@@51WCDodge Yes, it was a sad day when I surrendered my honey coloured number 4 for a SLR with wooden furniture. I like a long rifle with a bayonet on the end. Call it the Corporal Jones syndrome..............
@@johnlustig4322; Can you specify more about "Corporal Jones?" I'm guessing that it is similar to what we used in the US Army - "Private Snuffy" - meaning, "dumbass." 😆
@@wallaroo1295 Corporal Jones is a character in a very popular British comedy sit com, called "Dad's army" from the 1970's, which even endures as repeats on TV to this day. One of his popular catch phrases was "they don't like it up'em." This was a reference to his bayonet and the enemy, in particular the Germans, during the first world war. The main aspect or flaw of his character, is for him to panic at the slightest sign of a crisis or set back to the unit.
@@johnlustig4322 I was three when you got your Enfield A good gun for shooting rabbits Well so thought my Dad in ww2 On leave they had to take them home with them. He wanted to get food for the family so shot at a rabbit He missed and the shot went through a few hedges across the back road right passed the Vicar's wife on her bike. It was later reported that she was shot at by German snipers or fifth columnists so village gossip goes Many years later I used to rabbit in the same field though never almost killing anyone
@@worldoftancraft see Ian and Karls video about how battle rifles are osolete. Lee's are fine rifles, but let's not kid ourselves. Any world War 2 semi automatic battle rifle would still be far more effective than a turn bolt. Even in a Lee, you can only turn that bolt so fast. And while it can be faster than other bolt guns, it's still going to be significantly slower than any proper semi.
It's a beautiful rear sight. My uncle has a sporterized one he bought like such but they kept the original front and rear sight (front sight protection ears were sadly removed though) but that rear sight was really nice
That's intresting. I have an old Mossberg MB42a supplied for training with the same marking. Out of interest does your rifle have British Proof marks? That may be a story in itself.
Amazing how fast this creature was able to evolve given the right environment! I love nature. So beautiful seeing these little guys emerge from their dens each spring. I can’t believe you caught so many.
My first milsurp rifle was a Long Branch No4 mk1* with the mk2 rear sight. After my first trip to the range I immediately ordered a mk4 sight online and replaced the original mk2, and I am glad I did! I still have the mk2 sight, and I will sell it with the rifle if I ever decide to get rid of it.
All these rifles with iron sights to 600, 800, even 1000 yards boggle my mind. I have to ask how many of the people who signed off on and designed these sights ever actually HIT anything at 800 yards. Although it can't be any worse than pistols with sights adjustable out to 200 meters...
There is a story from Bisley where there was a competition at 1000 yards. This old Colonel was shooting with his No4. He fired and a bull was indicated. The Colonel type asked the Range Officer for an indication. The Range officer told him null indicated. The Colonel said, “I know it was a bull I want to know where in the bull”
Grimlock the longer ranges were really for Section Shooting where targets would be engaged at longer ranges by the section. For the SLR in military shooting competitions targets would be engaged initially in the Section Match at either 500 or 600m, sorry age affecting my memory.
Grimlock1 I suppose when you’re in a shitty hole on top of a hill shooting at a guy in a shitty hole on top of a different hill 1000yds away who is shooting at you....you want to sling some lead back at them.
The cross hatching around the aperture on the Mk.III rear sight makes it easier to use prone, with the sun behind your shoulder. For this reason, the Mk.1 rear sights which our school OTC used for competition 500 yard shooting, were initially painted matt black. The head of the school OTC then "bribed' our local visiting armourer with a bottle of malt whisky, to let us have 10 of the Parker Hale "Marksman" rear sights for our shooting team. These were a considerable improvement with the adjustable aperture and precision adjustments for elevation and windage.
Thank you! I have a 1943 #4 from Long Branch that has the simplified flip sight ,and I was debating on replacing it, but I think I'll just leave it as is
Now I have to go look at the rear sight on my No4Mk1 1942 dated to see what I have. Pristine unmodified rifle with 1942 marked sling proper cleaning kit in the stock and bayonet with frog dated 1942. Thanks for the info!
I have all three designs on rifles. I love the history of mods and all but honestly the English did a fine job because all three designs work very well! Great video and take Care, John
My No4 MkI had the MkIII rear sight and I believe this would've been a great rear sight for war (quick to manufacture, quick to use), but it isn't the best for target shooting due to the size of the aperture and the fact that it's a little flimsy. I used to get around 3moa using handloads but after I swapped out to the ph5c rear sight that dropped to 1moa with handloads. This is in part due to the adjustable aperture of the Parker Hale but also holding a much more solid zero. Very happy with it now!
I had a number four back when I was a teen, 18. I remember that rifle had the flip sight. Now I have a number four with the first " wind up" rear sight.
Amazing timing on the vid Ian! I just got a 1943 Savage No.4 Mk1 SMLE with the L sight. I was wondering if i could fit one of the ladder sights on to it and you have just answered that for me! Love your vids, keep up the great work!
A New Zealand soldier told me that the foresight was adjusted for each man on his particular 303 rifle They used to fire on the range with the bayonet on to steady and balance the rifle Then the officer used to adjust the front sight with a screwdriver to get the man more accurate It wasn't possible with British units because of class divisions which did not exist in New Zealand Keep up the great articles
You think you could do a review on U.S. lend lease Enfields? I own one but I would like to get more information on it. There's not a hole lot of reviews on those rifles and the ones that do exists don't really go in dept like you do. Your the only man for the job.
Also when the Factory Through Repair was conducted on No4 rifles, upgrading them from No4 Mk1 to No4 MkII the existing rear sight was always changed to the milled version of the rear sight. The stamped rear sight was flimsy. The fixed aperture is easily bent or broken off and the slider gets quite floppy with some wear, and I've even seen them with the primary leaf bent almost into a U shape.
My Savage No4 MK1* has the dual-aperture MKII flip sight. Hate it but can't bring myself to replace it with a MKI or MKIII sight since it's both correct for the rifle and original to it (marked S for Savage).
