I am in need of advise, is anyone minds lending me your ear. I have an Endfield No.1, Mark 4 that was my grandfathers. It is in its original .303 British. The barrel is pitted out, and I am considering and WANTING to turn it into a .45-70 at the least, however I have an article about building them as .45-90s instead, then you have more powder capacity, more potential velocity, and can push the heavy 500 grainers at modest velocities (I am guessing that the action is at least as strong in CUPs as a Marlin, and possibly close to a No. 1---after some readings in P.O. Ackley's books). I KNOW THAT GIBBS used to make such a production rifle, however does anyone of anyone that may offer such services today. Considering the legislation battles that are going on, I would want a fast, guaranteed turn around since it is a family heirloom. Interestingly, a friend gave me a rear sight that he *thought* fit my No.1, Mark 4. Turns out that it is a MATCH SIGHT, with liberal vertical adjustments and an adjustable aperture, reminding me of the old rear tang sights used on the long range Sharps Verniers. It is graduated, fully adjustable, and from what I have found it is a "Model 8/53 Component Aperture Sight" as found here: http://www.rifleman.org.uk/PH_Service_sights.htm

With that said, could someone please steer me to how to improve the accuracy of my heirloom, and perhaps build a cool .45-70 or .45-90?

In much appreciation!

Yes I have built many of them; I will get more details to you later; no time now. BTW, 45-90 is a waste of time on an Enfield you don't need the powder capacity for smokeless and you do not want a 458 Mag on a #1 Enfield. (There is no such thing as a #1 MK4) If you have a peep sight, it is a #4 Mk 1; different animal but looks similar. My design uses a one piece stock for a #1. Improving accuracy on an OEM stock; there are NRA articles on that too.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
Yes I have built many of them; I will get more details to you later; no time now. BTW, 45-90 is a waste of time on an Enfield you don't need the powder capacity for smokeless and you do not want a 458 Mag on a #1 Enfield. (There is no such thing as a #1 MK4) If you have a peep sight, it is a #4 Mk 1; different animal but looks similar. My design uses a one piece stock for a #1. Improving accuracy on an OEM stock; there are NRA articles on that too.

THANKS for that rapid response!!! Here I was thinking that I was out of luck on my family heirloom, but you are giving me some excellent hope. I would love to see some of your work, I appreciate your correction on the Lee Enfields. I really would like to make it a classic .45-70 and an improved stock sounds interesting. When you get an opportunity, please update this thread with pics (perhaps there are others that may be thinking the same thing I am, about my classic). Any and all input is appreciated. If contacting me via email is easier, please let me know, and if you have a website a peek would be great. How many rounds of .45-70 can fit in the magazine? Curious about that as well. Respond at your convenience. Thank you Sir, also for your service in our Military.

quote:

(There is no such thing as a #1 MK4

Ah! Whilst there was never a No 1 Mk 4 there was, in fact a No1 Mk IV which was, from recall, a Long Lee converted to SMLE configuration for the (British) Royal Navy.

These are fairly rare and can mostly be easily identified by the shape of the top of the brass butt plate that is of the older Long Lee tang shape.

Now if he does have a No 1 Mk IV it is quite collectable...

Other candidates for conversion that may be more practical might be to 444 Marlin as the case head and case base are almost directly compatible with the Enfield magazine. Especially as many were made as .410" for "guard use" mainly in India or in Britain very much later converted in the 1970s as cheap shot guns here in Britain.

As other posters have said this is a No 4 Mk 1 as evidenced by it taking the 8/53 rearsight.

