't really take a decent picture at the moment, but here's what I can see of the serial number:

749P79263

Also, the rifle has 'ENGLAND' stamped on the receiver, so I'm assuming this is a Bongistan original. If anyone's interested in how my family got the rifle, my grandfather apparently bought this Lee-Enfield and another one that's since been lost or sold after the Watts Riots in LA (I should note, my family is American, my grandfather was an Italian-born immigrant and a Marine Corps vet), as that side of my family lived near LA and my grandfather wanted something to defend the house with in case of another riot. Since the local milsurp store was out of Springfields, he decided to buy Lee-Enfields instead.

>>33262795
It's a No.4 so I already knew it had a 'peephole' sight, it's also known as 'ghost ring' or 'aperture'. I call it aperture sights. You've got a post-war rear sight then so perhaps it was refurbished at some point. The British used Imperial for quite some time, so it's likely 1300yd though it's not far off. 1300yd is about 1170m. Basically, to put it simply, 100m=110yd and 1000m=1100yd. It's not EXAT but it's damn close. 1943 is a definite possibility since the No.4 was produced between roughly 1941-1950s.

>>33262883
You can learn the year and location of production on Lee Enfields by looking at the stamps; don't need the serial. Though perhaps with English-made examples if you REALLY want to know which factory it was made, if it's not already stamped on there, then the serial could help. Still I hear it's bad to post your firearm's serial numbers online so I don't advise it.

>>33263116
A better investment? If you want investments, get really high-quality and old rifles, lock them away somewhere while nicely oiled and preserved, then wait. Value will increase as time goes by, but a modern sporting rifle made for the civilian market? I can't see those going up in value, in fact it loses value as soon as you buy it therefore making it a used rifle.

>>33263343

Right, I forgot the English were still using Imperial back then. Right, so it's set out to 1300 yards (though I doubt I'll be pulling shots like that off with my eyes). Thanks for your help, anon. I'm definitely going to try to take this gun shooting sometime soon.

>>33255272
Ignorance can be fixed, stupidity is forever.

>>33263395
Right on, have fun with old girl, I'm sure she'll still shoot nice and accurately. When I first took some rifles to the range I ended up with a bruised shoulder in spite of being a pretty big guy, but it goes away pretty quick. Anticipate some slight soreness/stiffness in your shoulder the next day, but also anticipate the pride that you get from it.

Like I said, if anything looks fishy then bring it to a gunsmith to check, but considering how great it looks I personally would have no problem taking it to the range tomorrow, or even today if I had time. Like I said, I used to be a little paranoid that it might blow up in my face too what with the firearms being so old, but they have to be in SEVERELY poor condition to actually post a threat to the shooter.

>>33253568
It had an M14 tier development process that miraculously managed to polish a nigger rigged turd into a mass produced rifle with the application of unlimited funds from the height of the British Empire.

If we make the analogy with Garand's rifle and going with >>33256557 Lee designations:
>Magazine Lee-Metford = M1 Garand
>Magazine Lee-Enfield No.1** + No.1 Mk.III SMLE = BM59 conversions + M14
>SMLE No. 1 MkIII* = M1A

>>33262950
Ishapore 2A1 are Lee actions purpose built in 7.62 Nato in the early 1960s, No.1 Mk.III* aesthetics.

>>33263746
The M1 Rifle and M14 are different rifles though.

>Semi auto vs select fire
>Different gas systems
>Clip release vs bolt hold-open
>En bloc clip vs mag

Yes there are similarities, but there are substantial changes to the design. The differences between Mk.III* and No.4 Mk.I?

>No.4 has floating barrel
>No.4 has thicker barrel
>No.4 has different sights
>No.4 uses different bayonet

Similarities?