I have one of those. Tried shooting it after I bought it: one box of Remington and one box of Sellier & Bellot. Wouldn’t feed from the magazine, so had to do it single shot. Safety would re-engage after every shot. Shot 5 inch groups, at 25 yards! Now it’s just a show piece. Glad it still has the “U.S. Property” stamp. Read that sometimes British soldiers would grind that off. I bet it has some stories to tell.
Weeeelll... Actually... It is entirely possible your rifle originally had a Mk I sight from the factory. Then, following a trip across the Atlantic, it was thrust into the trembling hands of an accountant's assistant who, in a moment of terrified absent-mindedness, dropped the rifle on the sight, which was replaced by a Mk II sight. I could come up with other scenarios but I won't... Incidentally, the "US PROPERTY" marking mentioned by mandymayne8759 was a gesture to the US supplying arms to the Allies before Pearl Harbour had an early morning visit from the Japanese. It showed that the Allies were paying for the equipment so the US could claim they were not participating in the war - just making money from it. And Britain paid their share (unlike the Russians, for example). All of it.
I have a 1943 Lee Enfield No.4 Mk1 with the precision aperture just like on the 1st rifle you showed in the video, however, mine doesn't have the horizontal groves on the upper guard as yours does.
Have # 4 with 2 grove barrel and came with a mark II sight , replaced with a mark I ,now need different front sight ,have to adjust slider to 400 yards to be close to zero at 100 yards ..
Zeroing the MK4 ALWAYS begins with selecting the right front sight for your chosen load (because MkVII is no longer made). Each increase/decrease in front sight will move POI roughly two inches at 100 yards. Rather than battlesight zeroing six inches high at 100 yards, the preferred method is leaf aperture set at 200 yards. Three inches high at 100 yards
Wow! I was just wondering about this pop-up mk2 sight a few weeks ago when I was looking at my two Lee-Enfield Number 4, Mark 1 rifles. I was wondering why my Lee-Enfield from 1943 had the ladder type sight and my other one from 1942 had the simplified, rear sight. I was beginning to think that someone had removed the ladder sight from my 1942 rifle and just put a cheap part on it. I am pleasant surprised and relieved to know that someone did not. I don't care what they say; If I were to take a time machine back to the Second World War, I would take a Lee-Enfield into battle over an M1 Garand any day.
I have an AB serialized Maltby 4mk1 from 1942. It must have been made within the last few months of standard production, before everything was sped up. It has the screw up ladder rear sight. However the bolt has a squared and notched cocking mechanism, not a knob style. Came to me sporterized when I was a boy.
Nice video. I think I have one of those models and just got it. I can’t seem to be able to remove the bolt like on other enfields. Should I be able to just flip the tab up with finger pressure? I ask because size I feel like maybe the bolt is ceased.
I may have gotten lost in your description of the naming of the various sights, but for what it’s worth I have a LE with this designation stamped on the receiver: C No 4 Mk1* Long Branch 1949 It’s rear sight fits your description of a Mk 4 (but stamped Mk 3???) and is described thusly: • the slide’s lever has that little curl or bend in it • both the slide and the leaf are clearly stamped; C Mk 3 So do I understand correctly that this is actually a Mk 4 sight; not a Mk 3?
Same! Mine is 1944, it is the first rifle I ever bought, at a pawn shop for $120. Only recently (after 15 years) have I been able to shoot it more than once or twice a year now that I have my own land and range to shoot on.
I do not doubt that Lindybeige could expound for 45 minutes on why the Mk 3 is labeled Mk 2 and *almost* have his explanation make sense. Oh, well- he probably already has.
Ian's already alluded to it: the flipsight was always intended to be replaced when the tooling for the stamped Mk2 was developed, so honouring such a substandard article with a mark number would be offending all rules of common decency.
check out bloke on the range's video where he compares the actual zeroed distance of +6 (i forget exactly) different SMLE sights. Incredibly meticulous and well done, all things considered.
I have a No. 4 Canadian-made Longbranch rifle dated 1942 that has the 300/600 war expediency sight which is pretty cool. That said, obviously the Mk1 or Mk3 sights are much better for actual shooting. I'm debating buying a replacement Mk1 or Mk3 sight ... though it hurts to change the rifle's probable original configuration. Interesting what you said about the 300 yard marker being configured to work with the bayonet attached... I'll have to try that out next time I'm at the range to see if the groups change!
If you're going to change, consider buying the leaf sight for the No5 jungle carbine "Only" graduated to 800 yards instead of 1300. But when installed on a Not with its longer sight radius, you get half MOA clicks instead of one MOA clicks.
At boarding school in the CCF we only used the Battle sight, but is was never explained to us how to use the numbers on the leaf sight? can you explain please?
So what about a 1944/45 production Lee Enfield’s with the “L” style flip sights? I have seen these before. Why would ones built those years not have the better version of the adjustable sights? Were some guns built after 1943 still with the “L” sights?
Was there also a Parker Hale Target Sight, similar to the Mk I but more refined? I've heard mention of such a thing but have never seen one in person and was wondering if it was a production sight or a later aftermarket target shooting upgrade.
PH4 by Parker Hale. A.J. Parker also made similar sights. They're still in use and still in demand by Service Rifle competitors and others. You can find them on EvilBay and elsewhere, but they have gotten very spendy over the years. Surprised somebody hasn't tried making something similar to the PH4 and/or Twin Zero, with proper ACTUAL minutes, not Lee Enfield minutes. Shouldn't cost more than what the used PHs are going for now.
@@maverickpaladin4155 Make sure you're prepared for sticker shock... If you don't do any real shooting beyond 200 - 300 yards, you should save your money and buy the leaf sight intended for the No 5 jungle carbine. That's the one with the micrometer markings that only go up to 800 yards, instead of 1300 yards. Put that on the No 4, with its 5.5" longer sight radius, and now you have half MOA click adjustments, instead of the one MOA adjustments of the MK1 leaf sight intended for the No. 4. Not as exact and precise (and as backlash free) as a P.H. No4. But hundreds of dollars less to purchase.
