Yeaah me to, can you imagine 12 and 13 year olds being given 303s to shoot today. I also fired Bren full auto. Great fun but the best bit was "night exercises" playing at soldiers getting dressed up as a tree and being given a live no 4 and a handful of 303 blank ammo to play with.
When i was in the cadets we used a very similar rifle to the no.4 for .22 training but sadly we had the l98A2 cadet rifle instead of the cool older service rifles. Still got turned into bushes for fun though :)
Yep, me too. 13 - 16 years old and made the Bisley Schools Championship Team...as substitute! We used to go to the local firing range behind RAF Bentwaters in a bus with all the rifles and boxes of ammunition. A bit disconcerting when you are shooting 1200 yards, trying your best, and a helicopter appears just above the target. It looked closer but was a long way off but enough to spoil your concentration.
The one I was issued as a cadet was made at Fazackerly in 1942 (I looked up its serial no. - and it wasn't so easy to do that in those pre-internet days). I often wondered if it had ever been fired in anger. I wish I could (legally) own one today.
Thanks for the video Ian. Regarding the stacking swivel - I believe that the example you showed us was damaged. The wire loop showed remnants of brazing, or solder, where it had be secured to the mounting lug. The splines are just another example of the thoughtful engineering that went into British arms. These splines would help to relieve some of the load from the brazed joint.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge and enthusiasm Ian. My Fazakerley No.4 Mk1/2 came with the Mk.1 rearsight like yours but the addition of an A.J.Parker rearsight made it much better. No more fiddling with the foresight for windage adjustment.
The Enfield No4 mk1 is quite beautiful and transitioned well into a sporting rifle after the war. My father bought one for use as a bush rifle and bagged many a buck with the reliable rifle. The rifle would be stolen sometime in the 60's which is a shame as it probably would still be quite usefull for hunting.
As expected a sizeable section of this video is talking about the arcane and often unhinged British system of versions, variants and serial numbering. God, makes you proud to be British doesn't it?
It was designed to baffle the logical mind of the German while being perfectly understandable to a British man raised on the scoring system of cricket.
When I was 14 years old in the Fourth Form, St Bernard's College received a Library Donation to give the whole Form a week off to Mark the Queen's Shoot at the Trentham Military Camp, near Wellington, New Zealand. I didn't mark the Final on Saturday, because of Cricket. Those were many WW2 Veterans in 1964. The 900 Yard Targets were quite Big and the Bulls Eye was about 3 Feet Radius. The Better Shooters, with this exact Rifle with Aperture Sights, often with Irregular Wind Gusts, from close to a Kilometre Up Range were scoring Nine out of Ten on a three foot Spread.
Love how old military British rifles carry the royal coat of arms. These days it’s used as a warrant to recommend cereals. Back then it was “you have incurred my displeasure, this man will shoot you in my name”.
Nice. As an aside finally got to Cody Museum of Guns. Wife was patient with me 😄. Could have spent a lot more time there. Thanks for the heads up about the place. Truly amazing.
The first gun of any type that I ever shot (air guns don't count). There was and still is an army training range where I lived in Lancashire, that the local rifle club had its club house in. I and a number of friends used to go to the club house on a Sunday, collect one or two club rifles and 10 rounds of .303 ammo each, I think it was about 10 shillings for the ammo. We would then walk from the club house to the range that we were supposed to be shooting at, which could have been up to a mile away, with the rifles and ammo in hand. We'd shoot at whatever the range was, operate the targets in the butts do our scoring, then walk back and clean the rifles. We would have been 13 or 14 years old. Very happy times, looking back it's almost impossible to think it could be allowed. Following Hungerford and Dunblane I had to give up quite a collection of shooting guns and lost interest. Although I did have a number 4 in 7.62 for a while, but although as slick as ever, it was a poor shooter.
Another video adding to my No4 knowledge. Thanks Ian. Mine came out of Fazerkerly in 43 October and was FTR’ed in 55. If I had to guess based on the pristine condition of the barrel it was never reissued prior to it being imported by Big 5 sporting goods in the early 90s.
In my grandma’s attic, there is what might be a 1944 No.4 Mk1 that used to belong to my dad’s dad (he never got to be my grandpa because he died 50 years ago when my dad was 8). I’m not 100% sure that’s what it is aside from the year. What it has is a scope and part of the barrel is exposed instead of encased in wood. At first, i noticed the mag and was like “that looks quite a bit like a lee enfield.” I looked around for as many markings I could find looking for things such as manufacturer, model, date, caliber, etc. Some markings I found were “No.4 Mk1” and “1944”. Based on that, I looked up “No.4 Mk1 1944” on google images and sure enough what I got was a bunch of those Lee Enfields. Most of them were the standard infantry pattern rifle. Was trying to figure out what exactly this particular rifle is. If it’s some kind of 3rd party civilian version of it. Idk if it shoots either the standard .303 Brit or if it’s something else that’s probably slightly smaller and/or more domestic.
It's probably a 'sporterised' Lee-Enfield. Basically after WW2 there was a huge number of surplus guns, so a lot of them were sold to the civilian market for dirt cheap and converted into hunting rifles by cutting back the wood at the front and (sometimes) adding a scope.
Fired my first rounds with a .22 short cartridge MK4 when I was 6 or 7 at a Chatham Naval Dock open day where shooters were to hit burnt out light bulbs on string from about 15 ft. After popping away, the guy in charge of the range asked my dad if I had ever shot before as it seemed that I had a natural 'hold' on the rifle. Later in life in the Air Training Corps I achieved ATC marksman and RAF marksman badges in .22 on a 25 yard indoor range and .303 on a 200 yard range on Rainham Marshes, Essex. Lovely weapon to use with that satisfying clunk as the bolt locks home.
I love how Ian goes into so much depth about the Lee Enfiedl and all its many derivatives. I think we've actually got beyond the point where if there's anything that Ian doesn't know about Lee Infields, it's probably not worth knowing. I'm proud to say I've fired one - probably a Mark IV - when I was in the cadets. We fired blanks but also FMJ 0.303 on the range. Our sadistic instructors didn't explain how to hold them properly (I was 14) and the first time I fired it, I nearly gave the rifle back, it kicked so hard. Fortunately, I persisted.
That doesn't really fit with the timeline. That is a 1931 production rifle, before Mazak would have been really available. Pre-production rifles used aluminum butt plates. When they began production during the war they used brass. The Zamak/Mazak ones were introduced later war as an expedient. You can also find steel butt plates fr Long Branch.
@@tays8306 Both are effectively the same thing. Mazak was a very slightly different formulation of Zamak due to slightly different input zinc available in Britain. And you can probably find No 4 Rifles with both depending on if they were produced in Britain or North America.
loved it, when i was aged 13 to 18, i was a royal marine cadet, used the SMLE lots, drill, training, ranges.... we did get some SLR's in my later years. but the SMLE holds a place in my heart.
Back before internet were ready available for common folks, I always thought that Lee-Enfield No.1 Mk.III were referring to the SMLE, which stand for Short Muzzle Lee-Enfield. Because it have short stumpy muzzle compared to No.4 Mk.1 which have longer muzzle. Apparently SMLE actually mean Short Magazine Lee-Enfield
We grew up thinking it's the most powerful rifle in the world. Loving called .303 in our state Nagaland,India. Still in love with this gun. Owing one will remain a dream, given Indian draconian gun laws😭
Enfield Lock finally took some of the metal from the heavy muzzle cap of the No.3 and put it into a heavier barrel for increased accuracy. They also transitioned from the tangent leaf sights mounted halfway down the barrel to the much better ring battlesight and flip-up smaller aperture screw-adjustible sights.
I suspect I may have a mutt. It is marked No4 Mk1, 1944. It has a hollow bolt handle and the "pull" on the rear of the bolt is more of a rectangular shape with a few vertical grooves milled into either side. Also my safety lever does not have the ring on the end, rather it is more of a dog-leg shape. Love the gun none the less.
@@RichGallant I don't either. Maybe some dumb law about civilian rifles? I mean this one was imported through Canada. But it also has greek characters carved onto the left side of the stock, so who knows where it's been before.
