[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Lee Enfield Rifle (Page 1 of 4)
Posted: 9/6/2014 2:45:15 AM EDT
 I had a WW1 period one and like an idiot I sold it.
|
|
Quoted:
It's not a "short magazine Lee-Enfield." It's a "short, magazine, Lee-Enfield." The preceding models had a longer barrel. Quoted:
Quoted:
Why do they call it the "short magazine" enfield, was there ever a long magazine?  It's not a "short magazine Lee-Enfield." It's a "short, magazine, Lee-Enfield." The preceding models had a longer barrel. I know that is why I left the peep smiley. 
|
|
Quoted:
I know that is why I left the peep smiley. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why do they call it the "short magazine" enfield, was there ever a long magazine? It's not a "short magazine Lee-Enfield." It's a "short, magazine, Lee-Enfield." The preceding models had a longer barrel. I know that is why I left the peep smiley. You never know around here 
|
|
Quoted:
Receiver date: 1899 Issue to the RIC: 1904. <a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/user/DriftPunch/media/ric-1.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v477/DriftPunch/ric-1.jpg</a> 
My No. 1 Mk. 1*** is the earliest I have (1906). Need to get some of the older stuff. |
|
Quoted:
Have a Mk II No 4 that was one of my first rifles. https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2937/14562775842_dd377b6d9a_b.jpg Looks just like my 1950(F) No4 MkII. |
|
Quoted:
My No. 1 Mk. 1*** is the earliest I have (1906). Need to get some of the older stuff. Quoted:
Quoted:
Receiver date: 1899 Issue to the RIC: 1904. <a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/user/DriftPunch/media/ric-1.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v477/DriftPunch/ric-1.jpg</a>
My No. 1 Mk. 1*** is the earliest I have (1906). Need to get some of the older stuff. Never understood the "collector" thing. I really have no interest at all in the 89, 92, 95, or 96 Mausers; I only want the 98 Mauser, where they had finally worked all the bugs out of the system. If I ran a museum, sure; otherwise, meh. 
|
|
Quoted:
Never understood the "collector" thing. I really have no interest at all in the 89, 92, 95, or 96 Mausers; I only want the 98 Mauser, where they had finally worked all the bugs out of the system. If I ran a museum, sure; otherwise, meh. Do you even history bro? |
|
Quoted:
Do you even history bro? Quoted:
Quoted:
Never understood the "collector" thing. I really have no interest at all in the 89, 92, 95, or 96 Mausers; I only want the 98 Mauser, where they had finally worked all the bugs out of the system. If I ran a museum, sure; otherwise, meh. Do you even history bro? As I said, if I ran a museum, sure. For me, personally, to take up space in my gun safe, I want the final model, not the first. I do have a 92 and a couple of 94 Winnies; I really have very little interest in the models that came before that. |
|
Quoted:
As I said, if I ran a museum, sure. For me, personally, to take up space in my gun safe, I want the final model, not the first. I do have a 92 and a couple of 94 Winnies; I really have very little interest in the models that came before that. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Never understood the "collector" thing. I really have no interest at all in the 89, 92, 95, or 96 Mausers; I only want the 98 Mauser, where they had finally worked all the bugs out of the system. If I ran a museum, sure; otherwise, meh. Do you even history bro? As I said, if I ran a museum, sure. For me, personally, to take up space in my gun safe, I want the final model, not the first. I do have a 92 and a couple of 94 Winnies; I really have very little interest in the models that came before that. Well, I'm glad you aren't managing my gun safe, then
|
|
Quoted:
Well, I'm glad you aren't managing my gun safe, then Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Never understood the "collector" thing. I really have no interest at all in the 89, 92, 95, or 96 Mausers; I only want the 98 Mauser, where they had finally worked all the bugs out of the system. If I ran a museum, sure; otherwise, meh. Do you even history bro? As I said, if I ran a museum, sure. For me, personally, to take up space in my gun safe, I want the final model, not the first. I do have a 92 and a couple of 94 Winnies; I really have very little interest in the models that came before that. Well, I'm glad you aren't managing my gun safe, then Nor you mine. Prolly be full of front-stuffer smoke-pole single-shots, with you telling me "BUT THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME THEY EVAR USED THE NEW ANTHRACITE FLINT!!!111!!" 