@@AirborneMOC031 I did some google searching yesterday for the PH4...couldn't even find one for sale. Is the one for the No 5 called a PH5? Are these readily available or are they also made of unobtainium?
@@maverickpaladin4155 I don't know, but I highly doubt the PH5 would fit the jungle carbine because of how it mounts to the side of the No 4s receiver. With the lightening cuts made to the sides of your receiver, I suspect it wouldn't fit without some somewhat precise shimming to result in emulating a No4 profile.
I have the Mk.2 sight. Even though it does not have the dialing in for long distance, it is a rather great sight for fast target transitions. It is so good, I do not even think about the sight. I just think, I want the bullet there, and it hits.
As I have been asking this question for the last 40 years without a convincing and qualified answer. What is the difference between the sight with bayonet mounted and without bayonet. Does the bayonet interfere with the projectile, the balance of the rifle or something quite different. When the importance of that percolates down to private level, it is something of a holy grail - or is it a dogma of immaculate conception.
the long mosin rifles (M91 and M91/30, etc.) also run into this issue. They seem to be relatively accurate out to around 4-500 ish meters, but beyond that can't produce a decent group. Attach the bayonet, and boom, a good shooter can be accurate well past 600 meters. Same reason, barrel harmonics.
Bloke on the range recently did a comparison of all the no4 sights, and explained during the video what effect the bayonet had on the point of aim. th-cam.com/video/keZoROIMxbQ/w-d-xo.html
Looking at those no4 mark 1 I noticed mine does not have the bolt catch near the sight, it has a slot cut near the chamber to flip the bolt head up and slide it out. Long branch only?
HUH...... I have a Long Branch No4 Mk1* that has a rear sight on it that dosnt look like any of the three shown here.....Its got a milled rear sight with a curved actuator on it. It looks most like the stamped one but not quite. I dont mind as i purchased a very good example i plan to shoot i dont buy wall hangers. It was built in 1943 in Canada. I think it was built by Savage Arms , before they were Savage Arms?
thats funny, i recently bought a lee enfield no 4 and i'm pretty sure we have the same rear sight. mine is also a LB made in 1944 and i came here trying to find what it was and i saw your comment like a couple hours after you posted. i'm pretty sure it says mk 3 stamped up top but its like a half assed stamp. gonna guess that canada just made their mk 3's slightly different from the british
@@omgomg123123lol Well i did find out that there were some early No4Mk1*s that were retro fitted wit hthe type of sight i have. Its the way they wanted to make them, but with time a factor ,moved to stamping the rear sights. So either this is one of the orignal ones, 1st biult, or the last owner found one of the sights online and put it on,bfefore i purchaed it. Either way its a way better rear dight then those in the video.
So if I have a No4 Mk1 with the milled sight, it’s almost certainly either a 1941 or a post-war production, right? There are no date markings on my rifle so I’m trying to determine when it was produced.
Bloke on the Range Thanks, are there any resources that you know of to date a No.4 rifle based on it’s serial number? My google-fu is weak and I can’t find anything. Mine is a Fazakerly EC2xxxx for reference
@@minuteman4199 Sometimes the date stamps get scrubbed in a refurb. If there's no date stamp visible, it's beyond me to be able to date it. IIRC Ian Skennerton sells a CD-ROM (remember them?!? :D ) with a serial number database on it.
I own a mk.4 (CMK 3 marked) rear sight, you said they're identical to the MK3's just one or two slight changes, mine is significantly different, the rear ghost ring sight is rounded and it looks like the leaf is actually welded or braised to the base mounting block. I'm just curious if mine is an odd ball, or what's going on, it definitely looks authentic in manufacture.
upon further exception, I am almost positive what I have is a mk.3 leaf, welded or braised onto the intermediate flip sight (300/600 zero peep sight version). It looks like it was done by the manufacturer. Just curious about the details.
As one example, when battlesight zeroing (and it's a 300 yard battlesight, not 400 as he claims) instead of leaf sight 200 yard zeroing, if the bayonet is removed, the 300 yard battlesight is now on at 400 yards. It's all in the pam's for the rifle.
I wonder how often the leaf part of the sight actually got used by the standard infantry rifleman? Was it really worthwhile going back to the mk3 sight?
What I’m confused by is that I happen to have a No4 that I believe has post-war dating (1952) but still has the Mk.2 “L” shaped sight. Why would they have put a stop-gap solution sight like that on a post-war rifle?
That's interesting. I don't know if they ever came from the factory that way but I do know military armorers will reach into a parts bin and install whatever they have to get a rifle back into service when necessary. My best guess is that the original sight was damaged and it was replaced with what was available either during or after its military service.
All these rear sights were current in stock to the end. None were actually withdrawn so any could be put on by an armourer who needed to put a replacement rear sight on a No4. Myself I preferred the MkII. Why would you fire a rifle at someone more than 600 yards away? That is why you have machine guns.
They also removed the round bolt cooker and later removed the grooves in the new cocker then they cheated out the nose to save machining few more little new onceses They removed the wood grooves in the kite arm stock I loved that thing sad
maybe yours was issued and in the field when the MkIII came out. I have a 1943 Long Branch with the MkII sight, but mine went through an FTR sometime before the late '40s (when the No.4 Mk 2 rifle standard was adopted). I assume mine would have had the later style sight installed at that time, if it wasn't installed at production.
I know this is a very late comment but I’m hoping I can get a good awnser maybe but I picked up a No4 mk1/2 Enfield and it’s absolutely great. Not in the best shape but only payed like $550 for it. I’m curious because it’s dated 1943 but it has the early Mk1 micrometer sight so would that mean it’s not original to then gun?
Thanks for answering a question I've had for a while, Ian. I have a 1943 BSA no4 mk1 with a mk2 flip battle sight. How late into 1943 were they still using the mk2?