An added factor in the long delay may have been the financial crash that affected the entire planet in the 1930's money was short and other projects had priority
One may add that it happens for other weapons. British knew the 2-pdr antitank was a bit underpowered, good for "today" tank but probably not "tomorrow" tanks. So they created the 6pdr, in 1938. They made all the prototypes and everything, and wrapped all the tech package in a drawer "for future use". When they needed the 6pdr, they were so in desperate need of antitank guns they coudn't afford to stop manifacturing 2pdr for a couple of weeks to retool the line into producing 6pdr.
The first rifle I ever purchased was an all matching Canadian Long Branch No4 Mk1 in excellent condition. Just cycling the action was a great substitute for a girlfriend for a large portion of my 20s.
Now, please tell us about the No4 MK1* Savage made Enfield's. I own a 1942 and it also has period correct scope and mount! The scope mounting pads appear to have been factory added but i'm no expert. But i'm also sure the scope and mount are reproduction. I'm also in Arizona if you would care to take a look at in person let me know.
@@bennicholson4223Mines "perfectly Stocked" in summer but sub optimal in winter, especially in the rain ... perfect headspace with respect to the military or civilian gauges?
Simpler bedding than the SMLE -- no springs involved. Most of the headspacing bollocks is total bollocks from people who don't understand the issues or the specs.
Uh, Sir?; your perspective on that stacking swivel needs to be reassessed. The knurling was meant to help keep it in place, with the brazing. The loop has been forced out of place. :is my read, Thank you and carry on Sir!
They did. The P13 rifle is chambered in .276 or .280, can't remember exactly. It was not adopted, and so the rifle was chambered back into .303 and became the P14.
@@hendriktonisson2915 You're right. I suspect, as Ian discusses in the video here, that they were looking to develop a self loading rifle during this time which would have been a rimless cartridge. Ian has also discussed the issue of the long-suffering rimmed .303 in other videos, as well as Bloke On The Range.
There was no money for arms in the 1920s and 1930s - one of the main reasons the No4 wasn't produced even when developed - and by about 1935 it was too late to change ammunition - war was coming, and the entire global stockpiles of arms and ammunition were 303.
You left out the Savage Arms (US) manufactured #4s.... of which there were a bunch "lend leased" to the Brits from 1940 onwards.. and the Aussie manufactured Lithgows
@@GunnerAsch1 They may have got some no4 from britian, but they never manufactured them. Same with india. Then the tooling was sold to Pakistan. So there is also Pakistani ordinance factory no4s too. The aussie jungle carbine is even based on the no1
In History, I am currently studying Australian weapons used in WW1 and I believe through my research that the AIF used this or something similar to this in WW1/2.
Great rifle. Perfect bolt action. I’ve heard it described as the assault bolt-action because of how quickly you can cycle the bolt. Murder on your shoulders though compared to a Garand.
@@royboone5991 I think you misread my comment. i agree the Garand doesn't kick. I can fire that all day. It's the Enfield i was saying is murder on the shoulder.
School cadets I took home the 303 (without the bolt), CMF (Citizens Military Forces) took home the 303 with bolt then SLR not allowed to take home. Times certainly changed. At 10 years of age I had an air rifle, as did most of my mates. Now you need a licence to have one (what B**l S**t). Which makes me wonder how the boy scouts get on. Are they allowed to carry a knife, I had one with a 10" blade
Indeed, 7 years of trials to the gun that is just another bolt action rifle derived from the previous model. In that time they should have been able to produce a decent semi-auto. Perhaps some Lord Of The Moorland had some doubts over to its effects on English fair play.
Context is everything. In the 1920s and 30s economic constraints and defence spending cuts there was no money for new rifles of any sort, and there were no suitable semiauto designs available anyway. Britain was testing every design that appeared, but none were adequate for military adoption. The No4 was developed as a "just in case" project, which is why it sat on a shelf. By 1935 the proximity of war meant that there was no longer any time left to introduce a new calibre or weapon - which would meant replacing SA & SAA factories, depot stocks, weapons pools all around the globe - and so the "just in case" had to be dusted off. By contrast, USA (and Russia) had another six years in which to reap the benefit of maturing semi-auto designs.
I remember working for Royal Ordnance in Enfield in the late 80's. Every so often there were orders for No 4's and there still stock of brand new rifles wrapped in grease proof packing
I picked up a No4 Mk2 of gunbroker about 2 years ago that looks like it never fired a round. I know a lot of the Fazakerley “Irish Contract” rifles were never issued.
My grandfather had a gun shop for decades from the 50s into the early 90s and these Enfield were called, "mummy wrapped" because they looked like mummy wrapped appendages. It was linen wrapping with cosmolene. Took forever to clean off but the rifles were like new underneath. You would have to throw a rifle in a bog to get better age protection.
Five minutes and a shilling isn't a big deal for one rifle, but for a million rifles that is ten years of labour/machine time and likely the cost of tens of thousands of rifles.
@@Ghelasin I learned that in construction lol. "If a task that takes 5 minutes to complete takes you 10 minutes to finish it might not sound like much, but take double the time to finish that task a million times in a row and that's months of time wasted"
“There was going to be a D but they thought they had it figured out” Well, yea, I’d hope so, it’s only been what, 1000 years and 750 variations to that point?
February 65 aged 16 a boy seaman I qualified as a R. N. marksman with a no. 4 mk 2. Ten shots prone freehand, 300 yards, three foot square target with a nine inch bull. I scored 78 best highest score In my mess. Joined the shooting club and went on to shoot at ranges out too 800 yards all achieved with iron sights.
Yes, nice to hear a compliment. I was in Army cadets in the mid 60s and we had these for drill and range use plus the Morris Tube conversion to .22 LR for our domestic small bore range All were good.
Sure is a pretty one. Of all the rifles of that period I do think it's my favourite from and aesthetic point of view. that said, I am British so I'm probably biased!
@@chrispatten3482 Oh yes, I used to go to a public school once a week to shoot 22's, hanging around in the armoury waiting to start, and " playing" with Brens & Lee Enfields.
I recently grabbed a sporterized Savage No4 MK1* for dirt cheap and spent as much as the rifle cost me bringing it back to proper issue condition. I love the thing, it has such an iconic look and such a fantastic bolt action.
@@cbroz7492 When I was considering buying the base gun, I saw that there was a NOS wood set on Ebay with the auction ending that evening. I took it as a sign that I needed to buy the gun, lol.
I have a No4 Mk1 made by Savage under lend lease in 1942. An older gentleman viewing the rifle on a table at a gun show, was telling his grandson that the British wouldn't use them because they were made in America. The old gentleman was one of the free Polish who fought in the Falaise pocket, and said he proudly carried one. After they left, I immediately purchased it. Thanks Ian
I doubt that England having bought American weapons wouldn't use them. Britain was grateful for anything America could sell them and respect for US manufacturing was and remains very high. No disrespect to the heroes of Poland but something else might lie behind this account.
As someone that lives in Shirley, not far from where B.S.A were, hearing Ian correctly mention the work done here on No.4s was a nice treat. Thanks Ian.
@@tugboatyan awesome, bizarrely - despite living so close, my No.4 is a Long Branch, which is probably some sort of cultural crime. Great rifles all round.
Was thinking that. Lost a lot of the earlier pattern rifles in France and the no. 4 was put into accelerated production and issue. Otherwise I’d imaging the previous pattern/model would have been still in widespread British use throughout ww2.
If anything, it would have slowed development, with resources going to rapidly procure replacements based on existing proven designs. That was exactly what happened in the case of the 2pdr and 6pdr anti-tank guns, with the latter being delayed for a couple of years and 2pdrs were procured to replace those lost in France.
@@haldorasgirson9463 You're underestimating the difficulties of doing that. The new weapon may not work reliably, may not use ammunition compatible with other service equipment, and may use different machine-tooling. All the while you are fighting an industrial-scale total war against a peer-enemy, requiring vast amounts of equipment to be manufactured. It makes much more sense to produce existing proven designs than dislocating your industry and supply chains to produce and then supply something, especially when it will take months or years to ramp-up production, when requirements for the numbers of these weapons could be in the millions.
Once international travel opens back up, I'd love to see Ian go to Lithgow in NSW Australia to check out the Lithgow Small Arms Factory, and Museum. Where all the standard infantry weapons for the Australian Defence Force have been manufactured since 1912.
