http://www.centerfiresystems.com/



www.aimsurplus.com



MkI and MkIIIs



I dont even know the difference



Here's a guy's that he recieved. They're a hodgepodge of types.

Crazy, the quickest way to tell the diff is by the position of the rear sight. The 3 is ahead of the action and on the 4 it is at the rear of the action. If you decide to get one for yourself, request specifically a "4/1*s". That type was made by Savage in the US and in my opinion was a far superiour weapon. derf

Another quick way to do an ID is that No1 Mk111's, the barrel is even with the nose cap, while the No.4 Mk1's protrude through about an inch and a half. I got to be quite and expert on Lee Enfield ID when I bought up most of a large collection. Things get hairy when you start talking about No1 Mk11's and No4 Mk11's. There are so many variants out there that to really figure out what something is(if it isn't clearly marked) you really need a book. If your looking for a good shooter get a No4 Mk1 with the vernier ladder sight on it already. The costs on those sights have gone up dramatically in the last couple of years, so retrofitting is a money losing proposition.

Toolmaker

I've always told others, when asked, that the difference between 7.62 NATO and .308 isn't worth mentioning, WHEN one stays in the lesser bullets weights under 150 grains.

The cartridge dimensions are virtually identical, the difference is in the chambering.

The .303 has a nominal chamber pressure of 45-48,000 psi, while 7.62 NATO IS SUPPOSED to be around 50,000. I myself have no problem with firing a 7.62 round through any Enfield. The 2,000 psi difference is nothing. There is ALWAYS a healthy margin of error in receiver strenght.

The problem with the NATO thing is that there really isn't a standard that everyone follows. check this out. It's entertaining.

http://www.thegunzone.com/30cal.html

Regards,

Eric

"NATO standards" are a joke...and a very un-funny one at that!

I defy anyone to list the times when "NATO Standards" for weapons and ammunition has ever been a factor on a battlefield.

I am unaware of any instance where our military has been forced to use either weapons or ammunition supplied by a fellow NATO country.

In theory...I guess it might have made sense during the Cold War when we envisioned NATO armies working side by side being in the position of having to fight off a massive Soviet invasion of Western Europe and having standardized equipment would make for easier stock piling of supplies and more efficient logistics.

Rick

Actually,.308win is 52,000 CUP and .303 British is 45,000 CUP. I still wouldn't shoot factory or surplus ammo in a Enfield in .308 winchester particularly the N01 Mk111 as it is generally considered to be the weaker action. Why you ask? Well, for one, Most of the commercial stuff is loaded at the outer edge of pressure limits for .308 because most people are shooting the stuff in Commercial Bolt Actions that are significantly stronger. Also a good deal of the Surplus ammo is extremely hot Machine gun ammo - using that in a old, weak rifle design is dangerous to say the least.

Toolmaker

By coincidence, my most accurate Enfield(a No1 Mk1 Military Match rifle) and my "shooter"(a No Mk111) are both BSA manufacture. That said, bore quality and a decent trigger are more important than who actually made it.

Toolmaker

Toolmaker: Please elaborate on the use of an ultrasonic cleaner with gunstocks. Brady

Toolmaker>

I have a No.1 Mark 3 that has been sporterized, it has had the barrel cut down, new stocks installed, and reamed to .303 Epps. The problem is that it has the #3 bolt head and excessive headspace. Is there such thing as a #4 bolt head? I can deal with the headspace with creative handloading for the time being, but I want a solid, serviceable rifle.

A new barrel is okay with me, except I now have the Epps equipment, which will necessitate another reamer job.

I would love your advice on this one!

An ultrasonic tank, filled with TCE does a fantastic job of lifting the oil and dirt out of the wood, plus it doesn't lift the grain... Seeing as getting TCE(I don't mean the substitute Brownell's sells) is hard to get and very expensive, I probably use something else, maybe Xylene. I have to do some research on what solvent is appropriate. The US action causes the solvent to heat up, which speeds the grease cutting and helps bring the deep soaked oil to the surface where it can be dissolved by the solvent. It's a terribly easy job... Just dump in the tank, set it to run overnight and make sure the wood is completely submerged. I would also remove any hardware before doing this as crap can get trapped between the wood and metal. There are a couple of methods for removing oil from a soaked stock that don't resort to sanding besides this one. Microwaving, Oven cleaner, WD-40 just off the top of my head. I'd have to look up in "kinks" the exact methodology of each one for directions. There's probably a dozen more methods that I haven't heard of out there. The reason I like the US method is its: Easy, minimal labor,removes all the oil and grease not just the surface stuff, relatively little contact with nasty stuff(can't say that about the oven cleaner method) And it's cheap, once you have the ultrasonic cleaner. If your interested in this, please start a thread in the Gunsmithing forum. I'm sure the rest of the "tinker's guild" would chip in their .02cents.


Toolmaker