I have a December of 43 BSA with the mk2 sight. I believe it's original, since the rifle seems completely matching otherwise, down to the factory magazine
My understanding is that they would upgrade to the milled sights as available. It's also possible someone has put that on over the years to make it better for target shooting
Loosen tension screw at front of sight, then use the cramps to push the sight in the direction of the error; retighten tension screw when on. As cramps, when you can find them are spendy, light taps with a non marring brass drift and hammer will do it. .002" lateral movement is .25" change of MPI at 100 yards.
It's because the bayonet shifts the point of impact. Another poster here said a fixed bayonet changes that 400y zero to a 300y zero. I know that long moisins are notorious for about a 6" shift in point of impact when you fix the bayonet.
@@ScottKenny1978 The presenter is wrong. The battlesight was NEVER 400 yards in any variant; always 300 yards. After zeroing 6 inches high at 100 yards with bayonet fixed, with the bayonet removed, the 300 yard aperture was on at 400 yards. It's all in the proper military pam's that were issued with the rifle. The 200 yard leave aperture, zeroed three inches high at 100 yards without bayonet fixed was preferred and a superior zeroing arrangement.
I was under the impression that the 'Mk.2' rear sights were only factory fitted to No.4 Mk.1* rifles produced by Long Branch and Savage, with 'Mk.3' & 'Mk.4' rear sight being standard for No.4 Mk.1 rifles manufactured in the U.K., hence it being stamped 'Mk.2' & 'Mk.3', as U.K. production never switched to Mk.1*. Is that not correct?
It's the Mk.1 sight for the No.5. There's also a really rather rare Mk.2 sight for the No.5, which corresponds to the Mk.4 sight for the No.4 but is only scaled to 800 yds too.
Here's a little secret for you. Put that jungle carbine 800 yard leaf sight on a No4 with its longer sight radius. Now you have half MOA clicks, instead of MK1 MOA clicks.
Isn't the standard sight 300 yds ? I thought you said 400 ? The flip sight was 300 and 600 yards , is this correct that the leaf version was a standard 400 ?
My first British army rifle, issued to me in 1969, had the mk2 sight! It was the only one in the unit and quite special given its history.
Issued to you just in time to take it away for an L1A1 FN.
@@51WCDodge Yes, it was a sad day when I surrendered my honey coloured number 4 for a SLR with wooden furniture. I like a long rifle with a bayonet on the end. Call it the Corporal Jones syndrome..............
@@johnlustig4322;
Can you specify more about "Corporal Jones?"
I'm guessing that it is similar to what we used in the US Army - "Private Snuffy" - meaning, "dumbass." 😆
@@wallaroo1295 Corporal Jones is a character in a very popular British comedy sit com, called "Dad's army" from the 1970's, which even endures as repeats on TV to this day. One of his popular catch phrases was "they don't like it up'em." This was a reference to his bayonet and the enemy, in particular the Germans, during the first world war. The main aspect or flaw of his character, is for him to panic at the slightest sign of a crisis or set back to the unit.
@@johnlustig4322 I was three when you got your Enfield
A good gun for shooting rabbits
Well so thought my Dad in ww2
On leave they had to take them home with them.
He wanted to get food for the family so shot at a rabbit
He missed and the shot went through a few hedges across the back road right passed the Vicar's wife on her bike.
It was later reported that she was shot at by German snipers or fifth columnists so village gossip goes
Many years later I used to rabbit in the same field though never almost killing anyone
I inherited a number 4 mark 2, was made in 1955 and I got it unused. Absolutely fantasic rifle and very accurate.
this is the only one really battle-rifle in a row of all manual action rifles
I also have a 1955 No.4MKII unissued with original sling, and crate tag AMAZING gun these are the guns to have in my opinion
@@worldoftancraft see Ian and Karls video about how battle rifles are osolete. Lee's are fine rifles, but let's not kid ourselves. Any world War 2 semi automatic battle rifle would still be far more effective than a turn bolt. Even in a Lee, you can only turn that bolt so fast. And while it can be faster than other bolt guns, it's still going to be significantly slower than any proper semi.
I love how they refused to accept the "cost reduction" sight, and went back to the nice slider as soon as they could
It's a beautiful rear sight. My uncle has a sporterized one he bought like such but they kept the original front and rear sight (front sight protection ears were sadly removed though) but that rear sight was really nice
I have a Savage produced "U.S government property" lend/lease rifle. The earlier sight works well at distance. Best $120 spent at a pawn shop.
That's intresting. I have an old Mossberg MB42a supplied for training with the same marking. Out of interest does your rifle have British Proof marks? That may be a story in itself.
@Jeff Kopher yessir, at present, you've quintupled your money. Those Savage rifles are in high demand.
Earlier sight as in the Mk. I? Or the super simple two-position one?
@@DinnerForkTongue , the graduated sight, works well...
@@jeffkopher3468
Niiice. I'd love to own a rifle with one such leaf sight.
Amazing how fast this creature was able to evolve given the right environment! I love nature. So beautiful seeing these little guys emerge from their dens each spring. I can’t believe you caught so many.
@@ILikeToLaughAtYou He's speaking metaphorically.
My first milsurp rifle was a Long Branch No4 mk1* with the mk2 rear sight. After my first trip to the range I immediately ordered a mk4 sight online and replaced the original mk2, and I am glad I did! I still have the mk2 sight, and I will sell it with the rifle if I ever decide to get rid of it.
Love those sights that closes flush along the top.
Micrometer rear sight: When you want to do long range sniping without the scope for bragging rights.
All these rifles with iron sights to 600, 800, even 1000 yards boggle my mind. I have to ask how many of the people who signed off on and designed these sights ever actually HIT anything at 800 yards. Although it can't be any worse than pistols with sights adjustable out to 200 meters...
There is a story from Bisley where there was a competition at 1000 yards. This old Colonel was shooting with his No4. He fired and a bull was indicated. The Colonel type asked the Range Officer for an indication. The Range officer told him null indicated. The Colonel said, “I know it was a bull I want to know where in the bull”
Grimlock the longer ranges were really for Section Shooting where targets would be engaged at longer ranges by the section. For the SLR in military shooting competitions targets would be engaged initially in the Section Match at either 500 or 600m, sorry age affecting my memory.