Thank you enfieldspares for your response. The markings on my Grandfather's Heirloom are as follows: "No4 MK1 F (FTR)" on the action. My rear sight that is on the rear sight ON THE RIFLE is labeled "Mk3". The rifle was manufactured in 1942 and the stock has been sporterized by my Grandfather himself, although I am open to a "spare stock" that might help absorb the recoil from a .45-70. I have both .45-70 and .444 Marlin cartridges, but in this case, I definitely prefer the .45-70 due to its heritage and age, and my heirloom's "heritage and age" seem to be more agreeable in my mind; I.E. I prefer the .45-70; even though I have actually fired a 444. I have spent the past hour or so looking in my parts bin for the target Enfield sight, to no avail---I actually to stop the mission, as I am recovering from a back fusion surgery back in March was causing me spasms as I searched. I will try to provide more info on that specific rear sight later, however it does fit my grandfather's action, and provides almost micrometer adjustment. I really would like to get this old rifle back to shooting accurately. I do have a .308 Isapore Enfield, but it is not as revered as my Heirloom. PS. Sorry for my lack of proper identification of the Enfield, I should have looked at the action prior to the post, but nevertheless, THANKS again for any help provided!

dcpd, I have a Rem700 short action stock that is laminated that I *almost* hacked up to fit to that #1. I will be curious to your specific stock layout, and if you may be interested in restoring my grandfather's rifle to a better shooter in a big bore caliber.

You have a Number Four, Mark 1, made at the Fazakerly factory, and rebuilt once (FTR means Factory Thorough Repair). You do not have a number one; they are different rifles. My stock pattern is only for #1s so will not fit a #4. You will need to reduce the rim on 45-70s to make them work, and I always used 308 magazines as they feed better from them; they hold 5 rounds. I do not like to alter the receiver inner ring to accommodate a 45-70 rim but altering the brass is easy. I built one .444 once too and it worked. Here is a pic. You can make a stock for it by removing the rear butt socket.

I have to admit, your one piece stock is AWESOME! It looks great! The Enfield in your picture is exactly like my .308 Isapore, except the Indian rifle has a ring over the top of the bolt. Just to clarify, I have TWO Enfields the .303 and the .308. The original .303 Mark 1 was the one that I was hoping against all odds to restore, since that one was my grandfather's. Do you have an actual business, dpcd, or do you do this as a hobby? Do you sell your stocks? Looks like I am going to be disassembling two Enfields to remove the stock and see what I have. You certainly have one sharp design in that stock, I'll have to figure out how to go from a two piece stock to a one piece stock. THANKS so much for the pics and answers!!!

The original rifles were American made, Lee tried to sell them to Remington, with no success, iirc.

The brits thought they were just the cat's ass. Wasn't the two-piece stock a war expedient to make more efficient production and use of shorter lengths of wood?

Woodsracer,
You may enjoy this article from the Chuck Hawks web site - it addresses the Enfield conversion to .45-70 and .45-90.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/gibbs_summit.htm

There are a few other such bits of information scattered about if you look for them.

dpcd - your one piece stock for the Enfield is very handsome indeed!

I remove the clip guides to make it look like the original Sharps-Lee; Idaho is right on but Sharps made 300 of them before Remington bought the rights to it from Lee. Sharps went under. So the Remington-Lee was definitely a success. At the same time, James Paris Lee sold the rights to it to the British Government and the rest is history. Yes I sell the stocks but I don't have any right now; can make more. Your 308 Ishapore is a #1Mk3 with a 308 bolt head (longer extractor) and magazine, and longer ejector screw. And better steel. I think the one in the picture is made from an Ishapore 303 now that I think about it. How to go to a one piece stock? I have a set of instructions that I used to sell for 20 bucks but I quit about 15 years ago due to lack of interest. Oh, the two piece stock was not for easy production; in fact that receiver was and would be, a nightmare to machine. It was a design feature from the Martini and made for a much stronger stock than a one piece; that is the main feature change that the British made to Lee's design. The socket for the wood, and the 7/16ths through bolt makes for an almost unbreakable stock; a good feature for a combat rifle.

quote:

The brits thought they were just the cat's ass. Wasn't the two-piece stock a war expedient to make more efficient production and use of shorter lengths of wood?

No! Two reasons, one of which is meant to be the original requirement. That is that "the powers that be" originally wanted to be able to use up surplus Martini Henry buttstocks on the then new Lee Metford adopted in the 1880s.

So the design just continued on from there using the same separate buttstock and forepiece wood.

The second reason is, of course, that the British Army was very much forward looking in many aspects. To whit its 1912 Pattern cavalry sword that was very much "futuristic" in appearance. Even though the whole idea of cavalry as such was soon to be swept away by the events of 1914.