|
|
Quoted:
Why, yes. Yes, there was a long magazine: http://milpas.cc/rifles/ZFiles/Enfields/Self-Loading%20Modifications%20of%20the%20Enfields/Charlton%201.jpg Quoted:
Quoted: Why do they call it the "short magazine" enfield, was there ever a long magazine?
Why, yes. Yes, there was a long magazine: http://milpas.cc/rifles/ZFiles/Enfields/Self-Loading%20Modifications%20of%20the%20Enfields/Charlton%201.jpg That is one of my favourate guns to show, when someone says you can convert a semi-auto to full-auto. Well you can convert a bolt-action to full-auto too..... Related to thread : Mad minute
|
|
I have 3 Enfields
SMLE (with a Parker Hale Target Sight) No1 MkIII* made by Birmingham Small Arms in 1917 No.4 Mk1 made by Fazackerly No.4 Mk1 made by Long Branch MINT CONDITION No.4 Mk2 (forgot where this one was made) The 303 MkVIIz FMJ ammo makes some very nasty wound channels. The Brits placed and Aluminum Insert near the tip causing the center of mass of the bullet to be moved back quite a ways towards the base. As a result the bullet was "just stable" while in flight but once it hit a person it would tumble like a Buzz Saw. 303 Brit in terms of power is between that of a 30-40 Krag and 7.62 NATO It makes for a good hunting round. |
|
Quoted:
Looks just like my 1950(F) No4 MkII. Quoted:
Quoted:
Have a Mk II No 4 that was one of my first rifles. https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2937/14562775842_dd377b6d9a_b.jpg Looks just like my 1950(F) No4 MkII. Mine has some S/N electro penciled on it with 1949. |
|
Quoted: Never understood the "collector" thing. I really have no interest at all in the 89, 92, 95, or 96 Mausers; I only want the 98 Mauser, where they had finally worked all the bugs out of the system. If I ran a museum, sure; otherwise, meh. If you could send an everyday '98 Mauser through the mail across the country, it would stand head & shoulders over its older brothers. But b/c of the '68 GCA, actions produced before 1899 have more value than they would otherwise. There were very few '98 actions produced in 1898. |
|
Quoted: Never understood the "collector" thing. I really have no interest at all in the 89, 92, 95, or 96 Mausers; I only want the 98 Mauser, where they had finally worked all the bugs out of the system. If I ran a museum, sure; otherwise, meh. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Receiver date: 1899 Issue to the RIC: 1904. <a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/user/DriftPunch/media/ric-1.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v477/DriftPunch/ric-1.jpg</a> My No. 1 Mk. 1*** is the earliest I have (1906). Need to get some of the older stuff. Never understood the "collector" thing. I really have no interest at all in the 89, 92, 95, or 96 Mausers; I only want the 98 Mauser, where they had finally worked all the bugs out of the system. If I ran a museum, sure; otherwise, meh. So don't acquire any! I get both... |
|
Quoted:
The 303 MkVIIz FMJ ammo makes some very nasty wound channels. The Brits placed and Aluminum Insert near the tip causing the center of mass of the bullet to be moved back quite a ways towards the base. As a result the bullet was "just stable" while in flight but once it hit a person it would tumble like a Buzz Saw. 303 Brit in terms of power is between that of a 30-40 Krag and 7.62 NATO It makes for a good hunting round. It's also a beautiful match to the .303 caliber Lee Loader pocket kit, and does fine with properly sized, gas checked cast bullets. The deep rifling keeps it in service longer, and it still makes for a rapid shooter with twice the capacity of most bolt actions when need arises. Seems like the perfect survival rifle to me.
|
|
I have a soft spot for these old rifles. Sadly I only have one.
