NO.4 MK1

pain0714 · 02-20-2008, 02:57 AM

I'VE GOT AN ENFIELD NO.4 MK 1 THAT I'VE BEEN FIXIN UP. I'VE PUT AN ATI MONTE CARLO STOCK (WHICH FIT VERY NICE WITH NO MODIFICATIONS)AND A SCOPE MOUNT FOR IT AND HAVE DONE AWAY WITH THE FRONT SIGHT. I WAS WANTING TO GIVE IT A MORE MODERN RIFLE LOOK TO IT. I WAS WONDERING IF ANYONE HAS ANY IDEAS OR OPINIONS AS TO HOW PRACTICAL OR POSSIBLE IT WOULD BE TO GET RID OF THE GROOVES THAT ARE MADE INTO THE FRONT OF THE BARREL FOR THE FRONT SIGHT TO SLIDE ON. JUST AN IDEA, THOUGHT I'D GET SOME IDEAS OR OPINIONS.

wunhunglo · 02-20-2008, 03:57 AM

Hacksaw!
You could have the barrel shortened & recrowned. What's a couple of inches between friends?

timberlord · 02-20-2008, 03:21 PM

Maybe ya need some advice from Bubba

There may be a time when you would like to resurect your rifle back to original .
Any metal cut and this will be impossible.

Big Dog · 02-20-2008, 06:09 PM

Modifying his gun is an owners prerogitive - it's YOUR gun!

But sometimes I think it's hacksaws and Dremel Tools that should be registered and controlled.

timberlord · 02-23-2008, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Dog

Modifying his gun is an owners prerogitive - it's YOUR gun!

Thats right , it's yours to do with what you need/want.
LeeEnfields are some of the easiest ( and coolest looking) to customize.
It's through expierience that I'll warn of going too far .

1916 RSAF Enfield sitting in 1943 Lithgow stocks
B-Square mount
M1D Garand cheekpad , cut-off , windage adj. rearsight.
Looking for an Aussie rearsight protector , still.

1943 No4Mk1* Longbranch
B-Square Mount
Canadian buttstock with a walnut repro cheekpiece.

billy · 02-23-2008, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Dog

Modifying his gun is an owners prerogitive - it's YOUR gun!

But sometimes I think it's hacksaws and Dremel Tools that should be registered and controlled.

a coupla times i wish someone woulda been standing there with a flyswatter and smacked me between the eyes whenever i had a dremel in my hand and was looking at a gun.

ingous · 02-23-2008, 11:11 PM

Timberlord, where did you get the cheekpiece? I'm looking for one for my Mosin Nagant that I put into a new stock. Thanks!

mdj696 · 02-24-2008, 04:41 AM

I read that the last four inches of an Enfield barrel is what gives it accuracy. I'm sure when Navy Arms or who ever cut down No 4's to pass them off for No5's really destroyed the barrel accuracy. I beleive one of the reasons behind the wondering zero plagued by No 5's was in part to do with barrel length. Personally I prefer a long barrel.

billy · 02-24-2008, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdj696

I read that the last four inches of an Enfield barrel is what gives it accuracy. I'm sure when Navy Arms or who ever cut down No 4's to pass them off for No5's really destroyed the barrel accuracy. I beleive one of the reasons behind the wondering zero plagued by No 5's was in part to do with barrel length. Personally I prefer a long barrel.

hmmm i never thought about that as being the reason for the wandering zero.
i know that with many rifles you only lose some velocity by having a shorter bbl.
does the rifling get tighter the farther down the bbl. you go on an enfield?
maybe one of the gurus will comment?

irish murphy · 02-24-2008, 06:15 AM

Nope it doesnt billy.I have a short no1mk3(16inch) and it shoots fine with a load that suits.If you want to run a mk7 ball ammo through it its not made for it.A lot of the short guns made from the factory like the JC have actions that have been machined to remove excess weight and this makes the action flex a LOT more than a standard gun which isnt the most strong action anyway.I dont run a 174gn projjie in such a short barrel.I use 150gn and i change to a faster powder.

samuel · 02-24-2008, 06:25 AM

This isnt my game but I remember hearing the MK5 had an extra barrel clamp for bayonet use that effected accuracy.The MK6 had what they call a freefloater barrel that was more accurate. sam.

TheJoker · 02-25-2008, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billy

hmmm i never thought about that as being the reason for the wandering zero.
i know that with many rifles you only lose some velocity by having a shorter bbl.
does the rifling get tighter the farther down the bbl. you go on an enfield?
maybe one of the gurus will comment?

I had to "google it". I knew one of my old rifles had it. It is the Carcano that used progressive rifling. I wonder if that's what makes them so accurate for having such a short barrel.