@@ckg1776 actually 1 January 1901 was the establishment of the Australian defence force if I am correct been a hot minute since I checked but that sounds right to me
Trials rifles - interesting historical snippet. In February 1940, Britain formed a ski/mountain warfare unit, 5th Battalion Scots Guards, for possible assistance to Finland in its war with the Soviet Union - which was an ally of Germany and thus an enemy state at that time. This battalion undertook ski training at Chamonix in France. Their issue rifles were trials pattern No1 MkVI and No4 Mk1. The regular No4 Mk1 was still a year or more away from production at that time.
No. Finland was not part of the Axis. Especially in the Winter of 1939-1940 when the Germans had a Pact with Russia - the whole partition of Poland thing. Finland does fight Russia from 1941 to 1944 in the Continuation War, with the objective of regain the province of Karelia. They make a sperate peace with Russia on actually fairly favourable terms.
@@elliottjames8020 He said that Germany was an ally of the Soviet Union, which isn't true either, they had a non-aggression pact and divided Europe (and Poland) between them.
Should be added that the anglo-french force only had a secondary objective to help the finns, the primary objective was to seize neutral northern Scandinavia, to deny the germans access to the iron ore there. The finnish peace with the Soviet union and norwegian and swedish 'no' to transporting the troops across northern Scandinavia put an end to the official plans, but it's why the anglo-french forces were readily available to be sent to Norway when Germany invaded Norway and Denmark on the 9th of April 1940. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_R_4
@@lavrentivs9891 while it's true that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was not a formal military alliance, the cooperation and coordination between both parties was quite close, and the Soviet supply of various trade goods to the Reich fueled the early German war effort. If they weren't allies, they were the closest thing to it. France and Britain also considered bombing the Caucasian oil fields, but couldn't get the Turks to cooperate well enough for that to be possible. Sean McMeekin's newest book lays this out over a few chapters.
I don't know but I'm starting to think that the catalog of Lee Enfield variants is probably no longer than the rules for cricket. You know, about the size of a phone book - and just as easy to read.
My dad used one of these in ww2. He hated the small spike bayonet and wished they went back to the old long blade variety. He did love the rifle though.
@@dp-sr1fd And oil cans. Make sure you put the right one in the brew. Last time I used a bayonet (it was the later 'pig sticker' type) fitted to the handle of entrenching tools, we cleared up a field after a public event, as we didn't have enough of the litter spikes. After a while, killing empty coke tins becomes quite natural.
I bought a number one Mark 4 Enfield that oringinaly was made under contract to Savage arms in 1944 but in the 50's was converted to a non firing prop rifle so i got it cheap for $229 But I converted it back to a firing rifle by getting a new bolt with spring and firing pin and it works fine firing the .303 British cartridge. Thanks for the Information on the No.4 Mark 1 rifle.
I have a Savage Mark 4 with a buttplate that looks like it is made from Zinc. Now I wonder if it is actually Al-u-min-i-um. I guess brass was more important for making cartridge cases by the end of the War
DON'T USE THAT RIFLE ! If it had been "converted" to a "prop" rifle it may have a weak barrel,or chamber.! If it has a marking on the breech,or side,,of "DP",is for display purpose,and is unsafe!
@@johngardner2807Yeah I've herd some stories about DP Enfields, like literally could be anything up with them, Like maybe they were exposed to high temperatures, in a fire, they've cleaned them up, stuck new wood on but no telling what the heat has done to the steel!
I was a U.K army cadet around 79-83. Happy memories shooting these at a range on the East Yorkshire coast. The butts of which fell into the north sea some years ago.
@@jordanclark4635 Nice, we also had a large number of "DP" drill purpose, deactivated No4's that together with the .22 converted ones we were allowed to keep in our ACF local detachment "hut" (in a safe naturally). The MOD were petrified at the time that the I.R.A. or some such would break in an nick 'em, so the 303's we used at (Cowden ranges?) were kept together with few Brens :) at the area HQ at Driffield.
@@13thdukeofwybourne69 we were lucky, even had A2s, absolute rows of them and more than our .22 single shots, shocking that we were trusted, but had heavy security on them thank god, could take apart and clean the fuckers. Had a AR BB gun and handled a couple at bases, much as the SA80A2 was heavier, I’ve got to say holding it at the base and also being able to move so deeply into the rifle always made it for me personally much more ergonomic and trust forming, holding the weapon so close No live 5.56 was kept on school grounds though, so all made some sense, don’t think our range would’ve been rated for it anyway lol
I think it sounds complex at first, but if you think about it, it's very similar to modern NATO designations For example, Rifle M1 in the US' case is the first self-loading standard issue rifle. In our case, Rifle NoIV Mk I is the Fourth model of rifle adopted with the first upgrade or improvement on top of it.
Word on the street is the Longbranch rifles were the best, but that could just be our Canadian pride in overcompensating. As an owner of one I think there's something to it though!
I have a soft spot for savage no4s. A fellow in town restores enfields. Out of a giant shop of maltbys, faz, and some longbrach....I grabbed a nice light wood no4 mk1* savage with a 2 groove barrel and stamped rear sight with original wood. Bit of barrel pitting but it shoots really well. Only one problem...I want another one 😄 I have a lithgow smle from 41 that is an excellent shooter also...and...I also want a British one now dammit. I really think the aussies had no1s figured. That rifle makes excellent groups too at 130 yards. Real tough to say which rifle I like more....
@@tays8306 Same here, I own a 1942 Savage, first fully functional firearm I ever bought (first fire arm I ever bought was a Veterli-Vatali m1870/87/15). Would love to see an in dept review on the Savage Enfields. Would love to know where they've been.
@@HO-bndk or you let them over populate an area, (+90% survival rate to maturity) and then they can humanity starve to death. Hunting helps keep the population in balance with nature, and lowers traffic incursions. Also they taste good.
Interesting side note on the No4 Mk1 bayonet. In 1944 they added a cap to the end of the handle for the Pattern 1937 entrenching tool (which was a 1941 update of the Pattern 1908 tool) that duplicated the muzzle.end of the barrel, including the bayonet lugs. While this did allow the use of the bayonet as a handheld weapon or tool (albeit one with a handle about a foot and a half long), the primary reason was to allow the bayonet to more easily work as a mine probe.
I have one of the later entrenching tools to go with my No.4 and I have to say, it's always struck me as one of the smartest design decisions for a rifle / bayonet. I mean. I've never cleared a mine field full of bouncing Betties but it seems like it would work extremely well?
@@Penguinius it's better than nothing, but it's something you really don't want to do if you have any other option, especially with more advanced fuzes (such as started to be used by WWII). Super slow and risky - but better than nothing (and possibly faster than calling the engineers forward from division HQ to clear it for you).
@@dorsk84 Surplus stores that handle WWII British kit for reenactors, or even eBay. Look for a Pattern 37 entrenching tool, and check the photos to make sure it has the later handle - the early handles are bare wood at the bottom, with just the metal fitting at top for the e-tool head. The later ones have a metal buttcap with a rod sticking out (that duplicates the barrel profile of the rifle, including lugs). I'd have to check my handles, but IIRC, they omitted the "stop" on the one lug that the rifle has (because it doesn't matter which way is "up" when attaching the bayonet to the entrenching tool handle), or possibly they dropped it as an unnecessary flourish early in production. Pricey, but reliable source: www.sofmilitary.co.uk/1937-entrenching-tool-and-pouch-original.html?fbclid=IwAR0o4OA10Z-VZKNjKHCKAA2-PmtKp70x4GBoLNW5aLdhukqEAtRt4NzVQyc
FYI : BSA Shirley - Shirley is a district of Birmingham not a town in its own right, it was a distinct plant in it own right, part of the BSA Group but seperate from the main BSA Works at Armoury Rd Small Heath Birmingham - they are about 8 miles apart
As someone who lived there, Shirley is most Certainly not a part of Birmingham, it comes under Solihull, and during the war was a town of its own right as Birmingham's urban sprawl hadn't reached that far
Not entirely true that the spike bayonet had no other utility besides being fixed to the rifle- it could also be locked into place on the end of the wooden haft of the British Army entrenching tool / mattock, to create a rather fearsome looking Trench Club / Assegai type hand weapon.