It's an all matching 1949 Fazakerley No.4 No1. One of the last Mk1s made, it has British nitro proofs and no import marks which from what I understand is odd. An expert (Aussie) told me that all of those should have went to South Africa. How it got here he didn't know.
I'll look for a pic. |
|
Maybe I'm weird but having owned an SMLE No. 4 Mk I, a Swede m/96 (Karl Gustaf 1904), and a Kar98k I've found that I vastly prefer the cock-on-closing designs. The Kar98k is very handy but I never enjoyed shooting it much. Probably just a weird personal thing. Sadly I only have the SMLE now. I'd like to get my hands on a Garand an m/38 Swede to round out my collection.
|
|
Quoted:
My No. 1 Mk. 1*** is the earliest I have (1906). Need to get some of the older stuff. Quoted:
Quoted:
Receiver date: 1899 Issue to the RIC: 1904. <a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/user/DriftPunch/media/ric-1.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v477/DriftPunch/ric-1.jpg</a>
My No. 1 Mk. 1*** is the earliest I have (1906). Need to get some of the older stuff. Me also...according to the serial number mine was used in the black and tans war. Now it hunts everything that a .303 can. love my enfield
|
|
Quoted:
Maybe I'm weird but having owned an SMLE No. 4 Mk I, a Swede m/96 (Karl Gustaf 1904), and a Kar98k I've found that I vastly prefer the cock-on-closing designs. The Kar98k is very handy but I never enjoyed shooting it much. Probably just a weird personal thing. Sadly I only have the SMLE now. I'd like to get my hands on a Garand an m/38 Swede to round out my collection. It's not weird at all. It's a mark of refinement and taste. 
|
|
Quoted:
Here is a few of mine. I have some cups to go with those wire wrapped now though.
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r274/jeffreysox/8BE03314-922D-4740-B7A4-B015CE83934E_zps5azfnxus.jpg I've always had a hankering for the short barreled No. 5. How do they shoot, accuracy, kick, etc.? I have a No.4, Mk 1, very nice action but it's long and heavy mofo! Any interest in a trade?
|
|
Quoted:
I've always had a hankering for the short barreled No. 5. How do they shoot, accuracy, kick, etc.? My Jungle Carbine is well worn, but decently accurate for hunting. It will put 5rds in a 4" circle from a rest at 100yds. Most of my hog hunting was 30-50yds tops, so it didn't really matter. Kicks like a pissed off mule with 180gr softpoints. Like a very lightweight 30-06. Makes a Mosin M38 feel gentle. |
|
Dude! What IS that intriguing addition to your ladder sight? Some other kind of peep?
|
|
Quoted:
I've always had a hankering for the short barreled No. 5. How do they shoot, accuracy, kick, etc.? I have a No.4, Mk 1, very nice action but it's long and heavy mofo! Any interest in a trade? Quoted:
Quoted:
Here is a few of mine. I have some cups to go with those wire wrapped now though.
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r274/jeffreysox/8BE03314-922D-4740-B7A4-B015CE83934E_zps5azfnxus.jpg I've always had a hankering for the short barreled No. 5. How do they shoot, accuracy, kick, etc.? I have a No.4, Mk 1, very nice action but it's long and heavy mofo! Any interest in a trade? My very first rifle many years ago was an authentic Jungle Carbine (not a later conversion). It kicks like a f'ing mule!!! That shorter barrel makes for a wicked good time! Still wish I had it back to this day. |
|
Quoted:
Are they accurate? The sniper version was one of, if not the most accurate of all the sniper rifles both Allied and Nazi. What makes them so slick is their locking lugs at the rear of the bolt, but that also lends itself to more bolt flex and a bit of loss of accuracy. Either way, it is a fine battle rifle. |