Iron_Colonel · 02-26-2008, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timberlord

Thats right , it's yours to do with what you need/want.
LeeEnfields are some of the easiest ( and coolest looking) to customize.
It's through expierience that I'll warn of going too far .

1916 RSAF Enfield sitting in 1943 Lithgow stocks
B-Square mount
M1D Garand cheekpad , cut-off , windage adj. rearsight.
Looking for an Aussie rearsight protector , still.

1943 No4Mk1* Longbranch
B-Square Mount
Canadian buttstock with a walnut repro cheekpiece.

Those are a couple of nice looking hunnies!

huge · 02-29-2008, 07:23 AM

accuracy in the long barrel is from a twist rate that is suitable for the longer pill, jungle carbines suffered because they did not have a fast enough twist to stabilise the projectile at that barrel length. hence lighter projectile driven faster will give better accuracy in the shorter barrel with the same twist rate as longer barrel.
(thats how its supposed to work)
Do know from experience that a 16" barrell has one hell of a report and recoil.

When first firing an unknown .303 we used to always tie them to a tree or similar and get behind cover with a string on the trigger. 20 rounds like this and observing if the bolt handle was lifting after each shot was pretty mandatory for initial checkout. Some had seen so much work that the bolt would lift halfway up on every shot - this can lead to the bolt opening and blowing back out of the reciever completely! not pretty to think about. Gunsmith just rebuilds shoulder of the locking lug if this happens.
Cheers
Hugh

huge · 02-29-2008, 07:26 AM

you can get some good synthetic stocks for them as well as a lower bridge mount too
Huge

timberlord · 02-29-2008, 09:00 AM

The No5 was built for close(r) combat . Accuracy was measured by minute of man ...rather than minute of angle. :wink:
The "wandering zero" has come up for debate , without any real definition.
Some will say the WZero came from grumbling soldiers that were coming up against more and more semiauto fire....not to mention the success of the US M1 Garand.
Yet , how many military No5T snipers do we see?
And the MkVII(z) round was designed right along with the 25"+ barrel.
A No5 that can outshoot a No1 or a No4 is one of a kind...

Going with the faster burning powder and lighter pill makes sense to get better results from a No5 (or shortened barreled ) Enfield .
The Mosin 91/30 and the M38/M44 carbine have similar differences.
*Leather cheekpad from Numrich*

wunhunglo · 02-29-2008, 09:26 AM

I have two No 5's and from a cold barrel they are OK but once warmed up they open out to around 5-6 inches at 100 yards. Of course they both kick like mules, I wonder if that had anything to do with their bad reputation?

Heard some good reports about 7.62 x 39 conversions though but never fired one myself.

Capt'n Mil Coll · 03-25-2008, 02:30 AM

I have a No.5 as well. I remember about 2 years ago American Rifleman had an artical about the wandering zero. They tested it until they determined the barrel was comming into contact with the stock. They glass bedded it and the wandering was gone. However like Wunhunglo said they kick the crap out of your shoulder when you touch off a few rounds. They tried to build an M1 Carbine type gun out of an existing long gun and existing cartridge and it just doesn't work. Cool looking lil gun though.

02-20-2008, 02:57 AM	#1
pain0714 Registered User Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 6	NO.4 MK1 I'VE GOT AN ENFIELD NO.4 MK 1 THAT I'VE BEEN FIXIN UP. I'VE PUT AN ATI MONTE CARLO STOCK (WHICH FIT VERY NICE WITH NO MODIFICATIONS)AND A SCOPE MOUNT FOR IT AND HAVE DONE AWAY WITH THE FRONT SIGHT. I WAS WANTING TO GIVE IT A MORE MODERN RIFLE LOOK TO IT. I WAS WONDERING IF ANYONE HAS ANY IDEAS OR OPINIONS AS TO HOW PRACTICAL OR POSSIBLE IT WOULD BE TO GET RID OF THE GROOVES THAT ARE MADE INTO THE FRONT OF THE BARREL FOR THE FRONT SIGHT TO SLIDE ON. JUST AN IDEA, THOUGHT I'D GET SOME IDEAS OR OPINIONS. Last edited by pain0714; 02-20-2008 at 03:22 AM. Reason: add tags onto it

02-20-2008, 03:21 PM	#3
timberlord Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Ontario Canada Posts: 332	Maybe ya need some advice from Bubba There may be a time when you would like to resurect your rifle back to original . Any metal cut and this will be impossible. __________________ http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...LongStamp1.jpg

02-20-2008, 06:09 PM	#4
Big Dog Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Tallahassee, Florida Posts: 10,646	Modifying his gun is an owners prerogitive - it's YOUR gun! But sometimes I think it's hacksaws and Dremel Tools that should be registered and controlled. __________________ Moderator of: AR15/M16, M14/M1A, New/Beginning Shooters and Militaria/Collectables.