>Cock-on-close
>60-degree bolt turn
>Can be fired without letting go of the bolt
>10-rnd external detachable mag
>Reloaded with loose rounds or 5-rnd clips
>Same mag release

If you had your eyes closed and someone handed you a No.4 to shoulder and work the bolt on, then a Mk.III* to shoulder and work the bolt on, you very well might not notice the difference until you open your eyes and see the irons. Tell me, what are these significant changes to the 7.62 nato Indian Lee Enfield that makes you think it's no longer a Lee Enfield? How is the bolt seemingly no longer the bolt that was used on the Lee Metford, No.1 Lee Enfield, Mk.III*, or No.4 besides apparently being made from better steel and chambered in 7.62 Nato? How has the trigger mechanism been changed? The magazine obviously changed due to the new round, but it's still an external detachable mag, but instead can hold 12 rounds instead of 10 due to being rimless. Nowhere NEAR as substantial a change as en bloc clip vs detachable mag.

I'm up for hearing you out, but honestly, I feel like I'm being trolled at this point. If you take a Kar98k and rechamber it to 7mm Rem mag, it's still a Mauser rifle.

>>33264296
No one ever said the 2A was not a Lee-Enfield.
It is not a SMLE though as that designation only covers the No1 rifles.
There are also quite a bit more differneces between the No1MkIII and No4Mki than you list. Different receiver design being one of them.

>>33260978
>>33252630
>Backbone Of The Wehrmacht The German K98K Rifle 1934-194

It's on Amazon. There are .pdfs out there, too, and a follow up book printed in 2001 which is the one I own. It's the quintessential English guide to the Mauser service rifles and details every aspect of the rifle.

Put simply, they had a lower standard of accuracy required for their weapons destined for sniper conversion than was considered acceptable for SMLEs to enter service at the same time - even using the most generous explanation of German accuracy tests and the harshest British one.

Can they be made accurate? Are there accurate ones out there? Absolutely. But it simply was not built to the same standard or expected to perform to the same standard. Arguments about the merits of the action are a different ball game.

File: dwight-schrute.jpg (34KB, 500x486px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x486px

>>33256741
>PING
false.

>>33264518
Short, Magazine, Lee Enfield.

2A is short (meaning not the full length of the Lee Metford or No.1 Lee Enfield), has a magazine, uses a Lee bolt... does it have Enfield rifling?

File: 1465058458692.jpg (54KB, 700x472px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 700x472px

>>33252001
I want one of these fuckers so god damn bad but I cant find one in a gun store near me and all the ones on gunbroker go for stupid high prices.
I may have to go on some kind of pilgrimage to get one of these.

>>33252497
you know damn well /k/ can't read

>>33264296
I made the Garand/M14 clip vs mag reload comparison to compare by analogy the akwardness of the Long Lee having to single load spent magazines vs the SMLE's stripper clip loading. The other differences between the Garand and the M14 further the analogy of the similar but rather different Long Lee and the SMLE. The BM59 conversion is analogous to the conversion of Long Lees to stripper clip loading, with other homologizing additons to make it more SMLE-like.

The M14 to M1A analog reflects how the full auto capable M14s had the full giggle switch removed, and in civilian guise were simplified and crudified from the last 1960s guns to the civilian M1As still being made today.

The No.4 is such a general improvement, that if the analogy could be extended to cover the No. 4&5, it be something like the milled 30-06 Zatsava M77 and stamped 30-06 Vepr. However since they are using Garand derived Kalashnikov actions, I stopped at the SMLE No. 1 MkIII* = M1A analog.

I have no idea what you meant by those Ishapore comments of yours, I repeat my statement that the 2A1 is a Lee Enfield action purpose built for 7.62 Nato, to the aesthetics of the No.1 Mk.III*.

>>33252412
i will take the bait

>comparing mauser with garand
compare it with the springfield 1903, its literally retarded to compare a bolt action with a semi auto

>>33266159
Yeah, it is pretty stupid to compare a manually operated firearm to a semi-auto. As for kar98k vs M1903A1, that's easy.

>Kar98k has a shorter bolt throw due to shorter 8mm cartridge
>Kar98k in WWII was more potent because s.S. Patrone 1934 8mm was hotter than M2 Ball .30-06
>Kar98k has a simpler rear sight that doesn't obscure your field of view when dialed to longer distances
>Kar98k doesn't have a magazine disconnect, which I see as a bonus

That said, they both have...

