Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Mausers and Military Rifles Enfield mfg.?s

I've been looking at Enfields lately for a reliable shooter. It's my understanding they were produced at several locations:. Fazerkly & Maltby in England, Longbranch in Canada, Lithgow in Australia, Savage/Stevens and some in India. Are rifles from any of these producers considered better than others? Was Lithgow in Australia all SMLEs and were the SMLEs from Lithgow produced during WWI & WWII? Other than sights were the SMLEs considered equal to the No 4?

I would look for a Lee Enfield No4 as opposed to a No1. The No4 is stronger and improved design and much better sights as a shooter. IMHO Savage and India get less respect. I have a BSA from England. Seems well made to me. Longbranch is very well respected. I think the key is condition and not who made it. If you have a whole warehouse to sort out, then you might look at makers. I suspect you are going to buy online. In that case, asking where it was made is almost a joke. And, I maybe all wrong on that, but; if quality matters examine in person.

Get one in nice shape. Just becasue you want a shooter is not a reason to compromise on condition. In fact, just the opposite. Maybe some one will comment on headspace. I been corrected once, I dont want to argue that. The front stock is easily damaged from improper disassembly. At least grab that and try and see if it tight. Or some one here may tell you more on stocks. Repairs and correctness may or may not be all that important.

This is not a rifle, I would tear down just for fun or practice. You need step by step instructions.

I am sorry to plead some ignorance here. If by SMLE you are referring to a No1 (or pre 1), then you got my 2c already. The No4 is stronger.

Ian Skennerton has books and pamphlets on the Enfields that are must on ID, manuf and dating of these fine series of rifles, He also provides info on accessories and bayonets.

Here's a review of one of his publications:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ogsryE01aY

The UK demanded each manufacturer hold strictly to specification, so I think you'll find they're all good.


The No 4's are basically the perfection of the Lee action. The SMLE's are very good rifles, but the UK thought they had enough issues that they felt the need to re-design the action. The no 4 action is a pretty big step forward for the rifle, much stronger, cheaper to manufacture, and a stripper clip guide that really works. The No 4 is also a very accurate rifle. It was basically the best bolt action infantry rifle of WWII.

I have a No 4 MK II. I would love to add an SMLE to my collection...they're just so cool.

I agree 99% with GunGeek with a minor nit. And here, I dont know enough to provide hard facts. After India and the British Empire separated, Lee Enfield production continued in India. Before that, all rifles were produced with British machinery and under British inspection. After that, I have read, production quality dropped. Guns made after 1948, might be looked on as a little different history and .... I dont know, a bit suspect? I honestly dont know for a fact. It could just be a reputation thing.

I expect Indian would be marked "Isaphore"? I never saw one. I did a quick Google before posting and saw India continued with this rifle in 308 after 1952. There is a 5 year period of 303 mfg followed by 308.

There was "some guy" did a YouTube who claimed his Savage was not as smooth as his Longbranch. He was Canadian, so; take that "for what you think it is worth". I would actually be quite willing to make one of those my 3rd. Then you can guess which flag I wave. How much of this you want to take seriously? You decide.

Lithgow Small Arms Factory started producing SMLEs (Mk III) shortly before WWI started, and continued until the 1950s, when the L1A1 went into production there. Australia never changed over to the No 4, and took the SMLE to WWI, WWII and Korea. Scoped versions with a heavy barrel were also made at Lithgow for sniping, though these bring a lot of money now, and heavy barrel versions (and the barrels, sold as an aftermarket mod) were made for competition use.

The No 4 is a stronger action, though the SMLE was more than strong enough for .303. It also has a heavier barrel (more or less the same contour as the heavy barrel made for the SMLE for sniping and target shooting) and has a better rear sight. There are several versions of that peep too, from a nicely machined one with a screw for adjusting elevation, to a pressed steel version, to a simple flip-over type, as production pressure took over. You'll also find that the No 4, which was optimised for quicker production, was subjected to a couple of other mods during their production life to make them simpler still to make. Wartime production also tended to show up in comparatively rough external finish, especially on the British-made ones, and somewhat loose chambers. This does not compromise function, though case life can be short for reloaders if you don't observe a few special techniques. SMLEs can also be a bit loose in the chamber too - especially those made in wartime - being designed to allow even dirty and/or dented cases to chamber.

The No 5 uses essentially the same action as the No 4, but with some lightening cuts. It also has a short barrel, cut-down forend and a few other mods, to make a much shorter, much lighter rifle. It is near ideal as-issued for pig-shooting IMHO, though they sometimes need a bit of fettling to make them shoot accurately.

Both No 4s and SMLEs were widely used for competition, and there were a range of match aperture sights made for them, designed to be fitted without modifying the rifle in any permanent way (though some mounting plates for putting a peep onto an SMLE might require minor relieving of the woodwork near the but socket. There were also techniques for bedding them which, in combination with the sights, can make them surprisingly accurate. I have owned rifles set up this way, of both SMLE and No 4.

I have owned or used SMLEs made in Britain and Australia. Those made outside wartime were very nicely finished, either blued or, later, Parkerised. I have also owned various No 4s, of British, Canadian and US manufacture, and again, all are sound, though external finish of those made in wartime is usually a bit rough, with machining marks and, on the British ones, painted finish. The LB and Savage versions seem a bit better in this regard. It is just cosmetics though, and they all function well.

I'd have a pre-independence Ishapore for the right price. The Indians stuck with the SMLE design, but upgraded the metallurgy to suit 7.62 NATO in the 50s. They seem strong enough, though a little rough - at least the ones I've seen.

Some of the nicest Lee Enfields were the post WWII No 4s. There was a batch of them hit the market a few years ago in mint unfired condition, many still packed in grease and wrapped in brown craft paper. These were very nice, but they seem to be worth big money now.

There are other variants besides the ones I've mentioned. Predecessors of the SMLE, several Marks of SMLE, different Marks of No 4 and various others, but the SMLE III and III* and the various Marks of No 4 are the most common.

Thanks to all for a lot of good info.

Looked at two No 4s and a No 1 MK III made in India in 1951 SMLE yesterday afternoon. fourbore, you are right about looking at these in person if possible. The SMLE was easily the best of the three. One of the No4s was a Savage, looked good but the receiver guide rail for the bolt head was chipped. The other No4 had a bad bore. Started to get the SMLE but believe I'll hold out for a No 4.

The most important thing to look at is bore condition. I have seen many Enfields that looked great on the outside but had ruined bores because their civilian owners did not know how to properly clean the bore after using corrosive surplus ammo. The same is true for Mosin Nagants. Wipe the bore with a snug dry patch if there's oil in it; if there's any crud in the bore wipe it out with a patch damp with a solvent and then a dry patch. If you're somewhere that you can't do all this, and if the bore is dark, assume it's pitted and continue looking.

I too prefer the No.4 (Mk2 if possible) because of the better aperture sight.