Grimlock1 I suppose when you’re in a shitty hole on top of a hill shooting at a guy in a shitty hole on top of a different hill 1000yds away who is shooting at you....you want to sling some lead back at them.
Simo Häyhä has joined the chat
Good morning Ian , thanks for the show . Somehow watching your videos makes my coffee better.
The cross hatching around the aperture on the Mk.III rear sight makes it easier to use prone, with the sun behind your shoulder. For this reason, the Mk.1 rear sights which our school OTC used for competition 500 yard shooting, were initially painted matt black. The head of the school OTC then "bribed' our local visiting armourer with a bottle of malt whisky, to let us have 10 of the Parker Hale "Marksman" rear sights for our shooting team. These were a considerable improvement with the adjustable aperture and precision adjustments for elevation and windage.
In 33 years in uniform I got more military stuff with good whisky than by any other method.
@@itsapittie good whiskey or good coffee goes a long way, and anything else that is in limited quantity.
@@at1cvb417 That it does!
Thank you! I have a 1943 #4 from Long Branch that has the simplified flip sight ,and I was debating on replacing it, but I think I'll just leave it as is
Ian, I inherited this model with the milled sights from my father. Its a awesome rifle. Doubt I'll ever sell it.
Now I have to go look at the rear sight on my No4Mk1 1942 dated to see what I have. Pristine unmodified rifle with 1942 marked sling proper cleaning kit in the stock and bayonet with frog dated 1942. Thanks for the info!
Mine is steel stamped Mk3. So, at some point my rear sight was updated?!?
Yes, possibly in the field by the armourer@@Lowang_Productions
Thank you! I have a post war #4 and always wondered why it had a MKI sight.
AFAIK pretty much all the post-war ones were produced with a Mk.1 sight.
I have all three designs on rifles.
I love the history of mods and all but honestly the English did a fine job because all three designs work very well!
Great video and take Care, John
What makes the mark 2 rear sight stay upright without flipping forward or backward?
Ahh cheers for clarifying. Dug up a bunch of Enfields recently. Most had the simple flip sight but some had the MK3 sight.
Oh my god, this is the perfect video for me. I am doing a EPQ on firearms and this will help tremendously. Thanks for the video
Might want to check out bloke on the range if this kind of video helps you, he has heaps of this kinda stuff
@@jamietus1012 Dont worry, ive been a long time subscriber to him too ;) Thanks though
My No4 MkI had the MkIII rear sight and I believe this would've been a great rear sight for war (quick to manufacture, quick to use), but it isn't the best for target shooting due to the size of the aperture and the fact that it's a little flimsy. I used to get around 3moa using handloads but after I swapped out to the ph5c rear sight that dropped to 1moa with handloads. This is in part due to the adjustable aperture of the Parker Hale but also holding a much more solid zero. Very happy with it now!
I had a number four back when I was a teen, 18. I remember that rifle had the flip sight. Now I have a number four with the first " wind up" rear sight.
Amazing timing on the vid Ian! I just got a 1943 Savage No.4 Mk1 SMLE with the L sight. I was wondering if i could fit one of the ladder sights on to it and you have just answered that for me! Love your vids, keep up the great work!
A New Zealand soldier told me that the foresight was adjusted for each man on his particular 303 rifle
They used to fire on the range with the bayonet on to steady and balance the rifle
Then the officer used to adjust the front sight with a screwdriver to get the man more accurate
It wasn't possible with British units because of class divisions which did not exist in New Zealand
Keep up the great articles
Oh you are going to get in trouble with B.O.T.R.
No he's not ;)
@@BlokeontheRange are you sure?,he said crumpets are crap and you should put the milk in tea first.
@@jizzmonkey9679 Stop stirring! You don't need to if you put the milk in first.
@@glynwelshkarelian3489 but you cant take milk out ,you can always add more
@@jizzmonkey9679 if you don't know how much milk is enough by experience then perhaps you're too young to be trusted with the spout!
You think you could do a review on U.S. lend lease Enfields? I own one but I would like to get more information on it. There's not a hole lot of reviews on those rifles and the ones that do exists don't really go in dept like you do. Your the only man for the job.
Also when the Factory Through Repair was conducted on No4 rifles, upgrading them from No4 Mk1 to No4 MkII the existing rear sight was always changed to the milled version of the rear sight. The stamped rear sight was flimsy. The fixed aperture is easily bent or broken off and the slider gets quite floppy with some wear, and I've even seen them with the primary leaf bent almost into a U shape.
My Savage No4 MK1* has the dual-aperture MKII flip sight. Hate it but can't bring myself to replace it with a MKI or MKIII sight since it's both correct for the rifle and original to it (marked S for Savage).
I have one of those. Tried shooting it after I bought it: one box of Remington and one box of Sellier & Bellot. Wouldn’t feed from the magazine, so had to do it single shot. Safety would re-engage after every shot. Shot 5 inch groups, at 25 yards! Now it’s just a show piece. Glad it still has the “U.S. Property” stamp. Read that sometimes British soldiers would grind that off. I bet it has some stories to tell.
Weeeelll... Actually...
It is entirely possible your rifle originally had a Mk I sight from the factory. Then, following a trip across the Atlantic, it was thrust into the trembling hands of an accountant's assistant who, in a moment of terrified absent-mindedness, dropped the rifle on the sight, which was replaced by a Mk II sight.
I could come up with other scenarios but I won't...
Incidentally, the "US PROPERTY" marking mentioned by mandymayne8759 was a gesture to the US supplying arms to the Allies before Pearl Harbour had an early morning visit from the Japanese. It showed that the Allies were paying for the equipment so the US could claim they were not participating in the war - just making money from it.
And Britain paid their share (unlike the Russians, for example). All of it.
Question for Ian: What came first the Savage flip sight or the flip sight of the M1 Carbine?
And I believe the milled sight had the "battle sight" removed to make room for the scope on "T" models
I have a 1943 Lee Enfield No.4 Mk1 with the precision aperture just like on the 1st rifle you showed in the video, however, mine doesn't have the horizontal groves on the upper guard as yours does.