>Cock-on-open
>90-degree bolt turn
>Inability to comfortably fire without letting go of the bolt
>Short-radius tangent sights
>5-rnd capacity
>Non-floating barrels

So I would say that neither the Kar98k or M1903A1 are as good as the No.4 Lee Enfield. To a lesser extent, they're not as good as the Mk.III* either.

>>33266262
yeah i also thing the enfield was the best bolt action of the war but not the best rifle because murricans mass fielded garands, but if we are making comparissons we must do it properly

File: image.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>33263343
What am I going to do with his serial number? The serial number can give you when and where it was made. The marks can give you hints. Like on mine the wood and barrel bands have "F" on them which means they are original FTR parts from the Fazakerely factory.

Here's my No.4's SN that's on the receiver. The number is the same on the socket, just not as neatly done.

File: image.jpg (1MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2448x3264px

>>33263335
I can tell you for sure it was made in July of 1947, but you'll have to get a good picture of the SN or look at it closer, because it doesn't match anything in my book. Here is the page that tells you what factory made it.

>>33266315
Yup, very true. I consider the Lee action to be the semi-auto of the bolt action world, but that doesn't mean it can fairly compare to an M1 Rifle. Not at closer distances anyways. If you go out to 300m or so, or farther, then the advantage of the M1's speed declines sharply because of the need to realign the sights after each shot. In the time it takes for the M1 and No.4 to recover from recoil, the No.4 can already have another round chambered due to the incredibly slick bolt. Then there's the reload though, and although the No.4 has a 2-round advantage (technically 2+1 advantage since M1 can't go 8+1, only 7+1), it definitely takes longer to load 2 stripper clips than load 1 en bloc clip. That's just the nature of the beast.

The No.4 WILL have superior accuracy however thanks to its free-floating and incredibly thick barrel. So while in close range the M1 is better due to its semi-auto capabilities, I thoroughly believe the M1's advantage minimizes quickly as more and more distance is put between the shooters, not to mention you'll be able to pinpoint an empty M1 from half a kilometer away from the distinctive PING in spite of all the shooting/explosions going on. Joking, but seriously, that meme is so fucking old. Anyways, overall, yeah, the M1 is better off, but out to 300m+ the gap lessens.

tl;dr

>Within 100m
M1 Rifle>>>>>>>>>No.4 Lee Enfield>Other bolt actions

>300m+
M1 Rifle>No.4 Lee Enfield>>Other bolt actions

Due to being able to work the bolt so quickly that it can be done while dealing with recoil, it seriously quickens how soon the shooter can work on getting irons back on target since the hand doesn't even have to come away from the bolt. There's also the higher capacity, and the fact it takes less than twice as long to reload twice as much ammo which also contributes to more rounds downrange. Other bolt actions will seem even more sluggish in this situation.

>>33266372
I've owned a Mk.I/2 as well. That means it's been changed to Mk.2 specifications, so should be slightly more accurate than the Mk.I. I don't know WHY people dislike putting their serial online, I just know it's common practice not to.

File: image.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>33266522
They say it's more accurate, but really it just has a better trigger pull. Which makes it easier to shoot accurately.

>>33266601
Fair enough. A shame about the ladder sight though. I think the M1 Rifle probably had the best rear sight of WWII. Easily available for both windage and elevation, compact, doesn't hinder your view, and also it's no big deal if you have your rear sight elevated above the protective ears at longer ranges. If you're shooting at longer ranges, then moving around isn't as much of a problem. It's when the rifle is being tossed, jostled, or otherwise clunked around that you worry about your rear sight being unprotected, and if your rear sight is set to 400m+ then it's probably not at risk of being tossed, jostled, or clunked.

I picked up a no4 mkii today and the bolt is not smooth at all when opening/retracting it. I figure i should strip whatever oil or grease is on there and reoil it but is there any reason why it would be so rough?


Also whats a good source for clips and a sling

No 1 mk 3 > no 4 > jungle shit

>>33266995
Why do you think the Mk.III is better than the No.4? It's generally going to be not as accurate of a rifle, and most would tell you that the sights aren't as good.