Lee-Enfield accuracy

[Slater]

I know that results can vary among individual rifles, but generally speaking is the No 4 rifle considered more accurate than the No 1 Mk 3?

[1gewehr]

No.
The No.4 had a problem with a 'wandering zero'. In spite of much better sights, this made the No.4 less accurate.
It's relatively easy to accurize the No.4, though. Just relieve the handguards where they press against the barrel. Leave support at the front and rear of wood only. This will be much more consistent and help with accuracy.

A rack No.4 will get 3-4moa, a No.1 will get about 2-3. The No.1 had a thicker barrel.
A well-sorted No.4 will get 1.5-2moa.
1gewehr

[MG-70]

I've heard (read about) the "wandering zero" problem on the No.5s, but not the No.4s. Some No.4s were used well into the 1980s as sniping rifles.

MG-70

[fubar]

Originally posted by 1gewehr:
<STRONG>No.
The No.4 had a problem with a 'wandering zero'. In spite of much better sights, this made the No.4 less accurate.
</STRONG>

It's the No.5 Mk1 Jungle carbine that has the wandering zero problem, not the No.4. The No. 4's are supposed to be a little more accurate that the SMLEs due to the No. 4 having a better sight radius and micrometer adjustable sights on the rear of the receiver.

[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: Fubar ]

[OZ]

Some WW2 production #4 MK 1 lacked the micrometer rear sight, instead they have a cheaper (and faster to make) stamp variant with spring loaded slide-stop that you can use to adjust the sight elevation. Mine is a 1943 Moltby with 2 groove barrel.

My guess is they started reusing the micrometer rear sight on #4 Mk. 2 after the war. Barrel on my Fazakerley 1954 is again a 4-groove variant.

[recce]

The No.4 also has a stiffer action than that of the No.I mk III and it is stronger, rated to 48 000 CUP. The no.I MkIII is rated to 45 000 and the P-14 is the strongest, rated to 52 000.

There has been some doubt as to the rumours of the wandering zero of the No.5 Its been said that this rumour was started by the brit army because it did not want to see the No.5 adopted as the service weapon while everyone else was getting rid of bolt actions in favour of semi-autos.

I have a No. 5 and it is no less accurate than any of my No.I's or No.4's. Have not had a problem with zeroing yet.

[50 Freak]

I bought one of those #4 MkII, that came a few years back in arsenal wrap. Was an absolute beautiful rifle. Shot very well, but couple of times, I shot it and did not clean the barrel for a couple of months. Well corrosive ammo sucks. It totally ate up my barrel. Cleaned it out as best as I could, and it looks pitted, but rifleing is still sharp. Anything else I can do? Maybe firelapp???

Advice anyone? :rolleyes:

[skyclones]

shoot it

[Landjaeger]

The #4 can be a very accurate rifle. It was the #5 that supposedly suffered form the wandering zero problem. The #4 also has a heavier barrel than the SMLE.

I have a #4Mk1 that will shoot 1" at 100 yds using iron sights and my handloads all day long.

I have a #5 that I have turned into a scout rifle that puts Federal 180 gr spire point factory ammo into .75" at 100 regularly.

All questions about the 303 can be answered at www.303british.com. (http://www.303british.com.)

You can see my scout rifle there in the "Saving a Burnt Out Jungle Carbine" article.

[the gman]

I have a L42 A1 7.62mm sniper rifle which was converted from .303" and that shoots less than MOA all day. I also had an Enfield Enforcer, again a No.4 converted to 7.62 and sold to police units as a sniper rifle and that shot MOA as well. I have a SMLE converted to a sporting model by Parker-Hale and that shoots around MOA with the right .303 ammo. Amazing to me to think that these rifles have been around for so long yet still shoot as well as they do. I wonder what the mouse gun will be shooting like in 80 years?? :confused:

[warden]

My first centerfire was a thoroughly worn out MkIII. It was a great shooter. Since then I have owned and collected just about every make and mark there is, even have a couple of the old Lee-Metfords. The Mk 4 is an extremely accurate, reliable rifle "out of the box". The Mk 5's had the reputation for wandering zero. Of the ones that I have used, only one seemed to wander. Remember that the Mk 4 (T) was deemed the best sniper rifle of WWII. It was basically a standard production Mk 4 that test grouped to a higher standard and then sent to Holland & Holland for some stock work and the scope system. All Lee Enfields are like beer, it's hard to find one that I don't like. ;)

[1gewehr]

OOOHHH, My memory is going! Senility is imminent!
You guys are absolutely correct, it's the No.5 with the 'wandering zero'.
Also, I just compared the barrel thickness on my No.1 vs No.4, and the barrel is slightly heavier on the No.4.
So it's the No.4 which is inherently more accurate. Got 'em backwards this time.
Sorry,
What's my name anyway?
Oh yeah,
1gewehr

[Templator]

I had a beautiful Mk4 that I shot quite a bit a few years back. I was probably more familiar with that rifle than any I've ever owned. I also had a Mk5 that I mounted a 4X Leopold scope on. Off of bags, the best that I could consistantly get was 3" at 100 yards with the Mk4 with open sights when shooting off of bags. The most accurate milsurp that I found for it was some greek surplus that was going around back then. (boxer primed!) The worst was some very pretty, shiny Yugo. Even with a 4X scope attached, I was only able to get 5" groups out of the jungle carbine. I was interested in the "wandering zero" claim about this little rifle and wanted to check it out. I milled a very rigid scope mount out of steel and attached it to the rifle. I didn't find that the #5 had a wandering zero. Once established, the zero stayed put,.. it just wasn't very accurate.

Anyone who has studied Enfields a bit has found that the groove diameters are quite a bit oversize. Typically they run in the .315-.317" range. Combine this with the fact that most milsurp has bullets in the .310" diameter range and you don't have a situation which is condusive to "real" good accuracy. Anyone who cares to go to the trouble can match the bullet diameter to the groove diameter of their particular rifle, either by swaging or casting, and improve the accuracy significantly.

My most accurate load was a cast .308" diameter RCBS 30-180FN which I patched with 5 wraps of teflon tape. I cast them hard from either linotype or quench cast wheelweights and pushed them to 1850 fps with 4350. This took a bit of skullduggery and time which included fabricating a whirlygig device to wrap the tape and a seating die specific to the bullet but I got pretty good results. Many people in the Cast Bullet Association used Enfields for cast bullet shooting. They're cheap and have deep, wide lands and grooves which bite cast bullets very well. From my experience and from what I've read from others, my opinion is, about 3 MOA is all that you can ever expect of one. If you get one to do that, you've got all that it has to give,.. which really is pretty good!

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: Templator ]

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: Templator ]

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: Templator ]

[bushka]

i`m gonna fetch back my smelly 1916 i got on consignment after reading this!!
enfield`s are the ultimate truck gun`s!