Have # 4 with 2 grove barrel and came with a mark II sight , replaced with a mark I ,now need different front sight ,have to adjust slider to 400 yards to be close to zero at 100 yards ..
Zeroing the MK4 ALWAYS begins with selecting the right front sight for your chosen load (because MkVII is no longer made).
Each increase/decrease in front sight will move POI roughly two inches at 100 yards.
Rather than battlesight zeroing six inches high at 100 yards, the preferred method is leaf aperture set at 200 yards. Three inches high at 100 yards
Wow! I was just wondering about this pop-up mk2 sight a few weeks ago when I was looking at my two Lee-Enfield Number 4, Mark 1 rifles. I was wondering why my Lee-Enfield from 1943 had the ladder type sight and my other one from 1942 had the simplified, rear sight. I was beginning to think that someone had removed the ladder sight from my 1942 rifle and just put a cheap part on it. I am pleasant surprised and relieved to know that someone did not. I don't care what they say; If I were to take a time machine back to the Second World War, I would take a Lee-Enfield into battle over an M1 Garand any day.
Parker-Hale also made a windage adjustable flip up sight for the No.4, I'm guessing that it was a private purchase item for Service Rifle matches.
That would be both the A.J. Parker No. 4 and the Parker Hale PH4.
Excellent vid, thank you
For the first time, I already knew everything he said in that video. Thanks BOTR.
I didn't give dates though :)
Eaaarrrlyyy and it feels so good! Great vid!!
I have an AB serialized Maltby 4mk1 from 1942. It must have been made within the last few months of standard production, before everything was sped up. It has the screw up ladder rear sight. However the bolt has a squared and notched cocking mechanism, not a knob style. Came to me sporterized when I was a boy.
Just put a mklll sight on my no4 mk l*. Thought I was just being lazy not learning how to use the mkll sight. Glad the Brits never expected me to
Interesting.
I just watched the Bloke on the Range video on the battle sight aspect of these a few days ago.
Nice video. I think I have one of those models and just got it. I can’t seem to be able to remove the bolt like on other enfields. Should I be able to just flip the tab up with finger pressure? I ask because size I feel like maybe the bolt is ceased.
I may have gotten lost in your description of the naming of the various sights, but for what it’s worth I have a LE with this designation stamped on the receiver:
C No 4 Mk1*
Long Branch
1949
It’s rear sight fits your description of a Mk 4 (but stamped Mk 3???) and is described thusly:
• the slide’s lever has that little curl or
bend in it
• both the slide and the leaf are clearly
stamped; C Mk 3
So do I understand correctly that this is actually a Mk 4 sight; not a Mk 3?
The 'Gun Jesus' is up to his old tricks again: producing great videos!
Except for all the errors...
The missing sight here is Canadian version- a milled base with a stamped ladder. That’s what my 1942 longbranch has on it.
I have the exact same rifle.
Same! Mine is 1944, it is the first rifle I ever bought, at a pawn shop for $120. Only recently (after 15 years) have I been able to shoot it more than once or twice a year now that I have my own land and range to shoot on.
Mine also, milled base stamped ladder but with the mark 3 ladder, updated inward facing spring clip!
CMk3
Awesome video!
I noticed the checkering on the Mk.3 long-range sight, was that added to reduce glare?
I learned to shoot on a mark 1. In .303 looking at these brings back fond memories.
Hmm, I have a No. 4 MK I, with the stamped sight shown in the video. Says Mark 3 on it?
I do not doubt that Lindybeige could expound for 45 minutes on why the Mk 3 is labeled Mk 2 and *almost* have his explanation make sense.
Oh, well- he probably already has.
Ian's already alluded to it: the flipsight was always intended to be replaced when the tooling for the stamped Mk2 was developed, so honouring such a substandard article with a mark number would be offending all rules of common decency.
Beige has a profound tendancy toward verbosity.
check out bloke on the range's video where he compares the actual zeroed distance of +6 (i forget exactly) different SMLE sights. Incredibly meticulous and well done, all things considered.
Would be interesting if you could fire each and see how the changes effected the guns?
In the early 90s I had a No. 4 MK1 and I never could get used to the rear aperture sight. Mine didn’t have the micrometer.
Hi, Ian a nice report on weapons, etc.... but... would you mind posting some reports on the std. issue ammo of those rifle...? Thank you
You should link to bloke on the range’s shooting comparison to see what the zeros were
I have a No. 4 Canadian-made Longbranch rifle dated 1942 that has the 300/600 war expediency sight which is pretty cool. That said, obviously the Mk1 or Mk3 sights are much better for actual shooting. I'm debating buying a replacement Mk1 or Mk3 sight ... though it hurts to change the rifle's probable original configuration. Interesting what you said about the 300 yard marker being configured to work with the bayonet attached... I'll have to try that out next time I'm at the range to see if the groups change!
If you're going to change, consider buying the leaf sight for the No5 jungle carbine
"Only" graduated to 800 yards instead of 1300. But when installed on a Not with its longer sight radius, you get half MOA clicks instead of one MOA clicks.
I can attest to the groups changing. I shoot long range with no bayo and under 500 yrds with the bayo attached. It makes a significant difference.
At boarding school in the CCF we only used the Battle sight, but is was never explained to us how to use the numbers on the leaf sight? can you explain please?
I have a no.4 Mk 1, stamped with date of 1943, with a Mk 2 sight.
So what about a 1944/45 production Lee Enfield’s with the “L” style flip sights? I have seen these before. Why would ones built those years not have the better version of the adjustable sights? Were some guns built after 1943 still with the “L” sights?
You didn't mention the that the Mk1 is click adjustable like a scope turret. Each click being 1 MOA if I remember correctly..
You are correct. Replace that micrometer sight with the one for the No5 jungle carbine and you have half MOA clicks.
Was there also a Parker Hale Target Sight, similar to the Mk I but more refined? I've heard mention of such a thing but have never seen one in person and was wondering if it was a production sight or a later aftermarket target shooting upgrade.