Yes, the lightweight "intrenching (sic)" tool. Useless as an entrenching tool, made doubly useless as a hand-to-hand weapon by sticking a bayonet on it.
@@gunner678 Useful for indoor range trainer. Shooting the normal SLR in the Victoria Barracks in the City was frowned on. Lots of fun and no sore shoulder.
My Dad preferred the No. 1 he was first issued with and was rather miffed when they retired it and gave him a No. 4. I was never able to ascertain quite why. I liked the No. 4s we shot with in the 80s. I remember shooting a 1943-vintage weapon in Wales with the aperture sights and getting 1 MOA accuracy.
Odds are it was just familiarity. The rifle people were familiar and comfortable with being replaced probably annoyed a lot of people, and the No 4 wasn't some massive leap forward for the soldier. I have read of many Americans being pissed when they had to turn in their Springfields for Garands, and that was a massive leap forward.
A deceased acquaintance served with 2NZEF from start to finish. He said that the No. 4 rifles issued to the division (prior to the Greece debacle that handed the parts of North Africa to the axis for two more years) were more roughly made than the No. 1 Mk III rifles they replaced. As a winner of a musketry trophy just before the war, he was extremely pissed off that he had to exchange his No. 1 Mk III for a No. 4. NB It was definitely before Greece because he was captured in Greece (on the same day that Charles Upham won his first VC) escaped, fought on Crete, was evacuated, then served in North Africa and Italy.
There was a scene in the TV Sitcom "Get Some In" (about national service) in which an RAF recruit or "Erk" is spotted by his corporal cleaning his fingernails with the tip of his No 4 Bayonet. Reproaching him, corporal Marsh (played by Tony Selby) furiously cries: "if you stab a man with a dirty bayonet like that, you'll give him blood poisoning!"
Actually I believe that the Geneva convention requires a soldier to keep the bayonet clean to prevent just such a thing. Sounds daft doesn't it, but I am sure I read that somewhere.
@@ScottKenny1978 Mk7 ball is more than capable. 2450fps is no slouch. Still lay the smack down at 1000 yards. 9 hole reviews did a good run with a no4 mk1 Telescoped.
Fun fact, the SMLE was only replaced because they ran out of confusing designations!
Lol it all makes sense now. 😂
So they ran out of room on the metal to put more stars? Yeah that does explain it.
It is known
L85a1, L85a2, L85a3, L1a1, L86, L129:
*Allow us to introduce ourselves*
Indeed.
The No.4 was the first military rifle I used when I was an Army Cadet in the early 1970's. I've loved them ever since!
Yeaah me to, can you imagine 12 and 13 year olds being given 303s to shoot today. I also fired Bren full auto. Great fun but the best bit was "night exercises" playing at soldiers getting dressed up as a tree and being given a live no 4 and a handful of 303 blank ammo to play with.
When i was in the cadets we used a very similar rifle to the no.4 for .22 training but sadly we had the l98A2 cadet rifle instead of the cool older service rifles. Still got turned into bushes for fun though :)
Yep, me too. 13 - 16 years old and made the Bisley Schools Championship Team...as substitute! We used to go to the local firing range behind RAF Bentwaters in a bus with all the rifles and boxes of ammunition. A bit disconcerting when you are shooting 1200 yards, trying your best, and a helicopter appears just above the target. It looked closer but was a long way off but enough to spoil your concentration.
The one I was issued as a cadet was made at Fazackerly in 1942 (I looked up its serial no. - and it wasn't so easy to do that in those pre-internet days). I often wondered if it had ever been fired in anger. I wish I could (legally) own one today.
@@andybelcher1767 Bentwaters! Near Woodbridge. I knocked around there later on in life.
They likely dumped the aluminum butt plate due to aluminum demand for aircraft (as WW II started in 1939.)
I would have written the same.
My thoughts also.@@SteamCrane
Thanks for the video Ian. Regarding the stacking swivel - I believe that the example you showed us was damaged. The wire loop showed remnants of brazing, or solder, where it had be secured to the mounting lug. The splines are just another example of the thoughtful engineering that went into British arms. These splines would help to relieve some of the load from the brazed joint.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge and enthusiasm Ian. My Fazakerley No.4 Mk1/2 came with the Mk.1 rearsight like yours but the addition of an A.J.Parker rearsight made it much better. No more fiddling with the foresight for windage adjustment.
The Enfield No4 mk1 is quite beautiful and transitioned well into a sporting rifle after the war. My father bought one for use as a bush rifle and bagged many a buck with the reliable rifle. The rifle would be stolen sometime in the 60's which is a shame as it probably would still be quite usefull for hunting.
As expected a sizeable section of this video is talking about the arcane and often unhinged British system of versions, variants and serial numbering. God, makes you proud to be British doesn't it?
It was designed to baffle the logical mind of the German while being perfectly understandable to a British man raised on the scoring system of cricket.
@@davidcolter "It's not over until the number of overs scheduled to be bowled that day, have been bowled."
@@davidcolter As a German, I thoroughly agree with that sentiment.
When I was 14 years old in the Fourth Form, St Bernard's College received a Library Donation to give the whole Form a week off to Mark the Queen's Shoot at the Trentham Military Camp, near Wellington, New Zealand. I didn't mark the Final on Saturday, because of Cricket. Those were many WW2 Veterans in 1964. The 900 Yard Targets were quite Big and the Bulls Eye was about 3 Feet Radius. The Better Shooters, with this exact Rifle with Aperture Sights, often with Irregular Wind Gusts, from close to a Kilometre Up Range were scoring Nine out of Ten on a three foot Spread.
I have a deactivated No4 mk1 with the same SMLE style round cocking piece and I always thought it was the wrong piece until watching this...
Same here.
Some savage and longbrach rifles came with them too. Usually earlier savages. Mine is later with the rectangle style.
@@tays8306 mine is Longbranch so that explains it....thanks
Love how old military British rifles carry the royal coat of arms. These days it’s used as a warrant to recommend cereals. Back then it was “you have incurred my displeasure, this man will shoot you in my name”.
I think on a strictly practical social level, I'll take the cereals.
Nice. As an aside finally got to Cody Museum of Guns. Wife was patient with me 😄. Could have spent a lot more time there. Thanks for the heads up about the place. Truly amazing.
Awesome, I'm very jealous, rather nice of the wife haha
Oh, a video about the Enfield rifle. Finally.
The first gun of any type that I ever shot (air guns don't count). There was and still is an army training range where I lived in Lancashire, that the local rifle club had its club house in. I and a number of friends used to go to the club house on a Sunday, collect one or two club rifles and 10 rounds of .303 ammo each, I think it was about 10 shillings for the ammo. We would then walk from the club house to the range that we were supposed to be shooting at, which could have been up to a mile away, with the rifles and ammo in hand. We'd shoot at whatever the range was, operate the targets in the butts do our scoring, then walk back and clean the rifles. We would have been 13 or 14 years old. Very happy times, looking back it's almost impossible to think it could be allowed. Following Hungerford and Dunblane I had to give up quite a collection of shooting guns and lost interest. Although I did have a number 4 in 7.62 for a while, but although as slick as ever, it was a poor shooter.
Another video adding to my No4 knowledge. Thanks Ian.
Mine came out of Fazerkerly in 43 October and was FTR’ed in 55. If I had to guess based on the pristine condition of the barrel it was never reissued prior to it being imported by Big 5 sporting goods in the early 90s.
In my grandma’s attic, there is what might be a 1944 No.4 Mk1 that used to belong to my dad’s dad (he never got to be my grandpa because he died 50 years ago when my dad was 8). I’m not 100% sure that’s what it is aside from the year. What it has is a scope and part of the barrel is exposed instead of encased in wood. At first, i noticed the mag and was like “that looks quite a bit like a lee enfield.” I looked around for as many markings I could find looking for things such as manufacturer, model, date, caliber, etc. Some markings I found were “No.4 Mk1” and “1944”. Based on that, I looked up “No.4 Mk1 1944” on google images and sure enough what I got was a bunch of those Lee Enfields. Most of them were the standard infantry pattern rifle. Was trying to figure out what exactly this particular rifle is. If it’s some kind of 3rd party civilian version of it. Idk if it shoots either the standard .303 Brit or if it’s something else that’s probably slightly smaller and/or more domestic.