This second reason is that the buttstocks were issued in THREE different lengths. Standard, Short and Long. I am six feet four inches and use a LONG. But friends and acquaintances use, some of them, a STANDARD. I don't know anybody who uses a SHORT.

Nevertheless this meant that the rifle could actually be fitted to the individual soldier SO AS TO IMPROVE HIS RATE OF FIRE.

The "test" when fitting being to have the soldier hold the rifle as if firing and then the Sergeant to bring the bolt swiftly to the rear to show that it cleared the soldiers's cheek and so the soldier could reload WITHOUT taking the rifle out of aim.

So the two piece stock is a very advanced feature of the rifle.

FWIW your Mk 3 backsight will be graduated for use with the standard Mk VII ball of 174 grains at 2,450fps velocity. It may be that if you went to 444 marlin that, in fact, with a 240 grain bullet you still would be quite close to those sight graduations, IF you fitted a taller front sight, out to about the lowest setting of 200 yards.

Plus it may, or may not, be just possible simply to have the original barrel re-bored out to 444 Marlin if the question of the 10 thou difference in rim thickness could be addressed?

Good point on the 3 butt lengths. I would not rebore an original 303 barrel; too thin at the muzzle; especially #1s are thinner. It might be strong enough but it would be too light. And a new chrome moly barrel will definitely be stronger. For the record, the original Gibbs 45-70s were made with the receiver ring bored out for the larger 45-70 rim. this makes the bolt head unsupported and I did not like that feature. So when I fit a barrel, I leave the receiver alone and make brass with a reduced rim. You only have to d o it once and the brass will still work in some other rifles. For a .444 rim; no problem as is. Ten thou is nothing in brass rim tolerances.

quote:

Originally posted by crshelton:
Woodsracer,
You may enjoy this article from the Chuck Hawks web site - it addresses the Enfield conversion to .45-70 and .45-90.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/gibbs_summit.htm

Now you see why I noted the .45-90. It was EXACTLY the article by Chuck Hawks. I would be more than happy with a .45-70, but the longer case, is just more of a good thing even holding the bullets better, just more expensive and harder to find than the .45-70 brass.

dpcd, I would honestly be interested in purchasing one, possibly two of your stocks. The only thing is that I DO have a long LOP, measured it is actually 14.5" (I am 6'4" tall and a tad gangly, LOL!), but I could install a Limbsaver to add some length.....that's what I did on my Ruger RSM in .416 Rigby. Turned the RSM into a pussy cat, and helped me with my ease of bolt manipulation as well. I am impressed with the clip guide removal. It makes the rifle look marvelous, and lean!

I would consider just a simple rebarrel back to .303, but I have come up empty handed on anyone with NOS barrels, or newly manufactured barrels. Please keep in mind that my ultimate dream is to turn it into a .45-70, however, and THIS ARTICLE seems to note that it is not out of the realm of possibility. Guess, down deep, I have always wanted a .45-70, and this Enfield is a stronger action than the lever guns, and can be pushed closer to a .458 Win if I get looney. In all seriousness, I would probably keep it a tad more moderate than Ruger No. 1 loads. In THIS ARTICLE it suggests that one could build a .308 Win on the No.4, Mark 1 action (I found THIS SENTENCE VERY INTREGING: "The No. 4 receiver is somewhat stronger than the No. 1, so the Indians increased the strength of the steel used in their No. 1-Mk III's to compensate." .....that lends me thinking of a .358 Win.....another caliber that I have always wanted to own. In any case I am having one heck of a time just finding a new barrel, much less someone that would properly work on it for me. If it was not so dear to me, I would just unload it a a gun show, but I used to play with it around the age of 7 or 8 (UN-loaded of course), and I am the only grandchild to inherit any of his small collection of firearms, because he thought so well of me, and knew I had an affinity for the old war rifle.

Also, for a re-bore, the most I would personally consider is a .338-.303 British. It IS thin at the muzzle for my taste. Just a note.