PH4 by Parker Hale. A.J. Parker also made similar sights. They're still in use and still in demand by Service Rifle competitors and others.
You can find them on EvilBay and elsewhere, but they have gotten very spendy over the years.
Surprised somebody hasn't tried making something similar to the PH4 and/or Twin Zero, with proper ACTUAL minutes, not Lee Enfield minutes. Shouldn't cost more than what the used PHs are going for now.
@@AirborneMOC031 thanks for the reply, sir. I'll do a little digging later for that sight.
@@maverickpaladin4155 Make sure you're prepared for sticker shock...
If you don't do any real shooting beyond 200 - 300 yards, you should save your money and buy the leaf sight intended for the No 5 jungle carbine. That's the one with the micrometer markings that only go up to 800 yards, instead of 1300 yards.
Put that on the No 4, with its 5.5" longer sight radius, and now you have half MOA click adjustments, instead of the one MOA adjustments of the MK1 leaf sight intended for the No. 4.
Not as exact and precise (and as backlash free) as a P.H. No4. But hundreds of dollars less to purchase.
@@AirborneMOC031 I did some google searching yesterday for the PH4...couldn't even find one for sale. Is the one for the No 5 called a PH5? Are these readily available or are they also made of unobtainium?
@@maverickpaladin4155 I don't know, but I highly doubt the PH5 would fit the jungle carbine because of how it mounts to the side of the No 4s receiver. With the lightening cuts made to the sides of your receiver, I suspect it wouldn't fit without some somewhat precise shimming to result in emulating a No4 profile.
I have the Mk.2 sight. Even though it does not have the dialing in for long distance, it is a rather great sight for fast target transitions. It is so good, I do not even think about the sight. I just think, I want the bullet there, and it hits.
As I have been asking this question for the last 40 years without a convincing and qualified answer.
What is the difference between the sight with bayonet mounted and without bayonet. Does the bayonet interfere with the projectile, the balance of the rifle or something quite different.
When the importance of that percolates down to private level, it is something of a holy grail - or is it a dogma of immaculate conception.
The bayonet changes the barrel harmonics and therefore the POI of the round
the long mosin rifles (M91 and M91/30, etc.) also run into this issue. They seem to be relatively accurate out to around 4-500 ish meters, but beyond that can't produce a decent group. Attach the bayonet, and boom, a good shooter can be accurate well past 600 meters. Same reason, barrel harmonics.
Bloke on the range recently did a comparison of all the no4 sights, and explained during the video what effect the bayonet had on the point of aim. th-cam.com/video/keZoROIMxbQ/w-d-xo.html
Which is the type that was a flip down two stage sight but in the down position the peep hole aperture has wings or shroud protectors on either side?
I have a Long Branch 1942 Mk I* with a Mk 3 back sight. The sights are way better than the sights on my SKS.
Was there another rear sight version? I first fired this rifle in the 70s and these versions are unfamiliar.
Good info,looks like my Infield has the mark 1sight
I just picked up one of these. I lucked out and got the micrometer sight.
Looking at those no4 mark 1 I noticed mine does not have the bolt catch near the sight, it has a slot cut near the chamber to flip the bolt head up and slide it out. Long branch only?
And the sight is stamped mk 3 making it a mark 4?
Long Branch and Savage. They are No,4 Mk, I* rifles. Made them a bit quicker to manufacture not needing the rear bolt release bits.
Please do a video on the AKS-47u
Nice video, thanks.
Very interesting. Thanks for showing the Evolution of the No4 Lee Enfield rear sight, Gun Jesus !!!!!!!!!!!!!
So when did the mark 4 sight come into play?
Thank you
Why was there no windage adjustment on these sights?
HUH...... I have a Long Branch No4 Mk1* that has a rear sight on it that dosnt look like any of the three shown here.....Its got a milled rear sight with a curved actuator on it. It looks most like the stamped one but not quite. I dont mind as i purchased a very good example i plan to shoot i dont buy wall hangers. It was built in 1943 in Canada. I think it was built by Savage Arms , before they were Savage Arms?
thats funny, i recently bought a lee enfield no 4 and i'm pretty sure we have the same rear sight. mine is also a LB made in 1944 and i came here trying to find what it was and i saw your comment like a couple hours after you posted.
i'm pretty sure it says mk 3 stamped up top but its like a half assed stamp. gonna guess that canada just made their mk 3's slightly different from the british
@@omgomg123123lol Well i did find out that there were some early No4Mk1*s that were retro fitted wit hthe type of sight i have. Its the way they wanted to make them, but with time a factor ,moved to stamping the rear sights. So either this is one of the orignal ones, 1st biult, or the last owner found one of the sights online and put it on,bfefore i purchaed it. Either way its a way better rear dight then those in the video.
So if I have a No4 Mk1 with the milled sight, it’s almost certainly either a 1941 or a post-war production, right? There are no date markings on my rifle so I’m trying to determine when it was produced.
Many were Factory Thorough Repaired which involved fitting the milled type of rearsight amongst other things.
Sights were upgraded whenever possible by armourers at unit level.
Bloke on the Range Thanks, are there any resources that you know of to date a No.4 rifle based on it’s serial number? My google-fu is weak and I can’t find anything. Mine is a Fazakerly EC2xxxx for reference
That's interesting. I don't think I have ever seen one that wasn't date stamped.
@@minuteman4199 Sometimes the date stamps get scrubbed in a refurb. If there's no date stamp visible, it's beyond me to be able to date it. IIRC Ian Skennerton sells a CD-ROM (remember them?!? :D ) with a serial number database on it.
I have a 1943 Fazakerley with the L flip sight.
neat. I have a savage made one with the Mk II style of sight. Interesting that it never got upgraded.
I own a mk.4 (CMK 3 marked) rear sight, you said they're identical to the MK3's just one or two slight changes, mine is significantly different, the rear ghost ring sight is rounded and it looks like the leaf is actually welded or braised to the base mounting block. I'm just curious if mine is an odd ball, or what's going on, it definitely looks authentic in manufacture.
upon further exception, I am almost positive what I have is a mk.3 leaf, welded or braised onto the intermediate flip sight (300/600 zero peep sight version). It looks like it was done by the manufacturer. Just curious about the details.
