Author Topic: Is the Mark 4 and the Mark 5 Stronger then the SMLE? (Read 788 times)

Siskiyou · « **on:** December 07, 2004, 10:10:13 AM »

The morning papers had an add in it from a National Sporting Goods Chain. The add was offering the'NO.4 MK' Enfield for sale. The add also stated, "A STRONGER ACTION THEN THE S.M.L.E. A HEAVIER BARREL & IMPROVED SIGHTS"

The question came to mind. Was this a sales pitch or is the stronger action statement factual. I have a safety related interest. I bought a Jungle Carbine in 1960. It was a great deal and a Canadian friend bragged about killing moose with his .303 British.

My wife and I shot up a fair amount of surplus ammo. And I loaned it to my Mother who was having bear problems. She was on a remote fire lookout tower. I had seen twelve bears around the tower when visiting her. The bears at times would come up on the catwalk. She carried the rifle to the outhouse and the spring.

I started reloading for the .303 British round. I found that recommend reloading data for this round varied a great deal and came with more warnings then the other cartridges I loaded for at the time. I also established what my objective to this rifle and cartridge where. (1) A close range brush and heavy cover rifle and bullet for deer. Ninety-nine percent of all shots within fifty yards. (2) A nasty weather rifle where most shots are less then one hundred yard and the heavy rain or snow make glass sights impractical.

I settled on 41.4 grains of IMR4320, and the 174 grain Hornaday round nose bullet after much test firing. Taking it slow to make sure that I would not blow my fire up. In some manuals this is a middle of the road load, in others it is maximum. In my rifle it appears to be a safe load, and I feel that I could increase the powder charge with appropriate range testing.

This mornings add got me going and I went to the Forum to see what I could find. I also went to my small home library for

Small Arms of the World by Joseph E. Smith, Ninth Revised Edition. If I may quote from it, "British rifles are usually well made and if in good condition are safe enough. Rifles of earlier marks than the Long Lee Enfield Mark I should not be used with the Mark 7 or other heavily loaded cartridges. The No. 4 and later rifles, if they are in good condition will safely use any .303 cartridge loaded for rifles." The same sources states, "Rifle No. 4 Mark 1. Originally appeared in 1931. Was finely made, and was generally similar to the the No. 1 Mark VI except it had a heavier receiver."

I suspect that those who regular fire their former British and Canadian army rifles have a world of faith in them. But even they must admit the recoil pad on the Jungle Carbine is a cruel joke on the troops. With that in mind, can I push my loads a little more. I am going to stick with 4320 until I burn up my current supply. Then I might look at another powder. I see that some of the slower burning numbers create some of the top velocities in this cartridge.(H414 and IMR4831)

Are commerical loads and currently published loads downloaded for the older No. 1 Mark rifles?

Mikey · « **Reply #1 on:** December 07, 2004, 01:39:00 PM »

Sisk - the major differences of the No4 Mk1 over the older Mk3 No1 (? I think) were a heavier barrel and slightly heavier (due to design) action.

I have 3 Brits, one of the older ones is a 1913 production by BSA. It will still group to within an inch at 100 yds. The only loads I shoot through it are S&B mil-spec ball or handloads using a 180 gn.311 or 174 gn.312 bullet over either 41.7 gn of VihtaVuori N140 for 2540'/sec at 46.4 PSI or 43.7 gn of Norma 203 for the same velocity (which is mil-spec). In my newer two rifles, a sporterized No4 shoots cloverleafs at 100 yds with either of the last two loads and the other one is just too dang accurate for an old mil-surp (lol).....

My old Lyman manual lists 44 gns of IMR 4320 as the accuracy load for the 180 gn bullet at 2469'/sec. Factory duplication loads with the same bullet use 42.5 gns of the same powder. IMR 4320 powder ranges from 40 - 44 gns for 2207 to 2469'/sec.

In all my 303s, my bores are excellent, headspace is very good, but both the newer ones have generous enough chambers so my brass doesn't last more than 3 reloads. So hay, new brass is inexpensive..... and Greek mil-surp is reloadable. HTH. Mikey.

Siskiyou · « **Reply #2 on:** December 07, 2004, 05:52:10 PM »

At the time I developed my .303 loads I did not have a Chrony. I'll have see what the current loads produce compared to the military surplus I have on hand. I have a box or two of the old Golden State softpoint ammunition. I believe it is military ammunition that have had the bullets pulled and replaced with softpoints. It is in Berdan primed cases which are corrosive. I need to shot that stuff up, and get it out of the house. And do a real good clean up job on the rifle. This will be sometime down the road. The area I shot is now covered with snow. and I suspect the wind is blowing gale force.

If I am lucky I will have my grandson with me, and I can use it as a lesson about corrosive ammunition.

My Jungle Carbine does not shot clover leafs. It shots consistent vertical strings. If you measure the string it would come out as a 3 inch group at 100 yards. I am going to store the old military recoil pad and put a slip on pad on it. The Carbine is no fun from the bench.

Do you have any information regarding the sight in information of the battle sight at 100 yards?

My current game plan is to only neck size the cases in the future. Hopefully that will extend the case life a little. Hopefully I do not need to worry about battlefield grit. Do you see any problem with neck sizing? The cases will only have to function in the action they were first fired in.

