Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
295 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I don't recall a post comparing the same model Enfields from different manufacturers?

For example is there any physical/dimensional/metallurgical differences in no.4s that made them better or worse?

What makes Longbranches the choice of target shooters or was a Fazackerly the best no.4 made (even allowing for its mk2 upgrade)

From what I've read Lithgows were well made but any better than other no.1s?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,161 Posts
I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for but..............

There are some slight differences I've discovered between the Savage made rifles & the British-made ones. (not the "*" differences, but actual across the board dimensional changes). The left side reciever base, for example, is not angled, or rounded on Savage made rifles, but it is on all Brit made ones I've seen or owned. This makes diddly difference unless you are attaching something there (like a scope mount) then it makes a huge difference as those designed to fit a "Brit cut" reciever won't fit a Savage one.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
837 Posts
What makes Longbranches the choice of target shooters or was a Fazackerly the best no.4 made (even allowing for its mk2 upgrade)
The LB and Savage are popular in the USA because they were made in North America. If you listen to any of the old Brit armors you would never buy a Fazakerley. The Faz was the only No4 not used in the (T) mods.

My most accurate No4's started as unfired Mk2 Faz's. I'm inclined to believe condition is the deciding factor on accuracy.
 

·
Platinum Bullet Member
Joined
·
7,491 Posts
I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for but..............

There are some slight differences I've discovered between the Savage made rifles & the British-made ones. (not the "*" differences, but actual across the board dimensional changes). The left side reciever base, for example, is not angled, or rounded on Savage made rifles, but it is on all Brit made ones I've seen or owned. This makes diddly difference unless you are attaching something there (like a scope mount) then it makes a huge difference as those designed to fit a "Brit cut" reciever won't fit a Savage one.
I will have to look again but from memory the Maltby receivers are a bit different from the Fazakerley items in that respect. IIRC, the Maltby has a longer round off than the WWII Faz. My No.4 Mk2 is still in the wrap so I cannot comment on that one. Maybe this summer.....:grin:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
I believe "madcratebuilder" is correct in that rifle condition is now the determing factor in rifle accuracy. A newer, unissued rifle seems, at least in my experience to have a distinct edge. This is not to say that there are no used rifles out there that are accurate but I have yet to find one. (See my "shock and awe" post).

I can not help with the fabrication and metallurgy issues but would be very interested to learn of any if they exist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
497 Posts
swedeadmirer, Probably a fair question that might be clouded a bit by our collective personal experiances. In my case comparing my best WWII OEM rifles there is little if any difference in quality of manufacture and parts. I don't delineate between 2-groove and 5-groove.

As far as No.4s go...My '43 Savage is a bit heavier due to how the fore end lightening cuts were made, metal finish became less finished on later Maltbys and less than ideal cocking pieces appearing on both ROF 'brands'. I would only take away points for the cocking pieces tho' popular now-a-days if found on an OEM rifle by a collector. Except for using the more common expediance parts, BSA-Shirley changed little. While Fazakerley wasn't involved in the (T) program I am sure several would have qualified. Of the English manufacturers I rate Fazakerley the lowest and I really can't put my finger on to why I do. Post war FTRs and new rifles are stellar it seems. Leading into the North American production, some shooters feel that the lack of the bolt release slot on Mk.I*s is a benefit...maybe. Long Branches have long held a high quality reputation. I put them on an even par with Maltby, which is saying alot for me. The Savage is more akin to the Fazakerley in that it's a hard working gets the job done, put it away wet kind of rifle, IMHO.

As far as the No.1s, I only have two and neither makes me want to look for a better example. The Lithgow's only detraction is the Coachwood furniture requires more attention than other species used on rifles. The Ishapore is an un FTR'd example and as good, tho' slightly heavier than the Lithgow. Most Ishapores fail cosmetically, but function excellantly.

This has already gone longer than I expected, even with editing parts out!

Brad
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
837 Posts
I will have to look again but from memory the Maltby receivers are a bit different from the Fazakerley items in that respect. IIRC, the Maltby has a longer round off than the WWII Faz. My No.4 Mk2 is still in the wrap so I cannot comment on that one. Maybe this summer.....:grin:
That's interesting Steve, I'll have to do some comparing. I do know there are several variations of the receiver but I've never really looked that close. Something else to obsess over!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,094 Posts
Leading into the North American production, some shooters feel that the lack of the bolt release slot on Mk.I*s is a benefit...maybe.
If you mean that the * version is better than a latch, some people (myself included) reckon that the guide rail is a part just waiting to break. I saw umpteen broken at school, leading to the scrapping of the rifles on which it occurred. I know that current owners are likely to be less ham-fisted than a gang of teenage cadets but my experience has just put me off *s.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
837 Posts
If you mean that the * version is better than a latch, some people (myself included) reckon that the guide rail is a part just waiting to break.
I can't imagine thinking the bolt rail slot is superior to the latch, granted it has fewer moving parts but (IMHO) it not nearly as robust as the latch (no star) version. I've have encountered broken/chipped rails and chips or excessive wear on the bolt head slot on the * (star) versions.



longbranch number 4's best
LB has the best finish, particularly the later parkerized rifles, but as far as workmanship I think the late Mk2 Faz's are among the best Lee Enfield No4's ever made, again IMHO. Some of the smoothest bolts and trigger I have felt are Maltbys. I've never found an Enfield I didn't like.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
638 Posts
I've owned a few dozen No.4s and only encountered one (1) Mk.1* with a chipped rail and that rifle functioned quite normally despite its flawed rail. I'll grant that the chipped rail is a potential problem but those knowing people who own a No.4, Mk.1* ensure that the bolt-head is beveled fore and aft or use the bolt-head manufactured for use with the rail-slot.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top