No.4 Mk1 Question...

[Dannicus]

I picked up a Fazakerly in nice shape. I've been looking for a No4 for a while and I picked this one up for a good price even though I'm not fond of the ones with hand scribed serials. It had a ribbed handguard, no cracks in the stock, and a minty bore, so I just couldn't pass this one up.

Anyways, it seems like some have the 1300m rear sight and some don't. Mine doesn't. I don't know if it should. Anyone know which No4 Mk1s were supposed to have those 1300m sights?

[GOEX FFF]

Here are the different back-sight types for the N0.4.

[Dannicus]

Here are the different back-sight types for the N0.4.

Thanks!

I've never actually seen the Mk3 or 4 on a rifle; only the Mk1 and Mk2.

Did they just transition through each type over the years, differ between factories, or what?

[Discogodfather]

In terms of the No4 there are only MK I's and II"s, the illustration there is confusing because British books show "figures" as "marks". Like in an American book an illustration is labeled "figure 1, figure 2, etc.".

The Mark I started in 1941 and the Mark II was late 1940's post war. They made the trigger better and have beech stocks and brass butt-plates. Other than that very little changed.

Rifles that where designated Mark I's and then later refurbed and updated to Mark II specs where designated Mark 3's. They never made it to a Mark 4 and production ceased in the late 1950's.

This is the best combat bolt action by far and the No4 was the best of all Lee-Enfields, so congratulations!

[smle-man]

The Mark I was both pre and post war. The Mk2 was a mid-war economy measure. The Mk3 and Mk4 was an effort to replicate the Mk I with stampings and was introduced mid-war to end of war. The Longbranch version used the Canadian Mk4 for all post war production. The Mk2 was frequently found on the #4Mk1* with the slot cut in the bolt track. Post war any of the sights could be found on the various Mks depending on where the rifle was issued and for what purpose.

[Enfield47]

I picked up a Fazakerly in nice shape. I've been looking for a No4 for a while and I picked this one up for a good price even though I'm not fond of the ones with hand scribed serials. It had a ribbed handguard, no cracks in the stock, and a minty bore, so I just couldn't pass this one up.

Anyways, it seems like some have the 1300m rear sight and some don't. Mine doesn't. I don't know if it should. Anyone know which No4 Mk1s were supposed to have those 1300m sights?

What does your rear sight go up to? Is it 800 or 1,000?

Congrats on a great rifle BTW. If you haven't already, order a case of the HXP .303 from Cheaper Than Dirt. It's good ammo and the price can't be beat.

[Discogodfather]

The Mark I was both pre and post war. The Mk2 was a mid-war economy measure. The Mk3 and Mk4 was an effort to replicate the Mk I with stampings and was introduced mid-war to end of war. The Longbranch version used the Canadian Mk4 for all post war production. The Mk2 was frequently found on the #4Mk1* with the slot cut in the bolt track. Post war any of the sights could be found on the various Mks depending on where the rifle was issued and for what purpose.

So your referring to the sights as different marks, i.e. Mark I sight, Mark 2 sight, etc. not the rifle MK? I was referring to the No4 "mark" designation not the sights themselves.

The illustration is confusing because the Mark designation of the sights does not correspond to the "mark" illustration designation. See how the sight is marked Mk2 but the illustration says "Mark 3" underneath it.

I guess there was an Austrailian company making No4 Mk4's but that was some kind of reworked No4 Mk2/3 that was never actually made. As far as I know the No.4 stopped at the Mk3.

[Enfield47]

Yeah, this gets really confusing. The Brits marked the designs is order and since the Mark II didn't have a back sight leaf, the Mark III design was labeled as Mark II because it was the second design with a back sight leaf.

The rear sight designations have nothing to do with the rifle designations.

[Father Ted]

In terms of the No4 there are only MK I's and II"s, the illustration there is confusing because British books show "figures" as "marks". Like in an American book an illustration is labeled "figure 1, figure 2, etc.".

The Mark I started in 1941 and the Mark II was late 1940's post war. They made the trigger better and have beech stocks and brass butt-plates. Other than that very little changed.

Rifles that where designated Mark I's and then later refurbed and updated to Mark II specs where designated Mark 3's. They never made it to a Mark 4 and production ceased in the late 1950's.

This is the best combat bolt action by far and the No4 was the best of all Lee-Enfields, so congratulations!

I do believe you are referring to a no 4 mk 1/3 and 1/2.
And those are the sight nomenclature no 1 through 4

[Discogodfather]

And those are the sight nomenclature no 1 through 4

Got it, this forum always pays off with knowledge!

[Kablemodem]

I have a No 4 Mk 2 with a "Mark I" sight. It's a great rifle. I just have to get the front sight post to stop flopping around since it was never fixed in place by an armorer.

[Dannicus]

What does your rear sight go up to? Is it 800 or 1,000?

Congrats on a great rifle BTW. If you haven't already, order a case of the HXP .303 from Cheaper Than Dirt. It's good ammo and the price can't be beat.

Thanks.

It just has the dual aperture flip sight 300m and 600m.

[smle-man]

So your referring to the sights as different marks, i.e. Mark I sight, Mark 2 sight, etc. not the rifle MK? I was referring to the No4 "mark" designation not the sights themselves.

The illustration is confusing because the Mark designation of the sights does not correspond to the "mark" illustration designation. See how the sight is marked Mk2 but the illustration says "Mark 3" underneath it.

I guess there was an Austrailian company making No4 Mk4's but that was some kind of reworked No4 Mk2/3 that was never actually made. As far as I know the No.4 stopped at the Mk3.

Yes, I was referencing the designations of the rear sights. Any of them could be found on any of the #4 series, especially post war FTR equivalent done outside the UK except Canada. The Mk1 Singer sight was the preferred rear sight but rifles that went to other locales besides the UK could be fitted with whatever sight came to hand. Not all using military and paramilitary formations had the same tradition of marksmanship that the Brits and Canadians enjoyed and a rear sight such as the Mk2 that was devoid of intricate range adjustments was preferred by those with lower standards. In a less disciplined force the soldier may fiddle with the rear sight adjustment when bored and consequently have the wrong range set when the sight was really needed. The Mk2 had only two choices (three if you add in fixing the bayonet to split the difference between the two sight positions) so it was pretty soldier-proof.

[Enfield47]

Thanks.

It just has the dual aperture flip sight 300m and 600m.

Ok, yours is correct for your rifle. The flip sight was a wartime expediency design but not the best for accuracy.

I was thinking that perhaps someone had replaced the rear sight with one for a No.5 or L8.