It's probably a 'sporterised' Lee-Enfield. Basically after WW2 there was a huge number of surplus guns, so a lot of them were sold to the civilian market for dirt cheap and converted into hunting rifles by cutting back the wood at the front and (sometimes) adding a scope.
I was still using the SMLE No1 Mk3* in the school Army cadets here in Australia in the late 60's early 70's.
Im pretty sure some of the cadet programs in the UK still use 303s chambered in .22 as the "beginner" rifle.
@@roadsweeper1 See ukshootingnews.wordpress.com/2016/03/23/savage-arms-fvt-will-replace-22-no-8-cadet-rifle/
Maybe you used my Lithgow SMLE....made in 1926
Fired my first rounds with a .22 short cartridge MK4 when I was 6 or 7 at a Chatham Naval Dock open day where shooters were to hit burnt out light bulbs on string from about 15 ft. After popping away, the guy in charge of the range asked my dad if I had ever shot before as it seemed that I had a natural 'hold' on the rifle.
Later in life in the Air Training Corps I achieved ATC marksman and RAF marksman badges in .22 on a 25 yard indoor range and .303 on a 200 yard range on Rainham Marshes, Essex. Lovely weapon to use with that satisfying clunk as the bolt locks home.
I love how Ian goes into so much depth about the Lee Enfiedl and all its many derivatives. I think we've actually got beyond the point where if there's anything that Ian doesn't know about Lee Infields, it's probably not worth knowing. I'm proud to say I've fired one - probably a Mark IV - when I was in the cadets. We fired blanks but also FMJ 0.303 on the range. Our sadistic instructors didn't explain how to hold them properly (I was 14) and the first time I fired it, I nearly gave the rifle back, it kicked so hard. Fortunately, I persisted.
The early foresight protector is known as the “waisted” protector…
Yup, I've got a very early 1941 BSA with the waisted front sight protector
I watched that one show before where this one worker bought a no 4 t and Springfield 03 t. The no 4 sold for well over 20k and about 18k for the 03.
The white metal butt plate is not aluminum (a strategic metal), it’s actually the zinc alloy “Mazak”
Zamack i always thought
That doesn't really fit with the timeline.
That is a 1931 production rifle, before Mazak would have been really available.
Pre-production rifles used aluminum butt plates. When they began production during the war they used brass. The Zamak/Mazak ones were introduced later war as an expedient.
You can also find steel butt plates fr Long Branch.
@@tays8306 Both are effectively the same thing.
Mazak was a very slightly different formulation of Zamak due to slightly different input zinc available in Britain.
And you can probably find No 4 Rifles with both depending on if they were produced in Britain or North America.
@@88porpoise
Gotcha.
I know we even used steel ones im pretty sure too. (LB)
loved it, when i was aged 13 to 18, i was a royal marine cadet, used the SMLE lots, drill, training, ranges.... we did get some SLR's in my later years. but the SMLE holds a place in my heart.
Back before internet were ready available for common folks, I always thought that Lee-Enfield No.1 Mk.III were referring to the SMLE, which stand for Short Muzzle Lee-Enfield. Because it have short stumpy muzzle compared to No.4 Mk.1 which have longer muzzle.
Apparently SMLE actually mean Short Magazine Lee-Enfield
I admire your level of competency and knowledge- Impressive ! ! !
I've got a No 4 Mk 1; Accurate at heck & I love it !
My very first milsurp was a Long branch No4 Mk1 from 1942. I bought it in the late 80's and it definitely has that been there done that look to it.
We grew up thinking it's the most powerful rifle in the world. Loving called .303 in our state Nagaland,India. Still in love with this gun. Owing one will remain a dream, given Indian draconian gun laws😭
Have the Khyber pass boys make them 8mm Kurz instead.
Last time I was this early matchlocks were cutting edge weapons.
Enfield Lock finally took some of the metal from the heavy muzzle cap of the No.3 and put it into a heavier barrel for increased accuracy. They also transitioned from the tangent leaf sights mounted halfway down the barrel to the much better ring battlesight and flip-up smaller aperture screw-adjustible sights.
I suspect I may have a mutt. It is marked No4 Mk1, 1944. It has a hollow bolt handle and the "pull" on the rear of the bolt is more of a rectangular shape with a few vertical grooves milled into either side. Also my safety lever does not have the ring on the end, rather it is more of a dog-leg shape.
Love the gun none the less.
Very proud of my no4 mk1. Got it for a steal because all the metal was painted green, but that’s original military. shoots great with reloads!
Managed to get my hands on one of these. Love the rifle, but some genius decided to remove the bayonet lug from the barrel somehow.
Very common - I do not know for the life me why it was done though
@@RichGallant I don't either. Maybe some dumb law about civilian rifles? I mean this one was imported through Canada. But it also has greek characters carved onto the left side of the stock, so who knows where it's been before.
Just picked up this same model for $600! Good condition and matching numbers stamped 1944. I can’t wait to shoot it tomorrow!
An added factor in the long delay may have been the financial crash that affected the entire planet in the 1930's money was short and other projects had priority
One may add that it happens for other weapons. British knew the 2-pdr antitank was a bit underpowered, good for "today" tank but probably not "tomorrow" tanks.
So they created the 6pdr, in 1938.
They made all the prototypes and everything, and wrapped all the tech package in a drawer "for future use".
When they needed the 6pdr, they were so in desperate need of antitank guns they coudn't afford to stop manifacturing 2pdr for a couple of weeks to retool the line into producing 6pdr.
The first rifle I ever purchased was an all matching Canadian Long Branch No4 Mk1 in excellent condition. Just cycling the action was a great substitute for a girlfriend for a large portion of my 20s.
Another fun fact, the spike bayonet was outlawed because a circular wound wouldn't heal properly, if at all.
So I have heard, but makes sense.
I got a no4 mk2, they changed quite a bit between the mk1 and 2. Then to top it off I got a No5 Jungle Carbine
Now, please tell us about the No4 MK1* Savage made Enfield's. I own a 1942 and it also has period correct scope and mount! The scope mounting pads appear to have been factory added but i'm no expert. But i'm also sure the scope and mount are reproduction.
I'm also in Arizona if you would care to take a look at in person let me know.
As far as I have read, if its a mk1* savage, its not a real one. They apparantly only used no stars. How many grooves is the barrel rifling?
Only savage and long branch did the MK1* only difference is how the bolt is removed
My No.4 Mk1*'s enjoyed this info on their ancestors! ; )
As beautiful as a Spitfire, but more complex to maintain when one starts talking bollocks about stocking and headspace.
Unless you end up with a perfectly stocked up and headspaced rifle!
But just like a spitfire, it's performance outweighs the cons
@@bennicholson4223Mines "perfectly Stocked" in summer but sub optimal in winter, especially in the rain ... perfect headspace with respect to the military or civilian gauges?
Simpler bedding than the SMLE -- no springs involved. Most of the headspacing bollocks is total bollocks from people who don't understand the issues or the specs.
@@lordsummerisle87 Or understand what headspace is or that it's a rimmed cartridge 😂
I had a prototype tanker bulldog version.
It was century imported.
In the 90s
I think it had a 12" barrel.
Anyone had one too?
Century made those themselves. Not the brits
@@tays8306 good to know. Thank you very much
That would be a good video subject I think. Why did the British, given the huge time lag there, totally fail to develop a self loading rifle for WWII.
For starters.....ww1 probably bankrupted them...just in time to barely get back on their feet for ww2.
Uh, Sir?; your perspective on that stacking swivel needs to be reassessed. The knurling was meant to help keep it in place, with the brazing. The loop has been forced out of place. :is my read, Thank you and carry on Sir!
The No.4 sights are the duck's nuts.
Why didn't the Brits try to replace the rimmed .303 with a rimmles cartridge in the 1920s or 1930s like the French with 8mm Lebel?
That would mean copying what the French do.....
What a horrible idea,!!!
I will have to go and sit down for a bit now.
They did. The P13 rifle is chambered in .276 or .280, can't remember exactly. It was not adopted, and so the rifle was chambered back into .303 and became the P14.