02-29-2008, 09:00 AM	#16
timberlord Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Ontario Canada Posts: 332	The No5 was built for close(r) combat . Accuracy was measured by minute of man ...rather than minute of angle. :wink: The "wandering zero" has come up for debate , without any real definition. Some will say the WZero came from grumbling soldiers that were coming up against more and more semiauto fire....not to mention the success of the US M1 Garand. Yet , how many military No5T snipers do we see? And the MkVII(z) round was designed right along with the 25"+ barrel. A No5 that can outshoot a No1 or a No4 is one of a kind... Going with the faster burning powder and lighter pill makes sense to get better results from a No5 (or shortened barreled ) Enfield . The Mosin 91/30 and the M38/M44 carbine have similar differences. Leather cheekpad from Numrich __________________ http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...LongStamp1.jpg

02-20-2008, 03:57 AM	#2
wunhunglo Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: currently "Sunny West Africa" Posts: 2,317	Hacksaw! You could have the barrel shortened & recrowned. What's a couple of inches between friends?

02-23-2008, 11:11 PM	#7
ingous Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: MN Posts: 539	Timberlord, where did you get the cheekpiece? I'm looking for one for my Mosin Nagant that I put into a new stock. Thanks!

02-24-2008, 04:41 AM	#8
mdj696 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 330 Images: 1	I read that the last four inches of an Enfield barrel is what gives it accuracy. I'm sure when Navy Arms or who ever cut down No 4's to pass them off for No5's really destroyed the barrel accuracy. I beleive one of the reasons behind the wondering zero plagued by No 5's was in part to do with barrel length. Personally I prefer a long barrel.

02-24-2008, 06:15 AM	#10
irish murphy Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Canberra,Australia Posts: 1,028 Blog Entries: 5	Nope it doesnt billy.I have a short no1mk3(16inch) and it shoots fine with a load that suits.If you want to run a mk7 ball ammo through it its not made for it.A lot of the short guns made from the factory like the JC have actions that have been machined to remove excess weight and this makes the action flex a LOT more than a standard gun which isnt the most strong action anyway.I dont run a 174gn projjie in such a short barrel.I use 150gn and i change to a faster powder.

02-24-2008, 06:25 AM	#11
samuel Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,081	This isnt my game but I remember hearing the MK5 had an extra barrel clamp for bayonet use that effected accuracy.The MK6 had what they call a freefloater barrel that was more accurate. sam.

02-29-2008, 07:23 AM	#14
huge Registered User Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 5	accuracy in the long barrel is from a twist rate that is suitable for the longer pill, jungle carbines suffered because they did not have a fast enough twist to stabilise the projectile at that barrel length. hence lighter projectile driven faster will give better accuracy in the shorter barrel with the same twist rate as longer barrel. (thats how its supposed to work) Do know from experience that a 16" barrell has one hell of a report and recoil. When first firing an unknown .303 we used to always tie them to a tree or similar and get behind cover with a string on the trigger. 20 rounds like this and observing if the bolt handle was lifting after each shot was pretty mandatory for initial checkout. Some had seen so much work that the bolt would lift halfway up on every shot - this can lead to the bolt opening and blowing back out of the reciever completely! not pretty to think about. Gunsmith just rebuilds shoulder of the locking lug if this happens. Cheers Hugh

02-29-2008, 07:26 AM	#15
huge Registered User Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 5	you can get some good synthetic stocks for them as well as a lower bridge mount too Huge

02-29-2008, 09:26 AM	#17
wunhunglo Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: currently "Sunny West Africa" Posts: 2,317	I have two No 5's and from a cold barrel they are OK but once warmed up they open out to around 5-6 inches at 100 yards. Of course they both kick like mules, I wonder if that had anything to do with their bad reputation? Heard some good reports about 7.62 x 39 conversions though but never fired one myself.

03-25-2008, 02:30 AM	#18
Capt'n Mil Coll Military Rifle Collector Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Right behind you. -NRA Member- Posts: 2,732 Images: 44	I have a No.5 as well. I remember about 2 years ago American Rifleman had an artical about the wandering zero. They tested it until they determined the barrel was comming into contact with the stock. They glass bedded it and the wandering was gone. However like Wunhunglo said they kick the crap out of your shoulder when you touch off a few rounds. They tried to build an M1 Carbine type gun out of an existing long gun and existing cartridge and it just doesn't work. Cool looking lil gun though.