It is odd how the wheel sometimes turns full circle. Thirty years ago, when I was in my mid-twenties, here in Britain surplus BRAND NEW No 4 barrels were plentiful. But it was all but imposible to find a No 1 (SMLE) barrel in any sort of decent condition at all.

Now surplus No1 (SMLE) barrels almost can't be given away here in Britain. The place has large amou ts of ex South African new made No 1 (SMLE) barrels.

But new or "as new" No 4 barrels? Cannot be had at all! Although it is possible that a company called Armalon Ltd in London can make you a new "pattern" 303 No 4 barrel on former Parker Hale machinery.

At a price!

As I said; it is easy to rebarrel to 45-70. 358 Wins and such things are best relegated to a Mauser. I can make the stocks any LOP you want. I will PM you.

dpcd - A question for you about your one piece Lee stocks. How do you modify / what do you do to make a "recoil lug" in this alteration?

I have a one piece stocked Lee, the work was done by the Late Ellwood Epps of Clinton Ontario. In this particular case a recoil lug was welded to the barrel - always made me a bit queasy.

I might also be interested in one of your stocks - pm me some details, cost, grade of wood etc.

--- John

I weld a recoil lug onto the rear of the receiver and bed it and the small front lug; you could solder one onto the barrel; don't weld it. My stocks are $175 for plain walnut; cost of fancy wood adds to that; they are made to order anyway. I have a set of instructions that goes with the stocks on how to alter the actions.

The 303 SMLE in all its configurations was made as a battle rifle and is possibly the best ever made. The butt stock on a SMLE with that massive through bolt was as strong as a sledge hammer and has probably accounted for more bashed skulls of both the four legged and two legged kind than any other firearm. Most likely more building doors have been bashed open with these butt stocks during the course of the many skirmishes throughout last century.

Yes, best battle rifle ever built.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
I weld a recoil lug onto the rear of the receiver and bed it and the small front lug; you could solder one onto the barrel; don't weld it. My stocks are $175 for plain walnut; cost of fancy wood adds to that; they are made to order anyway. I have a set of instructions that goes with the stocks on how to alter the actions.

Do you do the action alterations for customers who purchase your stock, and if so, how much? Do you offer laminates, or different LOPs? Thanks for these posts dpcd, they are very interesting and interesting!

No laminates; any lop you want. Action alterations? No time right now but once you see my plans, it is easy, if you can weld and drill a hole.

Now I am wondering about a .50 Alaskan, with your stock, and I have my crossbolt left from my CZ550 .416 Rigby, LOL!!! Of course the Enfield can withstand the pressure, just more lead and a bigger bore. Things that make you go Hmmmm???

dpcd, I found my Micrometer rear sight for the Enfield, and am looking through Gunparts.com to see what I might need, but the apature is adjustable, and has as much verticle adjustment as the factory sight, and windage as well, which makes it awesome.....I will have to do some threading of the rear sight factory set-up, no biggie.

I guess what would be nice to know is that we need to know if we need the .308 Win Ishapore Magazine, bottom plate, and follower for your incredible set up. Currently my No.4 Mark 1, has it's .303 floorplate and a brazed shortened magazine by my Grandfather himself. It makes a nice line to the trigger guard (pics, anyone?), and he sporterized it, so I am not molesting a factory rifle.....merely remembering HIM, and building a really cool and unique rifle is my ultimate goal. THANKS for all your help Sir!

No. The rim is too big and not enough to turn down to fit into the receiver like I can with the 45-70. If you want a .50 cal, I use Russian 91s for that; see picture. In fact, I have a .50-110 for sale. The top one is a .405 and the bottom one is a 50-110 which is unfinished.

Those Mosin's are beautiful, and interesting! I would have never imagined one could do so much with that action. Had I known, I would have purchased several with the one that I bought my father as a surprise. I bought him the carbine model, for no reason, just to show him I loved him, and I appreciated all he has done for me over the years.

Sadly he is not a Big Bore nut like I am. His largest caliber is the venerable '06. LOL. I never was able to talk him into shooting my .416 Rigby, however after loosing a top Barnes load on a 10x10x16" ice block and seeing nothing but hail, and my body was still in tact, my brother was game on!!!