@@Ashcrash82 Yes but that was before WW1.
@@hendriktonisson2915 You're right. I suspect, as Ian discusses in the video here, that they were looking to develop a self loading rifle during this time which would have been a rimless cartridge. Ian has also discussed the issue of the long-suffering rimmed .303 in other videos, as well as Bloke On The Range.
There was no money for arms in the 1920s and 1930s - one of the main reasons the No4 wasn't produced even when developed - and by about 1935 it was too late to change ammunition - war was coming, and the entire global stockpiles of arms and ammunition were 303.
Finally, a rifle I owned before forgotten weapons made a video on it
You left out the Savage Arms (US) manufactured #4s.... of which there were a bunch "lend leased" to the Brits from 1940 onwards.. and the Aussie manufactured Lithgows
Lithgow are no1 mk3. They never made no4. Same with india.
@@tays8306 odd..Ill have to dig one out of my collection and double check.
@@GunnerAsch1
They may have got some no4 from britian, but they never manufactured them. Same with india. Then the tooling was sold to Pakistan. So there is also Pakistani ordinance factory no4s too.
The aussie jungle carbine is even based on the no1
Excellent review!!!
In History, I am currently studying Australian weapons used in WW1 and I believe through my research that the AIF used this or something similar to this in WW1/2.
Hey where's the disassembly? I took mine completely apart and can't put it back together 🙃
I have two Indian No4mkI. Could you do a continuation on the commonwealth build rifles?
may I ask is there anything 'special' about a 1950 Long Branch model? Of course I have one and have had it for years. Target shooting and hunting.
What a coincidence... Yesterday I watched one of the SMLE Mark III videos and was wondering if there was an video about the No4
One of the best rifle I ever owned.
Fun fact.... People in Sheffield (me) would remind you Maltby is near Rotherham, which is too close to Sheffield 🙄🙄🤔🤣🤣
"if its good enough for dad, its good enought for me!" - britishmuzzleloaders
I have a number 4 model 1*. It shoots great and is very accurate.
Now thats what I call engineering development!
What have you come up with in the last 20 years , chaps ?
'We changed the varnish colour, sir'
As I read your comment, it was played out by the Monty Python crew in my mind. You have made my evening, and you have my thanks.
Well we're finally here been a long time.
Great rifle. Perfect bolt action. I’ve heard it described as the assault bolt-action because of how quickly you can cycle the bolt. Murder on your shoulders though compared to a Garand.
I guess you only shoot bb guns
@@royboone5991 you’d be wrong. I own both of these.
M1 don't kick .03a1 25 lbs shoulder eng it's the softy's that need a bb gun have a great day .
@@royboone5991 I think you misread my comment. i agree the Garand doesn't kick. I can fire that all day. It's the Enfield i was saying is murder on the shoulder.
Gazing fondly at my four No. 4s....one by each manufacturer
Fun fact the nickname British servicemen gave the bayonet was " the pigsticker".
School cadets I took home the 303 (without the bolt), CMF (Citizens Military Forces) took home the 303 with bolt then SLR not allowed to take home. Times certainly changed. At 10 years of age I had an air rifle, as did most of my mates. Now you need a licence to have one (what B**l S**t). Which makes me wonder how the boy scouts get on. Are they allowed to carry a knife, I had one with a 10" blade
And Savage made a whole bunch, right after Dunkirk. They are stamped US Property.
Indeed, 7 years of trials to the gun that is just another bolt action rifle derived from the previous model. In that time they should have been able to produce a decent semi-auto.
Perhaps some Lord Of The Moorland had some doubts over to its effects on English fair play.
To be fair Ian does actually answer this towards the end of the video
Context is everything. In the 1920s and 30s economic constraints and defence spending cuts there was no money for new rifles of any sort, and there were no suitable semiauto designs available anyway. Britain was testing every design that appeared, but none were adequate for military adoption. The No4 was developed as a "just in case" project, which is why it sat on a shelf. By 1935 the proximity of war meant that there was no longer any time left to introduce a new calibre or weapon - which would meant replacing SA & SAA factories, depot stocks, weapons pools all around the globe - and so the "just in case" had to be dusted off. By contrast, USA (and Russia) had another six years in which to reap the benefit of maturing semi-auto designs.
Plus low on funds from ww1....
Brititshmuzzleloaders: *sniffs through mustache* Acceptable.
I've often wondered if him and Ian could communicate via moustache twitches.
@@thenoobcannon9830 LOL, that's a great comment/question.
I remember working for Royal Ordnance in Enfield in the late 80's. Every so often there were orders for No 4's and there still stock of brand new rifles wrapped in grease proof packing
That's cool
There's a video called 'Lee Enfield No4 Mk2 Unboxing' where a guy unwraps one and shows how to prepare it for use.
I picked up a No4 Mk2 of gunbroker about 2 years ago that looks like it never fired a round. I know a lot of the Fazakerley “Irish Contract” rifles were never issued.
@@faeembrugh I got one of those rifles, sadly since sold.
My grandfather had a gun shop for decades from the 50s into the early 90s and these Enfield were called, "mummy wrapped" because they looked like mummy wrapped appendages. It was linen wrapping with cosmolene. Took forever to clean off but the rifles were like new underneath. You would have to throw a rifle in a bog to get better age protection.
"beveling of the receiver takes 5 minutes and costs a shilling".....
"dump it"
Five minutes and a shilling isn't a big deal for one rifle, but for a million rifles that is ten years of labour/machine time and likely the cost of tens of thousands of rifles.
@@88porpoise Yeah, that's something a lot of people miss "But doing it would have been really cheap", not when you make millions of them
@@Ghelasin That's how the car manufacturers work.
@@88porpoise just the cost of the cutting oil and milling die alone would have been a nice stack of dosh.
@@Ghelasin I learned that in construction lol. "If a task that takes 5 minutes to complete takes you 10 minutes to finish it might not sound like much, but take double the time to finish that task a million times in a row and that's months of time wasted"
“There was going to be a D but they thought they had it figured out”
Well, yea, I’d hope so, it’s only been what, 1000 years and 750 variations to that point?
February 65 aged 16 a boy seaman I qualified as a R. N. marksman with a no. 4 mk 2. Ten shots prone freehand, 300 yards, three foot square target with a nine inch bull. I scored 78 best highest score In my mess.
Joined the shooting club and went on to shoot at ranges out too 800 yards all achieved with iron sights.
Nobody cares, boomer.
Impressive!!
Yes, nice to hear a compliment. I was in Army cadets in the mid 60s and we had these for drill and range use plus the Morris Tube conversion to .22 LR for our domestic small bore range All were good.
Just something so aesthetically pleasing about the No4 rifle.
Sure is a pretty one. Of all the rifles of that period I do think it's my favourite from and aesthetic point of view. that said, I am British so I'm probably biased!
When I was a teenager I used to spend days surrounded by them in the school armoury. Sounds like something from 'If...' doesn't it?
@@chrispatten3482 Oh yes, I used to go to a public school once a week to shoot 22's, hanging around in the armoury waiting to start, and " playing" with Brens & Lee Enfields.
Grew up with one of these in South Africa, had US Army markings on it.
I had the privilege to use them , many years ago , such a wonderful feeling bolt mechanism.
I recently grabbed a sporterized Savage No4 MK1* for dirt cheap and spent as much as the rifle cost me bringing it back to proper issue condition. I love the thing, it has such an iconic look and such a fantastic bolt action.
That's the fun of our hobby...restoration and the search for the correct parts.
@@cbroz7492 When I was considering buying the base gun, I saw that there was a NOS wood set on Ebay with the auction ending that evening. I took it as a sign that I needed to buy the gun, lol.
@@booliganshootingsports Any excuse will do!
BOTR is very rude about sporterised Enfields! And rightly so!
lol. Even Ian gets confused over these supposedly logical naming conventions. heh. Cheers for the upload.
Anyone really thinks english rifle designation logic?
British rifle designations are basically numbers out of a hat as near as I can tell.