If you ever get a chance you should do a video on the Norwegian nm149
How much difference does the bayonet make when zeroing the sights?
As one example, when battlesight zeroing (and it's a 300 yard battlesight, not 400 as he claims) instead of leaf sight 200 yard zeroing, if the bayonet is removed, the 300 yard battlesight is now on at 400 yards.
It's all in the pam's for the rifle.
I wonder how often the leaf part of the sight actually got used by the standard infantry rifleman? Was it really worthwhile going back to the mk3 sight?
Yes.
What I’m confused by is that I happen to have a No4 that I believe has post-war dating (1952) but still has the Mk.2 “L” shaped sight. Why would they have put a stop-gap solution sight like that on a post-war rifle?
That's interesting. I don't know if they ever came from the factory that way but I do know military armorers will reach into a parts bin and install whatever they have to get a rifle back into service when necessary. My best guess is that the original sight was damaged and it was replaced with what was available either during or after its military service.
All these rear sights were current in stock to the end. None were actually withdrawn so any could be put on by an armourer who needed to put a replacement rear sight on a No4. Myself I preferred the MkII. Why would you fire a rifle at someone more than 600 yards away? That is why you have machine guns.
It'd be nice if we got a sight picture too
And here I was thinking the leaf rear sight had been bubba'd.... super neat
The middle rifle's bolt head is screwed out one too many turns is it not?
They also removed the round bolt cooker and later removed the grooves in the new cocker then they cheated out the nose to save machining few more little new onceses
They removed the wood grooves in the kite arm stock I loved that thing sad
I have a Long Branch 1944 made No4 Mk1* that has the L flip sights. Did Canada just continue with the other style?
maybe yours was issued and in the field when the MkIII came out. I have a 1943 Long Branch with the MkII sight, but mine went through an FTR sometime before the late '40s (when the No.4 Mk 2 rifle standard was adopted). I assume mine would have had the later style sight installed at that time, if it wasn't installed at production.
How was the sight mounted? Was the receiver modified to accept these sights?
A transverse axis pin runs through both sides of the receiver, secured by a small stake.
My 1941 Long Branch has the 300/600yard flip sight.
I know this is a very late comment but I’m hoping I can get a good awnser maybe but I picked up a No4 mk1/2 Enfield and it’s absolutely great. Not in the best shape but only payed like $550 for it. I’m curious because it’s dated 1943 but it has the early Mk1 micrometer sight so would that mean it’s not original to then gun?
Thanks for answering a question I've had for a while, Ian. I have a 1943 BSA no4 mk1 with a mk2 flip battle sight. How late into 1943 were they still using the mk2?
I have a December of 43 BSA with the mk2 sight. I believe it's original, since the rifle seems completely matching otherwise, down to the factory magazine
What helps the flip up sight stay up right without moving forward or backwards ?
Next to M1Garand sights one of the most shootable sights.
I have a 1943 dated with the milled sight. Did they still put a few milled sights on rifles by then? I assume to use up leftover stock?
My understanding is that they would upgrade to the milled sights as available. It's also possible someone has put that on over the years to make it better for target shooting
Same as me, as were most of the rifles I saw in training in the '60s. Wondering if the NZ army did some later retrofitting.
Any way to tell if these rifles were shipped overseas to Britain? I have a Savage No.4 Mk1* dated 1943 with a Mk1 Sight.
Ian: I have a new Lee Enfield evolution video for you!
Me: No, thank you, I already have a headache. 😜
How were windage adjustments made?
Aim to the right or left.😎
Loosen tension screw at front of sight, then use the cramps to push the sight in the direction of the error; retighten tension screw when on. As cramps, when you can find them are spendy, light taps with a non marring brass drift and hammer will do it.
.002" lateral movement is .25" change of MPI at 100 yards.
Whats the calibration difference in relation to bayonet and no bayonet?
It's because the bayonet shifts the point of impact. Another poster here said a fixed bayonet changes that 400y zero to a 300y zero.
I know that long moisins are notorious for about a 6" shift in point of impact when you fix the bayonet.
@@ScottKenny1978 The presenter is wrong. The battlesight was NEVER 400 yards in any variant; always 300 yards. After zeroing 6 inches high at 100 yards with bayonet fixed, with the bayonet removed, the 300 yard aperture was on at 400 yards.
It's all in the proper military pam's that were issued with the rifle. The 200 yard leave aperture, zeroed three inches high at 100 yards without bayonet fixed was preferred and a superior zeroing arrangement.
how common is it for a Savage No.4 mk1* to have the first gen nice dial sight?
I was under the impression that the 'Mk.2' rear sights were only factory fitted to No.4 Mk.1* rifles produced by Long Branch and Savage, with 'Mk.3' & 'Mk.4' rear sight being standard for No.4 Mk.1 rifles manufactured in the U.K., hence it being stamped 'Mk.2' & 'Mk.3', as U.K. production never switched to Mk.1*. Is that not correct?
What would the designation on the No.5 sight be? It is similar if not the same as MkI site but only ranges out to 800 yards.
It's the Mk.1 sight for the No.5. There's also a really rather rare Mk.2 sight for the No.5, which corresponds to the Mk.4 sight for the No.4 but is only scaled to 800 yds too.
Cool mine on my No.5 is definitely a Mk1 sight.
Here's a little secret for you. Put that jungle carbine 800 yard leaf sight on a No4 with its longer sight radius. Now you have half MOA clicks, instead of MK1 MOA clicks.
Ian should be a tenured professor somewhere. Not so much money but job and bene's galore.
Isn't the standard sight 300 yds ? I thought you said 400 ? The flip sight was 300 and 600 yards , is this correct that the leaf version was a standard 400 ?
I have a 1945 Longbranch marked No4mk1* with mk2 dual peep, what happened?