We must be looking at the same old Lyman manual. I am looking at the 44th addition and it shows the accuracy and Max charge of 4320 as 44 grains. But the twist is a the later Speer Manual #12 shows 41 grains as the maximum charge. I believe I can work up to 44 grains without a problem with the Hornaday 174 grain round nose.

Mikey · « **Reply #3 on:** December 08, 2004, 02:40:12 AM »

Sisk - a 3" group at 100 yds from an older Jungle Carbine is pretty dang good - usually those things wouldn't shoot fer schmidt. As for the stringing problem - bed the action and that will fix that problem. The stock on the 303 Brits is two piece. The buttstock can be trimmed (or squared, actually) and bedded for a better fit. The foresotck is what holds the action and barrel. Remove some of the wood from the barrel channel (bottom part of stock) so that the barrel free-floats in the channel and so the handguard actually sits on the forestock, not against the barrel. When you bed that action, do not bed the barrel channel beyond the end of the chamber and you should see those groups drop to about a inch or less at the same distance. Also, if you get yourself one of those no-gunsmithing scope mounts you could wind up with a very accurate old mil-surp that might become a favorite hunting gun. HTH. Mikey.

Siskiyou · « **Reply #4 on:** December 08, 2004, 07:10:41 AM »

Mikey: The 3 inch string is with my handloads. The military surplus is rather wide open.

After removing the two(?) action screws how do you remove the forestock from the action. I see a little brass pin in the side of the wood but I not know it's purpose. I agree that glass bedding most likely will improve accuracy. I have glassed a number of rifles with positive impact. The nice thing about glass bedding is that it improves accuracy while not impacting the original visual effect of the Jungle Carbine. That is why I plan on using a slip on recoil pad and storing the original military pad. I want to retain some of the value.

I paid a few cents less then $20.00 for the rifle in 1960. Without a doubt it has retained it's value.

savageT · « **Reply #5 on:** December 08, 2004, 10:45:43 AM »

Siskiyou,
Here's what I find on disassembly....hope it helps.
http://www.surplusrifle.com/no4/rifledisassembly/pdf/enfieldno4disassembly.pdf

Jim

kevin.303 · « **Reply #6 on:** December 08, 2004, 11:45:53 AM »

this reminds of an interesting little tidbit. the No.1 MK 3 was rated for 18.5 tonnes. the Canadian Ross straight pull is rated 32 tonnes. destructive testing showed the Ross action could with stand 127,000 PSI before blowing up.

the original .303 service round was 70 grains of black powder pushing a 215 gr. RN at 1850 FPS, which in 1888 wasn't too bad. in 1891-1892 the switch was made to cordite nitro propellent and the same bullet was now travelling 1970 FPS.but it wasn't fast enough to be an effective military round. next came the "dum-dum" a very effective soft point but soon made illegal in the rules of war. finally the 174 gr service round as we know it today.

Siskiyou · « **Reply #7 on:** December 08, 2004, 06:25:15 PM »

SavageT: Thanks for the link. I am sure that a few questions will follow after I review the new data.

Siskiyou · « **Reply #8 on:** December 12, 2004, 05:01:07 PM »

Guys: First thanks for your help. I have now printed out my "Jungle Carbine" folder. Lots of good source material. My rifle is a Sante Fe Carbine, built on No4 Mk1 action. Serial # BC 13XXX.

I took notice of the following stamp on the barrel. 18.5 TONS PER (square symbol) ".If I recall the British Long Ton is 2240 pounds. I interpret this as meaning the rifle was proofed at 41440 psi. This seems a bit low to me. But I know nothing about British proofing standards and methods. If a pressure is stamp on your barrel what are the numbers?

R. Tillery · « **Reply #9 on:** December 14, 2004, 03:42:01 AM »

Also, ONE difference between the Mk4 No.1 and the Mk4 No.2 is the relocation of the trigger pivot pin for an improved trigger pull.

Siskiyou · « **Reply #10 on:** December 14, 2004, 05:48:18 PM »

Savage T: Your link put me onto a lot of information. Mikey: A common thread or often repeated thread regarding the Mark 5 accuracy problem is blaming it on the cuts they made in the receiver and barrel to reduce wight. My rifle is Sante Fe Jungle Carbine on a Mark 4 action without the lightning cuts. Based on the "links" the Mark 4 battle sight is designed for 300 yard zero, and the ladder sight at the bottom click is 200 yards. This fits my range experience.

I have been looking on the web for a .075 front sight. If you see one for a Mark 4 around let me know. I understand the dovetail on the S.M.L.E. is a different size and they do not interchange. Going back to my original roles for the "Jungle Carbine" are a heavy cover, and nasty weather deer rifle. A shot over 100 yards would be a long shot. I realize that changing the front sight will not fit with the gradient on the ladder sight. I do not see that as a problem. I can resolve this on the range and with red paint. I do not want to scope this rifle. If I need a scope sighted rifle I have that covered.

kevin.303 · « **Reply #11 on:** December 14, 2004, 06:02:36 PM »

steve over at www.303british.com is testing a new trigger system for lee-enfields. a company in alberta is making them and you can get a hunting model or a target model.

Siskiyou · « **Reply #12 on:** December 15, 2004, 11:56:56 AM »

Kevin.303: A while back I went back to the Military Surplus Riles forum looking for information. One of the posters I keyed on because of your a.k.a was you. I picked up the www.british.com link from one of your earlier post. A good source of information.