I have a No4 Mk1 made by Savage under lend lease in 1942. An older gentleman viewing the rifle on a table at a gun show, was telling his grandson that the British wouldn't use them because they were made in America. The old gentleman was one of the free Polish who fought in the Falaise pocket, and said he proudly carried one. After they left, I immediately purchased it. Thanks Ian
I doubt that England having bought American weapons wouldn't use them. Britain was grateful for anything America could sell them and respect for US manufacturing was and remains very high. No disrespect to the heroes of Poland but something else might lie behind this account.
As someone that lives in Shirley, not far from where B.S.A were, hearing Ian correctly mention the work done here on No.4s was a nice treat. Thanks Ian.
The newest addition to my collection was birthed down the street from you in 1944. Still a beautiful example of BSA workmanship after all these years.
@@tugboatyan awesome, bizarrely - despite living so close, my No.4 is a Long Branch, which is probably some sort of cultural crime. Great rifles all round.
I should imagine that losing hundreds of thousands of rifles and machine guns in France, and Dunkirk in particular must have accelerated development.
Was thinking that. Lost a lot of the earlier pattern rifles in France and the no. 4 was put into accelerated production and issue. Otherwise I’d imaging the previous pattern/model would have been still in widespread British use throughout ww2.
If anything, it would have slowed development, with resources going to rapidly procure replacements based on existing proven designs. That was exactly what happened in the case of the 2pdr and 6pdr anti-tank guns, with the latter being delayed for a couple of years and 2pdrs were procured to replace those lost in France.
The OG "I lost it in a boating accident"
Stop development, start production.
@@haldorasgirson9463 You're underestimating the difficulties of doing that. The new weapon may not work reliably, may not use ammunition compatible with other service equipment, and may use different machine-tooling. All the while you are fighting an industrial-scale total war against a peer-enemy, requiring vast amounts of equipment to be manufactured. It makes much more sense to produce existing proven designs than dislocating your industry and supply chains to produce and then supply something, especially when it will take months or years to ramp-up production, when requirements for the numbers of these weapons could be in the millions.
in Australia we didn't adopt the no4 because we needed the 16" bayonet for the emus
Plus the wombats
Don’t forget about the ruddy wombats
Yet you still lost.
@@Jh5kRadio it's was a negotiated ceasefire
@@rebeccatyler3851 after a humiliating defeat.
Those goddamn platypuses were no help whatsoever..
Once international travel opens back up, I'd love to see Ian go to Lithgow in NSW Australia to check out the Lithgow Small Arms Factory, and Museum.
Where all the standard infantry weapons for the Australian Defence Force have been manufactured since 1912.
Infantry Museum at Singleton is (or was) worth a good look too.
Come on down mate we’ll be happy to have ya =)
@@ckg1776 actually 1 January 1901 was the establishment of the Australian defence force if I am correct been a hot minute since I checked but that sounds right to me
I went to Lithgow small arms factory museum in 2018
@@BobJury-lf6bb Been there twice loved it. We only went to stay a day but stayed six days as so much to see.
Trials rifles - interesting historical snippet. In February 1940, Britain formed a ski/mountain warfare unit, 5th Battalion Scots Guards, for possible assistance to Finland in its war with the Soviet Union - which was an ally of Germany and thus an enemy state at that time. This battalion undertook ski training at Chamonix in France. Their issue rifles were trials pattern No1 MkVI and No4 Mk1. The regular No4 Mk1 was still a year or more away from production at that time.
No. Finland was not part of the Axis. Especially in the Winter of 1939-1940 when the Germans had a Pact with Russia - the whole partition of Poland thing.
Finland does fight Russia from 1941 to 1944 in the Continuation War, with the objective of regain the province of Karelia. They make a sperate peace with Russia on actually fairly favourable terms.
@@elliottjames8020 He never said it was. He said the Mountain Warfare unit was intended to help Finland.
@@elliottjames8020 He said that Germany was an ally of the Soviet Union, which isn't true either, they had a non-aggression pact and divided Europe (and Poland) between them.
Should be added that the anglo-french force only had a secondary objective to help the finns, the primary objective was to seize neutral northern Scandinavia, to deny the germans access to the iron ore there. The finnish peace with the Soviet union and norwegian and swedish 'no' to transporting the troops across northern Scandinavia put an end to the official plans, but it's why the anglo-french forces were readily available to be sent to Norway when Germany invaded Norway and Denmark on the 9th of April 1940.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_R_4
@@lavrentivs9891 while it's true that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was not a formal military alliance, the cooperation and coordination between both parties was quite close, and the Soviet supply of various trade goods to the Reich fueled the early German war effort. If they weren't allies, they were the closest thing to it. France and Britain also considered bombing the Caucasian oil fields, but couldn't get the Turks to cooperate well enough for that to be possible. Sean McMeekin's newest book lays this out over a few chapters.
I don't know but I'm starting to think that the catalog of Lee Enfield variants is probably no longer than the rules for cricket. You know, about the size of a phone book - and just as easy to read.
Next Headstamp book…?
My dad used one of these in ww2. He hated the small spike bayonet and wished they went back to the old long blade variety. He did love the rifle though.
My father said he didn't like the round holes the bayonet made in toast...
Kudos to anyone who knows the immortal lines from "Dads Army" character Corporal Jones about Enfield bayonets..........
Yes, but the spike bayonet was perfect to make holes in tins of condensed milk. Which may have been it's original purpose.
@@dp-sr1fd And oil cans. Make sure you put the right one in the brew.
Last time I used a bayonet (it was the later 'pig sticker' type) fitted to the handle of entrenching tools, we cleared up a field after a public event, as we didn't have enough of the litter spikes. After a while, killing empty coke tins becomes quite natural.
@@harryfaber Soft drinks cans don't like it up 'em!
Idk if Ian's a Finophiliac, a Frenchophile or a Lee-enfield-sexual
I think he is just generally gun horny :P
I bought a number one Mark 4 Enfield that oringinaly was made under contract to Savage arms in 1944 but in the 50's was converted to a non firing prop rifle so i got it cheap for $229 But I converted it back to a firing rifle by getting a new bolt with spring and firing pin and it works fine firing the .303 British cartridge. Thanks for the Information on the No.4 Mark 1 rifle.
I have a Savage Mark 4 with a buttplate that looks like it is made from Zinc. Now I wonder if it is actually Al-u-min-i-um. I guess brass was more important for making cartridge cases by the end of the War
@@robertrobert7924
My savage also has that butt plate.
DON'T USE THAT RIFLE !
If it had been "converted" to a "prop" rifle it may have a weak barrel,or chamber.!
If it has a marking on the breech,or side,,of "DP",is for display purpose,and is unsafe!
@@johngardner2807Yeah I've herd some stories about DP Enfields, like literally could be anything up with them,
Like maybe they were exposed to high temperatures, in a fire, they've cleaned them up, stuck new wood on but no telling what the heat has done to the steel!
Piling swivel not 'stacking swivel' in England-shire.
Piling like piling your mum or is it something else
@@gunnermurphy6632 goteem
@@gunnermurphy6632 *mum
@@AUstudios better?
"The naming of the parts" poem.
Just watched the britishmuzzleloaders intro to the No.4 the other day!
I was a U.K army cadet around 79-83. Happy memories shooting these at a range on the East Yorkshire coast. The butts of which fell into the north sea some years ago.
Was a RAF/CCF cadet in Bridlington, shot the .22s at school between like 09-12
@@jordanclark4635 Nice, we also had a large number of "DP" drill purpose, deactivated No4's that together with the .22 converted ones we were allowed to keep in our ACF local detachment "hut" (in a safe naturally). The MOD were petrified at the time that the I.R.A. or some such would break in an nick 'em, so the 303's we used at (Cowden ranges?) were kept together with few Brens :) at the area HQ at Driffield.
@@13thdukeofwybourne69 we were lucky, even had A2s, absolute rows of them and more than our .22 single shots, shocking that we were trusted, but had heavy security on them thank god, could take apart and clean the fuckers. Had a AR BB gun and handled a couple at bases, much as the SA80A2 was heavier, I’ve got to say holding it at the base and also being able to move so deeply into the rifle always made it for me personally much more ergonomic and trust forming, holding the weapon so close
No live 5.56 was kept on school grounds though, so all made some sense, don’t think our range would’ve been rated for it anyway lol
Anyone else thouroughly confused by the number/mark nomenclature on these rifles?
No. 1 Mk 8 Enfield V2 Type 55
I think it sounds complex at first, but if you think about it, it's very similar to modern NATO designations
For example, Rifle M1 in the US' case is the first self-loading standard issue rifle.
In our case, Rifle NoIV Mk I is the Fourth model of rifle adopted with the first upgrade or improvement on top of it.
You should see the designations for all the Garands
It's to preserve employment of the bureaucrats...
Meanwhile in the U.S.
"Just call it the M1 its fine"
Me waiting for a review of the North American No4 mkl's: So close, so close
@@Chris_Garman and the Savage built guns
Word on the street is the Longbranch rifles were the best, but that could just be our Canadian pride in overcompensating. As an owner of one I think there's something to it though!
@@Chris_Garman Could be any number of issues.
I have a soft spot for savage no4s. A fellow in town restores enfields. Out of a giant shop of maltbys, faz, and some longbrach....I grabbed a nice light wood no4 mk1* savage with a 2 groove barrel and stamped rear sight with original wood. Bit of barrel pitting but it shoots really well.
Only one problem...I want another one 😄
I have a lithgow smle from 41 that is an excellent shooter also...and...I also want a British one now dammit. I really think the aussies had no1s figured. That rifle makes excellent groups too at 130 yards. Real tough to say which rifle I like more....
@@tays8306 Same here, I own a 1942 Savage, first fully functional firearm I ever bought (first fire arm I ever bought was a Veterli-Vatali m1870/87/15). Would love to see an in dept review on the Savage Enfields. Would love to know where they've been.
No4 Mk1 still killing deer at our house in November. Deer do not run very far after taking a hit from the .303. Most fall on the spot. Very humane.
Though not as humane as not shooting them at all, of course.
@@HO-bndk or you let them over populate an area, (+90% survival rate to maturity) and then they can humanity starve to death. Hunting helps keep the population in balance with nature, and lowers traffic incursions. Also they taste good.
I think some of the record moose and elk hunts in Canada were done by .303
@@HO-bndk: Have Mommy fix you soybeans for supper. You'll feel morally superior.
I use American Eagle 150-grain lead bullets that really scoot.....So far No. 4 3, Bambi 0
Kids spelling "DAD" in the framed pictures is very cute.
I didn’t realize Ian had kids
@@Trashcansam123I belive these arent his but the guns' owner's.
I have a No.4. Such a solid gun from another era and runs smooth even after all these years. I would love to know its history.
Interesting side note on the No4 Mk1 bayonet. In 1944 they added a cap to the end of the handle for the Pattern 1937 entrenching tool (which was a 1941 update of the Pattern 1908 tool) that duplicated the muzzle.end of the barrel, including the bayonet lugs. While this did allow the use of the bayonet as a handheld weapon or tool (albeit one with a handle about a foot and a half long), the primary reason was to allow the bayonet to more easily work as a mine probe.
Ok then.... where do I get one of these E-tools? I need it to go with my No4.
I have one of the later entrenching tools to go with my No.4 and I have to say, it's always struck me as one of the smartest design decisions for a rifle / bayonet. I mean. I've never cleared a mine field full of bouncing Betties but it seems like it would work extremely well?
@@Penguinius it's better than nothing, but it's something you really don't want to do if you have any other option, especially with more advanced fuzes (such as started to be used by WWII). Super slow and risky - but better than nothing (and possibly faster than calling the engineers forward from division HQ to clear it for you).
@@dorsk84 Surplus stores that handle WWII British kit for reenactors, or even eBay. Look for a Pattern 37 entrenching tool, and check the photos to make sure it has the later handle - the early handles are bare wood at the bottom, with just the metal fitting at top for the e-tool head. The later ones have a metal buttcap with a rod sticking out (that duplicates the barrel profile of the rifle, including lugs).
I'd have to check my handles, but IIRC, they omitted the "stop" on the one lug that the rifle has (because it doesn't matter which way is "up" when attaching the bayonet to the entrenching tool handle), or possibly they dropped it as an unnecessary flourish early in production.
Pricey, but reliable source: www.sofmilitary.co.uk/1937-entrenching-tool-and-pouch-original.html?fbclid=IwAR0o4OA10Z-VZKNjKHCKAA2-PmtKp70x4GBoLNW5aLdhukqEAtRt4NzVQyc
FYI : BSA Shirley - Shirley is a district of Birmingham not a town in its own right, it was a distinct plant in it own right, part of the BSA Group but seperate from the main BSA Works at Armoury Rd Small Heath Birmingham - they are about 8 miles apart
But don't call be Shirley...
As someone who lived there, Shirley is most Certainly not a part of Birmingham, it comes under Solihull, and during the war was a town of its own right as Birmingham's urban sprawl hadn't reached that far
@@andreww2098 Fair play I stand corrected
Finally a video on the good ol' Number 4! Thanks Ian!
Not entirely true that the spike bayonet had no other utility besides being fixed to the rifle- it could also be locked into place on the end of the wooden haft of the British Army entrenching tool / mattock, to create a rather fearsome looking Trench Club / Assegai type hand weapon.
Yes, the lightweight "intrenching (sic)" tool. Useless as an entrenching tool, made doubly useless as a hand-to-hand weapon by sticking a bayonet on it.
In a pinch, you could probably also round up four of them and stake down a tent.
I find so many of these videos are so interesting and informative that they worth watching repeatedly. Thank you!
I remember the 22 trainer. Bit of a toy plinker after using the SLR.
The H and K indoor range adaptor for the SLR but certainly not a toy plinker.
@@gunner678 Useful for indoor range trainer. Shooting the normal SLR in the Victoria Barracks in the City was frowned on. Lots of fun and no sore shoulder.
An elegant weapon for, oh irony, less civilised times. Certainly one of the most beautiful firearms ever made.
"So uncivilized"
Not as clumsy or random as a submachine gun.
Another poster had a great line about the Royal Cypher: "you have displeased me, and these men will shoot you in my name."
My Dad preferred the No. 1 he was first issued with and was rather miffed when they retired it and gave him a No. 4. I was never able to ascertain quite why. I liked the No. 4s we shot with in the 80s. I remember shooting a 1943-vintage weapon in Wales with the aperture sights and getting 1 MOA accuracy.
From an aesthetic standpoint I prefer the No. 1. But functionally the No. 4 is better in every way except the bayonet.
Odds are it was just familiarity. The rifle people were familiar and comfortable with being replaced probably annoyed a lot of people, and the No 4 wasn't some massive leap forward for the soldier.
I have read of many Americans being pissed when they had to turn in their Springfields for Garands, and that was a massive leap forward.
A deceased acquaintance served with 2NZEF from start to finish. He said that the No. 4 rifles issued to the division (prior to the Greece debacle that handed the parts of North Africa to the axis for two more years) were more roughly made than the No. 1 Mk III rifles they replaced. As a winner of a musketry trophy just before the war, he was extremely pissed off that he had to exchange his No. 1 Mk III for a No. 4.
NB It was definitely before Greece because he was captured in Greece (on the same day that Charles Upham won his first VC) escaped, fought on Crete, was evacuated, then served in North Africa and Italy.
There was a scene in the TV Sitcom "Get Some In" (about national service) in which an RAF recruit or "Erk" is spotted by his corporal cleaning his fingernails with the tip of his No 4 Bayonet. Reproaching him, corporal Marsh (played by Tony Selby) furiously cries: "if you stab a man with a dirty bayonet like that, you'll give him blood poisoning!"
Actually I believe that the Geneva convention requires a soldier to keep the bayonet clean to prevent just such a thing. Sounds daft doesn't it, but I am sure I read that somewhere.
I remember seeing that series on the telly when I was very small. Robert Lyndsey was in it I think.
The British commonwealth seemed really bent on getting their money's worth out of the Enfield design. 🤔
Bit like the US and the AR-15.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!!
@@kentr2424 the only thing "broke" about the Lee-Enfield is the .303 round itself.
Of course, it also predates the Mauser rimless design by a decade.
@@ScottKenny1978
Mk7 ball is more than capable. 2450fps is no slouch. Still lay the smack down at 1000 yards. 9 hole reviews did a good run with a no4 mk1 Telescoped.
@@tays8306 more the rimmed case and cordite propellant. The Mk7Z bullet is excellent.